David Enga

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 25, 2022

2021000036 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 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. 11/905,810 10/04/2007 David Enga 10457-2 (239530) 8304 116025 7590 02/25/2022 Culhane Meadows PLLC 13101 Preston Road, Suite 110-1520 Dallas, TX 75240 EXAMINER MUELLER, KURT A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2157 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/25/2022 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): eOfficeAction@AppColl.com patentdocket@cm.law PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DAVID ENGA ____________ Appeal 2021-000036 Application 11/905,810 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JAMES B. ARPIN, DAVID J. CUTITTA II, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 6, 7, 10-13, 19, 20, 29-31, 33-35, 38, and 41-43. Final Act. 1.2 Appellant cancels claims 1-5, 8, 9, 14-18, 21-28, 32, 36, 37, 39, and 40. Appeal Br. 28-38 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2012). Appellant identifies the real party-in-interest as Craxel, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. 2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed December 30, 2019); the Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed February 1, 2019) and the Answer (“Ans.,” mailed April 27, 2020); and the Specification (“Spec.,” filed October 4, 2007). Rather than repeat the Examiner’s findings and Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we refer to these documents. Appeal 2021-000036 Application 11/905,810 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s claimed media and systems relate to location-based content management, and more particularly, to an efficient method of provisioning and processing location-based content. Although embodiments of the invention are suitable for a wide scope of applications, it is particularly suitable for efficient management and delivery of a large amount of location-based content to many mobile devices and web browsers. Spec. ¶ 2. The media and systems recite the generation of a first and a second spatial hierarchy and hierarchy identifiers and associating content to at least one of the hierarchy identifiers. The Specification’s Figure 6, depicting an example of the generation of a first spatial hierarchy identifier for an area, is reproduced below. Figure 6 depicts the generation of a first spatial hierarchy identifier for an area. Appeal 2021-000036 Application 11/905,810 3 Spherical triangle 301 contains the area. It is subdivided into four triangles. The area is fully contained in triangle 302 of that subdivision. Triangle 302 is subdivided. The area is fully contained in triangle 303 of that subdivision. Triangle 303 is subdivided and it is determined that the area is not fully contained in any of these subdivisions. Although area 309 is small enough size to fit within a subdivision; area 309 crosses the subdivision boundary 304. The recursive algorithm stops at this point. FIG. 6 shows where the subdivision stops 305. FIG. 6 also shows where the corresponding data structure stops 306. The spatial hierarchy identifier 308 for the area is shown. This identifier corresponds to node 307 of a data structure. The identifier describes the path from the root node to the node specified by the spatial hierarchy identifier. Id. ¶ 59 (emphases added). The Specification’s Figure 7, depicting an example of the generation of a second spatial hierarchy identifier for an area, is reproduced below. Figure 7 depicts the generation of a second spatial hierarchy identifier for an Appeal 2021-000036 Application 11/905,810 4 area. This second spatial hierarchy subdivides the space differently than the first spatial hierarchy, and therefore has a different spatial identifier for the same exact area. The subdivision shown is a typical quad-tree subdivision. Space is divided into four quadrants 401. The quadrant containing the area is further subdivided into four quadrants 402. This continues until the area is no longer fully contained in a quadrant. This occurs in subdivision 404. FIG. 7 shows where the recursive subdivision stops 405 and where the data structure stops, 407. FIG. 7 also shows the corresponding quad-tree data structure 406. Subdivision 403 is the last subdivision with a quadrant fully containing the area. The spatial hierarchy identifier 410 as shown in Table 407 for this area is the path to this subdivision and the depth in the recursion. The identifier 410 is associated with node 409 in the data structure. Id. ¶ 60 (emphases added). As depicted in Figures 6 and 7, the first spatial hierarchy has a different geometry from the second spatial hierarchy, and the regions of the first and second spatial hierarchies have different boundaries. As noted above, claims 6, 7, 10-13, 19, 20, 29-31, 33-35, 38, and 41- 43 are pending. Claims 6, 11, 19, 29, and 41-43 are independent. Appeal Br. 28-29 (claim 6), 29-31 (claim 11), 31-32 (claim 19), 32-33 (claim 29), 35-38 (claims 41-43) (Claims App.). Claims 7 and 10 depend directly from claim 6; claims 12 and 13 depend directly from claim 11; claim 20 depends directly from claim 19; and claims 30, 31, 33-35, and 38 depend directly from claim 29. Id. at 29-34. Claim 6, reproduced below with certain disputed limitations emphasized, is representative. 6. A non-transitory, computer readable storage medium comprising a plurality of instructions to manipulate a processor of a mobile computing device, the plurality of instructions causing the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising: identifying a position of the mobile computing device Appeal 2021-000036 Application 11/905,810 5 relative to a surface using a position indication system associating content with the position, generating, within the mobile computing device and independent of a server, a first spatial hierarchy identifier that corresponds to a first spatial hierarchy utilized on the server, wherein the first spatial hierarchy identifier identifies first regions within the first spatial hierarchy on the server corresponding to the position, wherein the first spatial hierarchy identifier includes a sequence of node identifiers and a depth,3 wherein the depth indicates a level of subdivision utilized in generating the first spatial hierarchy identifier utilized to identify the first regions corresponding to the position, wherein the first spatial hierarchy identifier is generated independent of a data set or data structure, wherein the first spatial hierarchy identifier is generated by utilizing a specification that indicates how to regularly subdivide space associated with the position and indicates a geometry of subdivisions subdivided from the space, wherein all space is allocated and there is no overlap between nodes at the same depth; generating, within the mobile computing device and independent of the server, a second spatial hierarchy identifier that corresponds to a second spatial hierarchy utilized on the server, wherein the second spatial hierarchy identifier identifies regularly subdivided second regions within the second spatial hierarchy on the server corresponding to the position; wherein the first spatial hierarchy is different from the second spatial hierarchy, and wherein the regions of 3 The Examiner fails to show which of the applied references teaches or suggests this limitation. See Final Act. 5-6; see also, e.g., id. at 10 (regarding claim 19), 13 (regarding claim 29). Nevertheless, Appellant fails to challenge this omission, and, therefore, this challenge is forfeited. See In re Google Tech. Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Because Google failed to present these claim construction arguments to the Board, Google forfeited both arguments.”). Appeal 2021-000036 Application 11/905,810 6 the first and second spatial hierarchies have different boundaries, associating the content to at least one of the first or second spatial hierarchy identifiers, wherein the content associated to at least one of the first or second spatial hierarchy identifiers completely contains the position-associated content. Id. at 28-29 (emphases added). Each of claims 11, 19, 29, and 41-43 recites limitations corresponding to the disputed limitations of claim 6. Id. at 30- 31, 32, 33, 35-38; see Appeal Br. 26. REFERENCES AND REJECTION The Examiner relies upon the following references: Name4 Reference Issued Filed Agarwal US 6,223,182 B1 Apr. 24, 2001 June 30, 1998 Kovacs US 6,542,819 B1 Apr. 1, 2003 Apr. 20, 2001 Hamynen US 7,720,436 B2 May 18, 2010 Jan. 9, 2006 The Examiner rejects claims 6, 7, 10-13, 19, 20, 29-31, 33-35, 38, and 41-43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Hamynen, Kovacs, and Agarwal. Final Act. 5-22.5 We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the contentions and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Appellant and the Examiner focus their contentions and 4 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. 5 The Examiner lists claim 15 as rejected (Final Act. 5, 10), but claim 15 is cancelled (Appeal Br. 31 (Claims App.)). See Amendment and Response to Non-Final Office Action, 4 (filed October 21, 2017) (canceling claims 14- 18). The inclusion of claim 15 here is harmless error. Appeal 2021-000036 Application 11/905,810 7 findings, respectively, on claim 6, so we do as well. See Appeal Br. 20-26; Ans. 3-6. Because we determine that reversal of the rejection of independent claim 6, as well as the rejection of the other independent claims, is dispositive, except for our ultimate decision, we do not discuss the merits of the rejection of claims 7, 10-13, 19, 20, 29-31, 33-35, 38, and 41-43 further herein. We address the rejection below. ANALYSIS 1. Non-Obviousness of Claim 6 Over Hamynen, Kovacs, and Agarwal As noted above, the Examiner rejects independent claim 6 as obvious over the combined teachings of Hamynen, Kovacs, and Agarwal. Final Act. 5-7. In particular, the Examiner finds that Hamynen teaches or suggests a majority of the limitations recited in claim 6. Id. at 5-6 (citing Hamynen, Abstr., 1:45-2:63, 4:35-59, 7:23-27, 9:62-10:41, 10:20-25, Figs. 1-4). The Examiner finds, however, Hamynen does not explicitly disclose, but Kovacs in an analogous art discloses: generating, within the computing device and independent of the server, the second spatial hierarchy identifier that corresponds to a second spatial hierarchy utilized on the server [(id. at 6 (citing Kovacs, 1:42-44, 2:10-12))], . . . wherein the second spatial hierarchy identifier identifies second regions within the second spatial hierarchy on the server corresponding to the position, wherein the first spatial hierarchy is different from the second spatial hierarchy [(id. at 7 (citing Kovacs, Abstr., 1:39-68, 2:45-68, Fig. 1))]. Further, the Examiner finds a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Hamynen and Kovacs to achieve these missing limitations of claim 6. Id. at 7. Appeal 2021-000036 Application 11/905,810 8 Although the Examiner finds neither Hamynen nor Kovacs, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests “regularly subdividing” space, as recited in claim 6, the Examiner finds Agarwal teaches or suggests this missing limitation. Final Act. 7 (citing Agarwal, 6:45-56). Moreover, the Examiner finds a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Hamynen and Kovacs with those of Agarwal to achieve the media of claim 6. Id.; but see supra note 3. Among other things, Appellant contends the Examiner errs because Kovacs does not teach or suggest, generating the second spatial hierarchy identifier within the mobile computer device and independent of the server, wherein the second spatial hierarchy identifier identifies second regions within the second spatial hierarchy on the server corresponding to the position, wherein the first spatial hierarchy is different from the second spatial hierarchy, as recited in claim 6. Appeal Br. 24 (emphases added). For the reasons given below, we agree with Appellant. The Examiner finds Kovacs discloses, a method for the determination of the current position of a mobile device is provided. The method comprises the step of accessing wirelessly a plurality of different position information sources for acquiring position information, the position information comprising respectively at least information about the position of the corresponding position information source. Kovacs, 1:39-46 (emphases added); see Final Act. 6 (citing Kovacs, 1:42- 44, 2:10-12). Further, Kovacs discloses: The means for the position determination comprise means for wirelessly accessing a plurality of different position information sources for acquiring position information. The position information comprises respectively at least information about the position of the corresponding position information source. The means for the position determination comprise furthermore Appeal 2021-000036 Application 11/905,810 9 means for selecting at least one of the plurality of accessed position information sources depending on the values of operation parameters associated with the different position sources. Furthermore, means for determining the position of the mobile device based on the position information of the at least one selected position information source is provided. Kovacs, 2:8-20 (emphases added); see Final Act. 6-7 (citing Kovacs, 2:10- 12). Thus, Kovacs teaches that the current position of the mobile device may be determined by accessing a plurality of information sources and determining their positions. Kovacs, 1:39-41, 2:8-11. At least one of the plurality of information sources then may be selected based on the values of its operation parameters, such as “at least one of availability, cost, speed, power consumption and quality of the position information service.” Id. at 1:52-54. Kovacs then teaches using the location of this selected information source to determine the mobile device’s position. Id. at 