Ex Parte SonDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 29, 201714199123 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/199,123 03/06/2014 Tae-Hwan SON 0201-0867 9868 68103 7590 Jefferson IP Law, LLP 1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420 Washington, DC 20036 EXAMINER PATEL, MAHENDRA R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2645 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/31/2017 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): u sdocketing @ j effersonip .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TAE-HWAN SON Appeal 2017-001017 Application 14/199,123 Technology Center 2600 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ADAM J. PYONIN, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2017-001017 Application 14/199,123 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1, 3—11, and 13, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION The application is directed to “a method and an apparatus for processing a message transceived in a portable terminal.” (Spec 12.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative: 1. A method of processing a message in a first terminal, the method comprising: receiving the message from a second terminal; identifying location information of the first terminal in re sponse to the receiving of the message; configuring message data including the message and the lo cation information; storing the message data in the first terminal; and displaying map data with a location identifier indicating a lo cation corresponding to the location information. THE REFERENCES AND THE REJECTION Claims 1—14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baghdasaryan (US 8,135,377 B2; issued March 13, 2012) and Oh et al. (US 2008/0171555 Al; published Jul. 17, 2008). (See Final Act. 4.) 1 Appellant identifies Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. as the real party in interest. (See App. Br. 2.) 2 Appeal 2017-001017 Application 14/199,123 ANALYSIS The Examiner finds the claims unpatentable over the combination of Baghdasaryan and Oh, both of which teach one device sending a text message with location information to a second device, where the second device then uses the location information for navigation. (See Final Act. 4— 5.) In Baghdasaryan, for example, “a sample text message is inputted, i.e., ‘Please meet me at,’ and an option to select ‘Attach Location’ is presented,” the selection of which “causes the first personal navigation device 14 to obtain and attach a current location of the first personal navigation device 14 to the text message under preparation.” (Baghdasaryan 3:36-42.) Then, “the second personal navigation device 20 recognizes the attached location information of an incoming text message and offers to navigate to a location represented by the location data on display 64, for example, in UI 80.” (Id. at 3:50-53.) Oh similarly teaches transmitting a “text message as well as navigational directions starting at [a] second mobile electronic device’s geographic location and ending at [a] first mobile electronic device’s geographic location” and “[i]n other embodiments . . . updating the navigational directions and/or updating the embedded map in real time.” (Oh 16.) Appellant argues the rejections are in error because “Oh does not disclose mapping the location of the receiving terminal on a map when a message is received” as “Oh merely discloses the composition of the transmitting terminal, but nowhere does Oh disclose the composition of the receiving terminal.” (See App. Br. 5.) This argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims, which do not recite “when a message is received.” It is also unpersuasive 3 Appeal 2017-001017 Application 14/199,123 because one of skill in the art would have known that in order to initially determine and then maintain the navigation directions at the receiving terminal, one necessarily would need to determine the location of the receiving terminal. Thus, the combination includes “receiving [a] message from a second terminal” (i.e., receiving the message with the destination information) and, “in response to the receiving of the message” (i.e., when such a message is received), “identifying location information of the first terminal” (i.e., determining where the terminal is in order to determine how to navigate from there to the destination). Because we find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive, we sustain the Section 103(a) rejection of claim 1 and, because Appellant does not offer additional arguments for the remaining claims, we also sustain the Section 103(a) rejections of claims 3—11 and 13.2 DECISION The rejection of claims 1, 3—11, and 13 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 2 Although the Reply briefly cites the “configuring” claim language (Reply Br. 3), we find any such argument waived by its omission from the Appeal Brief. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative); 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). And, in any event, the “configuring” is so broadly described and claimed that it would cover any system (including that of the combination) that selects a position identification method. See Spec. 172. 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation