D2L Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 29, 2020

14030189 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2020)

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.
14/030,189 09/18/2013 Brian CEPURAN K8001239US 7096
34236 7590 05/29/2020
GOWLING WLG (CANADA) LLP
50 QUEEN STREET NORTH, STE. 1020
P.O. BOX 2248
KITCHENER, ONTARIO N2H6M2
CANADA
EXAMINER
SOWA, TIMOTHY JOHN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2448
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2020 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):
JEFF.WONG@GOWLINGWLG.COM
VAL.COTTRILL@GOWLINGWLG.COM
Waterloo.IP@gowlingwlg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BRIAN CEPURAN
____________

Appeal 2019-001982
Application 14/030,189
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–18. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

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 D2L
Corporation. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-001982
Application 14/030,189

2
The present invention relates generally to providing information about
various locations based on user study area and user location. See Spec. ¶ 2.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for providing location aware educational
information, the method comprising:
obtaining a user location related to a user, wherein the
user location corresponds to a future location of the user, and wherein
the user location is obtained based at least in part on a calendar of the
user;
receiving user study data related to the user based at least
in part on an area of study associated with an enrollment of the user in
relation to a learning management system;
determining location aware educational information
based on the user location and the user study data, wherein the
location aware educational information corresponds to information
that is associated with a study area related to the user location that
matches the area of study associated with the enrollment of the user;
and
providing, to a user interface of the client device, a
notification associated with the location aware educational
information.
Appellant appeals the following rejections:
R1. Claims 1–5, 7–13, and 15–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Beykpour (US 2011/0082808, Apr. 7, 2011)
Final Act. 4–10.; and
R2. Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Beykpour and Supanc (US 8,753,200 B1, June 17, 2014)
Final Act. 10–12.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).

Appeal 2019-001982
Application 14/030,189

3
ANALYSIS
Rejection under § 102(b)

Claims 1–4, 7–13, and 15–17
Appellant contends that “Beykpour fails to disclose or render obvious
‘receiving user study data related to the user based at least in part on an area
of study associated with an enrollment of the user in relation to a learning
management system.’” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant also contends that
“Beykpour appears to relate to a system for providing a location of an event
or searched data. Beykpour does not disclose ‘determining location aware
educational information based on the user location and the user study data.’”
Appeal Br. 11. In other words, Appellant’s aforementioned contention
appears to emphasize that Beykpour fails to provide location aware
educational information based on the user location. We disagree with
Appellant.
The Examiner finds that Beykpour discloses “a user’s location is
obtained from a user’s mobile device” and “a user’s location is correlated to
notify a user of location-related educational information including other
students who are involved with the same educational matters at a common
given location, as scheduled on their respective academic calendars.” Final
Act. 4 (citing Beykpour ¶¶ 53, 66, 83, 85, 87); see also Ans. 4 (citing
Beykpour ¶¶ 85–88); and Ans. 5 (citing Beykpour ¶¶ 77, 83, 87, 88). We
agree with the Examiner.
For example, Beykpour discloses “the system 100 is configured to
access and provide client-specific courses data that includes target data
types, such as a department code (e.g., undergraduate), subject code . . .
course number . . . location name . . . enrollment capacity, and current
Appeal 2019-001982
Application 14/030,189