2:17-20; see Appeal Br. 24 (quoting Kovacs, Abstr.). Appellant contends Kovacs discloses a technique for determining the current position of a mobile device based on selecting at least one of a plurality of geolocation positioning services using various position information sources to acquire position information. Appeal Br. 25; see Kovacs, 1:31-33 (“Therefore, the present invention has as an object to provide for a technique for handling a plurality of [accessible] geolocation positioning devices.”). Thus, Appellant contends, Kovacs et al. is directed to determining the location of the mobile phone via a plurality of geolocation positioning services. Kovacs also does not disclose spatial hierarchies. Rather, Kovacs discloses determining a current position using different sources and operational boundaries to determine the most accurate position. The position is not a spatial hierarchy and the positions found are not in different spatial hierarchies. Operational Appeal 2021-000036 Application 11/905,810 10 boundaries are unrelated to different ways to regularly decompose space. Appeal Br. 25 (underlining added). We agree with Appellant. The Examiner responds that “[t]he examiner interpreted the phrase ‘generating the second spatial hierarchy’ as allowing for generation of a hierarchy using a second method. For example, if a mobile phone generated the first hierarchy using GPS, the mobile phone could generate the second hierarchy using signal triangulation as a second method.” Ans. 6 (emphases added). The Examiner, however, misunderstands claim 6. Claim 6 recites, “identifying a position of the mobile computing device relative to a surface using a position indication system[, and] associating content with the position.” Appeal Br. 28 (Claims App.) (emphases added). Contrary to the Examiner’s findings, claim 6 does not recite that the first and second spatial hierarchies are generated based on different means of determining the mobile device’s position, but instead are based on “the regions of the first and second spatial hierarchies hav[ing] different boundaries.” Id. at 29. The Examiner’s finding that “the mobile phone could generate the second hierarchy using signal triangulation as a second method” (Ans. 6 (emphasis added)) is insufficient to show that Kovacs teaches or suggests the missing limitation. Thus, the Examiner fails to show that Kovacs teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 6 that are missing from Hamynen, and Appellant persuades us the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 6 as obvious over the combined teachings of Hamynen, Kovacs, and Agarwal. Because these deficiencies in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 6 are dispositive, we do not reach Appellant’s other challenges to the rejection of claim 6. See Appeal Br. 20-24. Consequently, we are Appeal 2021-000036 Application 11/905,810 11 persuaded that the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 6, and we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 6. 2. The Remaining Claims As noted above, Appellant challenges the rejection of independent claims 11, 19, 29, and 41-43 for substantially the same reasons as claim 6. Appeal Br. 26. Consequently, we also are persuaded that the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 11, 19, 29, and 41-43 for substantially the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 6. Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 11, 19, 29, and 41-43. Each of claims 7, 10, 12, 13, 20, 30, 31, 33-35, and 38 depends directly from independent claim 6, 11, 19, or 29. Appeal Br. 29-34 (Claims App.). Because we are persuaded the Examiner errs with respect to the obviousness rejection of claim 6, as well as to the obviousness rejection of claims 11, 19, and 29; we also are persuaded the Examiner errs with respect to the obviousness rejection of claims 7, 10, 12, 13, 20, 30, 31, 33-35, and 38. For this reason, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 7, 10, 12, 13, 20, 30, 31, 33-35, and 38. DECISION 1. The Examiner errs in rejecting claims 6, 7, 10-13, 19, 20, 29-31, 33- 35, 38, and 41-43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Hamynen, Kovacs, and Agarwal. 2. Thus, on this record, claims 6, 7, 10-13, 19, 20, 29-31, 33-35, 38, and 41-43 are not unpatentable. Appeal 2021-000036 Application 11/905,810 12 CONCLUSION For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 6, 7, 10-13, 19, 20, 29-31, 33-35, 38, and 41-43. In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 6, 7, 10- 13, 19, 20, 29-31, 33- 35, 38, 41- 43 103(a) Hamynen, Kovacs, Agarwal 6, 7, 10- 13, 19, 20, 29-31, 33- 35, 38, 41- 43 REVERSED