Ex Parte Sudit et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 20, 2016

11394681 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111394,681 03/31/2006
23363 7590 04/22/2016
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
POBOX29001
Glendale, CA 91209-9001
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Isaias Sudit
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
371845-991201 2658
EXAMINER
BATISTA, MARCOS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2642
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/22/2016 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):
pto@lrrc.com
pair_cph@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ISAIAS SUDIT and JEROME LONGBOTTOM1
Appeal2014-005711
Application 11/394,681
Technology Center 2600
Before HUNG H. BUI, AMBER L. HAGY, and MICHAEL M. BARRY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Loe-aid Technologies, Inc., as the real party in interest.
(App. Br. 1.)
Appeal2014-005711
Application 11/394,681
Introduction
According to Appellants, "[t]his invention is directed to a
methodology and system for enablement of location-based applications for
mobile devices such as cellular phones, and more particularly, a system,
which allows use of location-based applications without regard to different
carriers, wireless standards and protocols." (Spec. i-f 2.)
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitation italicized, is
exemplary of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system for utilizing a location-based application across
a plurality of networks comprising:
a target mobile device operating within a target network of
said plurality of networks, wherein the target network has a first
protocol;
a requesting device operating within a requesting network
of said plurality of networks wherein the requesting network has
a second protocol, the requesting device transmitting a location
request for a location of said target mobile device utilizing a
location-based service application executed on a location-based
services application server; and
a gateway operatively communicating with said
requesting network and target network using the first and second
protocols, said gateway receiving the location request and
determining the target network and communication technology
and location technology utilized by said target network; and
transmitting the request to said target network utilizing said
communication technology and location technology for
extraction of a location response by said target network,
receiving the location response of the target mobile device and
transmitting the location of the target mobile device to the
requesting device for use with the location-based service
application.
2
Appeal2014-005711
Application 11/394,681
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Mattila et al. ("Mattila") US 2005/0014513 Al
Haney US 2006/0223518 Al
Wuthnow et al. ("Wuthnow") US 7 ,272,393 B 1
REJECTION
Jan.20,2005
Oct. 5, 2006
Sept. 18, 2007
Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Haney, Mattila, and Wuthnow. (Final
Act. 3-10.)
ISSUE
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches or
suggests "transmitting the location of the target mobile device to the
requesting device for use with the location-based service application," as
recited in claim 1.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions and we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth
by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3-
10) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer
in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. (Ans. 2---6.) We concur with the
3
Appeal2014-005711
Application 11/394,681
conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we highlight the following for
emphasis. 2
Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection is in error because
"Wuthnow does not disclose 'transmitting the location of the target mobile
device to the requesting device for use with the location-based service
application."' (App. Br. 7.) This argument is not only conclusory, but
misplaced. As the Examiner correctly notes, Haney, not Wuthnow, is cited
and relied upon as teaching or suggesting this limitation (Ans. 2-3; see also
Final Act. 3 (citing Haney Fig. 2A, i-fi-1 59, 73) ), and Appellants' arguments to
the contrary are incorrect. (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 3.) Appellants, therefore,
have failed to persuasively rebut the Examiner's findings regarding the
disputed limitation, which we agree are supported by Haney's teachings.
We are also unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments the Examiner has
failed to establish the requisite motivation to combine the cited references.
(App. Br. 7-8, 10-11; Reply Br. 4--5, 7.) Appellants first argue "the
proposed modification would change the principle of operation of Haney."
(App. Br. 8.) Appellants additionally argue the Examiner erred in finding
motivation to combine Haney with Mattila because "Haney already allows
for the mobile device (using the Buddy Tracker application on the mobile
handset) to locate another mobile device so that the argued motivation to
combine Haney with Mattila is not present .... " (Id.) We are unpersuaded
by either argument. As the Examiner finds, and we agree,
Haney discloses a system in which the Buddy Tracker
application on the mobile device determines position of other
mobile devices. Haney[,] however, does not teach that the
2 Only those arguments made by Appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments Appellants did not make in the briefs have not been
considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
4
Appeal2014-005711
Application 11/394,681
location is determined by a server. Mattila is used to show that
location determination can also be performed at a server. So, the
principle of Haney's invention is to exchange location
information among a plurality of mobile devices. Having the
mobile device or a server determine the location of each device,
does not really change the principle of Haney's invention, as
argued by [Appellants].
(Ans. 4.) Therefore, Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the
Examiner's findings regarding a motivation to combine the cited references.
For the foregoing reasons, we are unpersuaded of error in the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1, and also of
claims 2-9, which Appellants do not argue separately. (App. Br. 8.) We,
therefore, sustain the rejection of claims 1-9.
With regard to independent claim 10, Appellants repeat the arguments
presented for claim 1 (App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 5-7), which we have found
unpersuasive as stated above. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner's 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 10, and also dependent
claims 11-18, which are not argued separately from claim 10. (App. Br. 11.)
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 1-18 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
5