Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 19, 2022

2021000216 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2022)

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. 15/871,924 01/15/2018 Saikat Guha 332023-US-CNT 2986 69316 7590 01/19/2022 MICROSOFT CORPORATION ONE MICROSOFT WAY REDMOND, WA 98052 EXAMINER COSME, NATASHA W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2465 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/19/2022 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): chriochs@microsoft.com ljohnson@microsoft.com usdocket@microsoft.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SAIKAT GUHA, VENKATA N. PADMANABHAN, and MUDIT JAIN ____________ Appeal 2021-000216 Application 15/871,924 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JAMES R. HUGHES, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC. (Appeal Br. 2.) Appeal 2021-000216 Application 15/871,924 2 THE INVENTION Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed preservation of user privacy with respect to location-based applications executing on mobile computing devices. (Abstr.) Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A mobile computing device comprising: a sensor; a processor; and memory that stores instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform acts comprising: retrieving, from the sensor on the mobile computing device, location data, wherein the location data is indicative of a current location of the mobile computing device; based upon the location data, determining whether the location data satisfies a location constraint defined by an application installed on the mobile computing device, wherein the application is prevented from receiving the location data output by the sensor; and only when it is determined that the location data satisfies the location constraint, transmitting a callback to the application, wherein the callback indicates to the application that the location data satisfies the location constraint. (Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.).) REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ward et al. (US 2009/0005061 A1, pub. Jan. 1, 2009) and Weaver et al. (US 7,149,504 B1, iss. Dec. 12, 2006). (Final Act. 3-11.) Appeal 2021-000216 Application 15/871,924 3 The Examiner rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ward, Weaver, and Lawson et al. (US 2011/0320550 A1, pub. Dec. 29, 2011). (Final Act. 11-12.) The Examiner rejected claims 5, 6, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ward, Weaver, and Robertson (US 2002/0067308 A1, pub. June 6, 2002). (Final Act. 12-15.) The Examiner rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ward, Weaver, and Greenberg (US 2009/0002188 A1, pub. Jan. 1, 2009). (Final Act. 15.) The Examiner rejected claims 11 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ward, Weaver, and Huomo (US 2004/0203863 A1, pub. Oct. 14, 2004). (Final Act. 15-17.) ISSUE ON APPEAL Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following dispositive issue:2 Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Ward and Weaver teaches or suggests the independent claim 1 limitations, “based upon the [current] location data [of the mobile computing device], determining [by the processor of the mobile computing device] whether the location data satisfies a location constraint defined by an application installed on the mobile computing device, wherein the application is prevented from 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the positions of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 24, 2019) (herein, “Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief (filed July 28, 2020) (herein, “Reply Br.”); the Final Office Action (mailed Oct. 5, 2018) (herein, “Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Dec. 12, 2019) (herein, “Ans.”) for the respective details. Appeal 2021-000216 Application 15/871,924 4 receiving the location data output by the sensor,” and the commensurate limitations of independent claims 12 and 19. (Appeal Br. 6-12.) ANALYSIS For the claim limitations at issue, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Ward of a “Location Device Platform” (LDP) such as cell phone that is “configured for the purposes of wagering,” which, based on its location, is provided access to a wagering application by a “Location Enabling Server” (LES) in wireless communication with the LDP. (Final Act. 4; Ward Figs. 1-3, ¶¶ 6-7, 55, 69.) In particular, the Examiner cites the disclosure in Ward of an “authorization subsystem” that is located in the LES: The Authorization subsystem 205 uses data from the Administration and Authentication subsystems to enforce access controls upon both LDP devices and Location-based applications. . . . The Authorization subsystem may also obtain location data for an LDP device before allowing or preventing access to a particular service or Location-based application. (Final Act. 4; Ward Fig. 2, ¶ 55.) Appellant argues that Ward does not teach or suggest preventing location data from being received by the application, as required by the claims. (Appeal Br. 9-10.) Appellant states: In contrast to the features of claim 1 . . . the gambling application on the mobile device in Ward MUST acquire the location information from the sensor of the mobile device . . . so that the gambling application can present the location information to the server. Therefore, as Ward teaches that the application on the mobile device reports the location of the mobile device to the application on the server, Ward cannot suggest wherein the application is prevented from receiving the Appeal 2021-000216 Application 15/871,924 5 location data output by the sensor, as recited in independent claim 1. (Appeal Br. 9.) Appellant further argues that the authorization subsystem of Ward is not located in the LDP, which the Examiner equates to the claimed mobile computing device, and therefore the determination of whether the location constraint is satisfied is not performed by a processor in the mobile computing device, as required. (Appeal Br. 10-11.) Moreover, argues Appellant, the location constraint is defined by the authorization subsystem, and not by an application installed on the mobile computing device, as required. (Id.) In response, the Examiner agrees that the authorization subsystem receives the location data, but relies on the fact that the authorization subsystem allows or prevents access to location-based applications, which are separate from the authorization subsystem. (Ans. 3.) The Examiner also relies on a statement in Ward that the “true scope of the invention is not limited to the illustrative embodiments disclosed herein,” and “in many cases the place of implementation (i.e., the functional element) described herein is merely a designer's preference and not a requirement.” (Ans. 5; Ward ¶ 314.) Based on this, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to install a location-based application on a mobile computing device, “since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art.” (Ans. 5 (citing Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893)).) In reply, Appellant argues that “[t]here is no discussion in [paragraph 55] of Ward . . . that a mobile application installed on the LDP device is Appeal 2021-000216 Application 15/871,924 6 prevented from receiving location data output by a sensor.” (Reply Br. 4.) Appellant further argues that, even if the location-based application were installed on a mobile computing device in the Ward embodiments, there is no teaching or suggestion in Ward that it would define a location constraint, as required by the claims. (Id.) We agree with Appellant. There is no teaching or suggestion in the cited references of the claim requirement of preventing an application from receiving the location data. The fact that the authorization subsystem of the LES in Ward allows or prevents access to location-based applications based on location, is not a sufficient disclosure of preventing an application from receiving location data. Indeed, Ward specifically provides for a “gaming application server” to request location information from the LES. (Ward ¶ 263.) Likewise, there is no teaching or suggestion of a processor in a mobile device determining whether a location constraint is satisfied, nor of an application installed on a mobile computing device that defines a location constraint, as required by the claims. The Examiner’s reliance on a general statement in the reference that the invention is not limited to the illustrative embodiments is insufficient ground to find otherwise. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of independent claims 1, 12 and 19 over the combination of Ward and Weaver. We also do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 16-18, and 20 over Ward and Weaver, which claims depend from claims 1, 12 or 19. In regard to the obviousness rejections of dependent claims based on additional references, the Examiner does not rely on those references for the claim limitations at issue here. (Final Act. 11-17.) Appeal 2021-000216 Application 15/871,924 7 Therefore we also do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claim 3 over Ward, Weaver, and Lawson, of claims 5, 6, and 15 over Ward, Weaver, and Robertson, of claim 9 over Ward, Weaver, and Greenberg, and of claims 11 and 14 over Ward, Weaver, and Huomo, which claims also depend from claims 1, 12 or 19. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 16-20 103 Ward, Weaver 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 16-20 3 103 Ward, Weaver, Lawson 3 5, 6, 15 103 Ward, Weaver, Robertson 5, 6, 15 9 103 Ward, Weaver, Greenberg 9 11, 14 103 Ward, Weaver, Huomo 11, 14 Overall Outcome 1-20 REVERSED