4
enrolled total.” Beykpour ¶ 77. Beykpour further discloses “the user is
provided with user-specific options, which include a geolocation based
option (e.g., location of the user on a map) . . . a profile option (e.g., view
class grades)” (Beykpour ¶ 83), “a user of the system 100 can locate other
students . . . registered with the system 100 who are enrolled in the same or
related courses as the user” (Beykpour ¶ 87), and “the user-specific options
presented to the user allow the user to connect and interact with a learning
management system.” Beykpour ¶ 88. Additionally, Beykpour discloses
“events data extracted from the client-specific content data store 130 . . .
such as selected target data types . . . having categories (e.g., academic
calendar dates . . . ) for selected items.” Beykpour ¶ 66.
In other words, Beykpour discloses determining the location of the
user (either by geolocation or by using academic calendar dates) and
identifying study data (e.g., course number, grades, and enrollment status)
related to the user.
As a result, we find unavailing Appellant’s aforementioned contention
that “Beykpour does not disclose ‘determining location aware educational
information based on the user location and the user study data,’” given the
disclosures noted supra. Specifically, Appellant fails to persuasively
distinguish such disclosures of Beykpour from the argued limitations.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appellant’s arguments regarding the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 9 relies on the same arguments as for claim 1, and Appellant does not
argue separate patentability for the dependent claims, except as noted below.
We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–4, 7–13, and
15–17.
Appeal 2019-001982
Application 14/030,189

5
Claim 5
Claim 5 requires, inter alia, selecting location aware educational
information based on user requirements. Claim 5. Appellant contends that
in Beykpour “[t]he purported notification of a user of other students
involved in the same educational matters is different from ‘selecting location
aware educational information based on user requirements.’” Appeal Br. 12.
We disagree with Appellant.
Here, Appellant’s Specification states that “the user requirements may
include user needs based on user study data relating to user weaknesses.”
Spec. ¶ 12. As such, we broadly but reasonably construe the claim term
“user requirements” as denoting any study needs of the user based on the
study data.
Consistent with Appellant’s Specification, the Examiner finds that
Beykpour “discloses the fulfillment of user requirements by notifying a user
of other students involved in the same educational matters at a common
location. For example, a student who desires to study with geographically
nearby classmates.” Ans. 7 (citing Beykpour ¶ 87). Specifically, Beykpour
discloses “a user of the system 100 who desires to review a homework
assignment or study for an examination for a class with her nearby friends in
the class can use the system 100 to locate her friends.” Beykpour ¶ 87.
We agree with the Examiner that Beykpour’s aforementioned
disclosure is consistent with Appellant’s disclosed exemplary “user
requirements,” which relate to study needs.
Appellant fails to persuasively distinguish Beykpour’s disclosure of
studying with friends from Appellant’s claimed “user requirements.”
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5.
Appeal 2019-001982
Application 14/030,189

6
Claim 18
Claim 18 recites, inter alia, “the location aware education information
comprises information that serves as an educational resource for the study
area.” Claim 18. Appellant cites paragraphs 77, 83, 87, and 88 of Beykpour
and argues that “Beykpour fail to disclose or render obvious” the features of
claim 18 (see Appeal Br. 14), without providing any meaningful analysis
that explains why the Examiner erred. Specifically, Appellant merely makes
general allegations that Beykpour does not teach the language for claim 18.
However, Appellant is reminded that a general allegation that claim 18
defines a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the
language of claim 18 patentably distinguishes it from Beykpour does not
constitute a persuasive response. A statement which merely points out what
a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability
of the claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We note that arguments
which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have
not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
We highlight that Beykpour discloses “a user of the system 100 who
desires to review a homework assignment or study for an examination . . .
can use the system 100 to locate her friends” (¶ 87), and “a user of the
system 100 having a student role and searching for a tutor can locate users
having a teaching assistant role in the desired subject area.” Beykpour ¶ 88.
We find that the claimed “educational resource for the study area” reads on
Beykpour’s aforementioned disclosure. Therefore, Appellant’s arguments
regarding claim 18 are unpersuasive.

Appeal 2019-001982
Application 14/030,189

7
Rejection under § 103(a)
Claims 6 and 14
Because Appellant has not presented separate patentability arguments
or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously
discussed for patentability of claim 1 above (see Appeal Br. 14), claims 6
and 14 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)( iv).

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5, 7–13, and 15–18 as being
anticipated by Beykpour is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 14 as being unpatentable
over Beykpour and Supanc is affirmed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7–13,
15–18
102 Beykpour 1–5, 7–
13, 15–18

6, 14 103 Beykpour, Supanc 6, 14
Overall
Outcome
1–18

No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED