Ex Parte Vanderhulst

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2018

14915349 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/915,349 02/29/2016
48116 7590
FAY SHARPE/NOKIA
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843
09/27/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Geert Vanderhulst
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.
LUTZ 202104US01 8756
EXAMINER
VU, QUOC THAI NGOC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2642
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2018 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):
docketing@faysharpe.com
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GEERT VANDERHULST
Appeal2018-004129
Application 14/915,349 1
Technology Center 2600
Before MARC S. HOFF, STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants' invention is a method and platform for sending a message
to a communication device associated with a moving object. A first location
trajectory of an object is obtained by a first party. Said first trajectory is sent
to a second party, who then obtains a set of second location trajectories of
tracked communication devices. The second party then compares the first
1 The real party in interest is Alcatel Lucent.
Appeal2018-004129
Application 14/915,349
location trajectory with the set of second location trajectories. The second
party then selects a location trajectory from the set that is substantially the
same as the first location trajectory. Said message is then sent by the second
party to the communication device. See Abstract.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method for sending a message to a
communication device associated with a moving object, the
method comprising:
receiving, from a first party, a first location trajectory of said
moving object by a second party;
obtaining a set of second location trajectories of tracked
communication devices by said second party;
comparing said first location trajectory with location
trajectories from said set by said second party;
by said second party, selecting a selected location trajectory of
a selected communication device from said set if said selected
location trajectory is substantially the same as said first location
trajectory, said selected communication device corresponding
to said communication device; and
sending said message to said selected communication device by
said second party.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Buehler et al.
Titus
Layson
US 2004/0130620 Al
US 2010/0075626 Al
US 2014/0361899 Al
July 8, 2004
Mar. 25, 2010
Dec. 11, 2014
Claims 1-8 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(2) as
being anticipated by Layson.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Layson and Buehler.
2
Appeal2018-004129
Application 14/915,349
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Layson, Buehler, and Titus.
Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Layson and Titus.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
("App. Br.," filed Oct. 23, 2017), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Mar. 9,
2018), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Jan. 9, 2018) for their
respective details.
ISSUE
Does Layson disclose selecting a selected location trajectory of a
selected communication device from said set if said selected location
trajectory is substantially the same as said first location trajectory?
ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1-8 AND 11
Concerning independent claim 1, Appellants argue that Layson does
not teach "selecting a selected location trajectory of a selected
communication device from said set if said selected location trajectory is
substantially the same as said first location trajectory." App. Br. 4--5.
Appellants contend that Layson's device performs "historical tracking of
known users," whereas Appellants' Specification discloses as an advantage
that "identification of the moving object is done without personal
information of the user." App. Br. 5; Spec. ,r 8. According to Appellants, in
Layson, it is a necessary condition that "the identity of the subscriber and
offender are already known," which is in "direct contrast" with the claimed
invention. App. Br. 5.
3
Appeal2018-004129
Application 14/915,349
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive to establish that the
Examiner's rejection is erroneous. Independent claim 1 contains no
requirement that identification of the moving object is done without personal
information of the user, and no prohibition on the identity of the subscriber
and/or offender being known. Appellants' arguments are therefore not
germane to the claimed invention. We agree with the Examiner's finding
that Layson teaches that "[ m ]ovement history will ... be examined to
determine if the supervised released criminal offender 5 movement follows
or parallels the movement history of the subscriber 6." Final Act. 6-7;
Layson ,r 93. We further agree with the Examiner's finding that Layson
teaches that "[ n ]otifications will be sent to the subscriber 6 with offender 5
geospatial location, including data and time, and demographic data."
Layson ,r 95.
We find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-8 and 11
as being anticipated by Layson. We sustain the§ 102(a)(2) rejection.
CLAIM9
Appellants argue only that Buehler does not remedy the deficiencies
of Layson. App. Br. 6. As we find supra that no such deficiencies are
present, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claim 9 over Layson
and Buehler for the reasons expressed with respect to the§ 102(a)(2)
rejection of claim 1.
CLAIMS 10, 12, AND 13
In contesting the§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 10,
Appellants refer to the arguments made with respect to claims 1 and 11.
App. Br. 7. As discussed supra, we are not persuaded of Examiner error by
4
Appeal2018-004129
Application 14/915,349
those arguments. Accordingly, we sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 10
over Layson, Buehler, and Titus, for the reasons given with respect to
claim 1, supra.
Claims 12 and 13 depend from claim 2, which itself depends from
independent claim 1. Appellants argue only that Titus does not cure the
deficiencies of Layson. App. Br. 7. As we find supra that no such
deficiencies are present, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of claims
12 and 13 over Layson and Titus for the reasons expressed with respect to
the§ 102(a)(2) rejection of claim 1.
CONCLUSION
Layson discloses selecting a selected location trajectory of a selected
communication device from said set if said selected location trajectory is
substantially the same as said first location trajectory.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-13 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). See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5