Ex Parte Agapi et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 23, 2010

10744254 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 23, 2010)

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.
10/744,254 12/22/2003 Ciprian Agapi BOC920030053US1 (023) 1918
46322 7590 08/23/2010
CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
950 PENINSULA CORPORATE CIRCLE
SUITE 2022
BOCA RATON, FL 33487
EXAMINER
AJIBADE AKONAI, OLUMIDE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2010 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CIPRIAN AGAPI, VANESSA V. MICHELINI,
and WALLACE J. SADOWSKI
_____________

Appeal 2009-005273
Application 10/744,254
Technology Center 2600

____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD, Jr.,
and BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or filing a request for rehearing, as
recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper
delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode)
shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-005273
Application 10/744,254

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 2-7, 9, 10, and 12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
Appellants’ Figure 1 is reproduced below:

Figure 1 shows a graphical representation of a subscriber traveling
through different locations served by a communication and information
services network.
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to providing meteorological
information to a device related to the location of the subscriber, the location
of a subscriber within an area, or relative proximity with respect to a specific
transmitter. For example, when subscriber 22 is in area 16, or closer to
transmitter 10 than to transmitters 12 and 14, the subscriber can be provided
with content that relates to area 16 or the vicinity of transmitter 10, even if
signals transmitted to the communication device do not emanate from
transmitter 10. See Spec. ¶ [0016]; Fig. 1.
2
Appeal 2009-005273
Application 10/744,254

Claim 7, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
7. A method of providing information for display on a
wireless communication device, comprising the steps of:
establishing a communications link with a wireless
communication device;
determining the location of the wireless communication
device; and
transmitting content related to the location of the wireless
communication device to the wireless communication device,
wherein
content is transmitted to the wireless communication
device continuously.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Clark US 6,611,687 B1 Aug. 26, 2003
Haberman US 2005/0113075 A1 May 26, 2005
(effectively filed Oct. 31, 2003)
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. The Examiner rejected claims 2-7, 10, and 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Clark.
2. The Examiner rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Clark in view of Haberman.

ISSUE
The pivotal issue is:
Does Clark teach that the “content is transmitted to the wireless
communication device continuously” as recited in claim 7?
3
Appeal 2009-005273
Application 10/744,254

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellants’ Specification describes that meteorological information
related to the location of the subscriber is pushed to a wireless
communication device related to the location of the subscriber within
an area or relative proximity with respect to a specific transmitter
(Spec. ¶ [0016]).
2. Appellants’ Specification discloses that when the subscriber 22 is in
area 16, or closer to the transmitter 10 than transmitters 12 and 14, the
subscriber can be provided with content that relates to area 16 or the
vicinity of transmitter 10 (Spec. ¶ [0016]; Fig. 1).
3. Appellants’ Specification describes that the information is received by
subscriber 22 as the subscriber moves within an area or from one area
to another (Spec. ¶ [0015]).
4. Clark teaches that when a traveler enters a region the mobile unit
receives information regarding the designated region or alternatively
when problems are identified in a specific region then the mobile unit
“within the designated region” is identified so that information relating
to a particular problem (i.e., fallen tree or weather information) are
output to the mobile user (Abstract, col. 5, ll. 9-17, col. 8, ll. 12-16).
5. Clark teaches that “information specific to a region occupied” by a
traveler is received (Abstract).
6. Clark teaches that content is transmitted when the content changes to
notify the user of problematic information within the region or a
neighboring region (col. 5, ll. 9-17; col. 8, ll. 12-16).
7. Clark teaches that updates regarding problematic information are
provided to the user “within” the designated region (Abstract, col. 5, ll.
4
Appeal 2009-005273
Application 10/744,254

9-17, col. 8, ll. 12-16), as well as when the traveler moves into different
cells or regions (col. 3, ll. 50-65).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
During ex parte prosecution, claims must be interpreted as broadly as
their terms reasonably allow since Applicants have the power during the
administrative process to amend the claims to avoid the prior art. In re Zletz,
893 F.2d 319, 322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
“During examination, ‘claims . . . are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim
language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citation omitted); In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “[T]he specification ‘is always
highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive;
it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” Phillips v.
AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).

ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 2-7, 10, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
Appellants argue that a common meaning of the term “continuously”
is uninterrupted (App. Br. 4). Appellants assert that because Clark only
teaches a single transmission “based on the observed change of location or
entrance into a new region” and there is no disclosure as to what occurs after
the transmission is sent, the Examiner has not established that the content is
continuously transmitted (App. Br. 4).
5
Appeal 2009-005273
Application 10/744,254

We agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ Specification does not
explicitly define the term continuously and only refers to the transmission of
content related to the location of a wireless device (Ans. 9). Accordingly,
we turn to Appellants’ own description of the system to ascertain implicitly
the meaning of the term.
Appellants’ own Specification describes that meteorological
information related to the location of the subscriber is pushed to the device
related to the location of the subscriber within an area or relative proximity
with respect to a specific transmitter (FF 1). More specifically, Appellants’
Specification states that when the subscriber 22 is in area 16, or closer to the
transmitter 10 than transmitters 12 and 14, the subscriber can be provided
with content that relates to area 16 or the vicinity of transmitter 10 (FF 2).
Appellants’ Specification describes that the information is received by
subscriber 22 as the subscriber moves within an area, or from one area to
another (FF 3).
Similarly, Clark teaches that when a traveler enters a region, the
mobile unit receives information regarding the designated region or
alternatively receives information when problems are identified in a specific
region (i.e., throughout that region and not requiring changing regions) (FF
4). Clark’s mobile unit “within the designated region” is identified so that
information relating to a particular problem (i.e., fallen tree or weather
information) is output to the mobile user (emphasis added) (FF 4). As such,
“information specific to a region occupied” by a traveler is received (FF 5).
Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument because based
on Appellants’ own system description, the term “continuously” must refer
to content being transmitted when changing locations along cells or regions,
6
Appeal 2009-005273
Application 10/744,254

or when a traveler is within a designated region, and this is precisely what
Clark also teaches (FF 4). The specification is the single best guide to the
meaning of a disputed term (i.e., “continuously”). See Phillips, 415 F.3d at
1315.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that if a user in
Clark does not move to a different region for one month then there would be
no updating during that period thereby not meeting the limitation of
transmitting the information “continuously” (App. Br. 5-6). In other words,
we are not persuaded with the argument that if the subscriber with a mobile
unit moves between cells or regions only once a month, updating of the
information could not satisfy the term “continuously.” As we stated supra,
Clark teaches that when a traveler enters a region, the mobile unit receives
information regarding the designated region or alternatively receives
information when problems are identified in a specific region (i.e.,
throughout that region and not requiring changing regions) (FF 4).
According to Clark, the mobile unit “within the designated region” is
identified so that information relating to a particular problem (i.e., fallen tree
or weather information) is output to the mobile user (emphasis added) (FF
4).
Thus, contrary to Appellants’ argument, Clark’s mobile unit user
receives updated information within a specific region and does not have to
move to a different region to receive updated information regarding weather
conditions (see also col. 8, ll. 12-16 (discussing the receipt of weather
information within a designated region or neighboring region)).
Furthermore, the term “continuously” in the context of Appellants’
Application cannot reasonably mean uninterrupted. Such an interpretation
7
Appeal 2009-005273
Application 10/744,254

of “continuously” would also be inconsistent with Appellants’ dependent
claim 9 which states that content is transmitted when the “content changes.”
That is, because dependent claim 9 indicates that a specific example of a
continuous transmission is one in which content is transmitted only
intermittently (i.e., when content changes). Claim 9 contradicts Appellants’
assertion that “continuous[ ]” means uninterrupted. Clark explicitly teaches
that content is transmitted when the content changes to notify the user of
problematic information within the region or a neighboring region (FF 6).
Accordingly, Clark does teach that the content is transmitted continuously
(i.e., when the content changes).
We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 7) that
the size of the regions makes it a practical impossibility to move from one
region to the next and receive information continuously. As we stated
supra, Clark teaches that updates regarding problematic information are
provided to the user “within” the designated region as well as when the
traveler moves into different cells or regions (FF 7).
Moreover, nothing in the language of claim 7 requires that “content”
be comprised of a stream of updates or even more than one single
transmission. As such, the claim language “continuous content
[transmission]” reads on a transmission to a wireless device of data
constituting a single, complete update (such as a single update of weather or
road conditions).
As noted supra, Clark teaches that local-information updates (or
multiple instances of “content”) are transmitted to the wireless mobile
device (FFs 6, 7). As these updates are successfully received by the mobile
device, each update corresponds to the claimed “content [that] is transmitted
8
Appeal 2009-005273
Application 10/744,254

to the wireless communication device continuously.” That is, even if we
were to adopt Appellants’ proffered definition of a continuous transmission
as meaning an uninterrupted transmission, Clark does disclose uninterrupted
or continuous transmission of content (i.e., even if it is a single
uninterrupted/continuous transmission).
Accordingly, we will affirm the Examiner’s rejection of representative
claim 7 and for similar reasons the rejections of claims 2-6, 10, and 12.
Rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
We will also affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) for reasons similar to those stated supra as Appellants (App.
Br. 8) have not advanced any other arguments with respect to this claim.

CONCLUSION
Clark teaches that the “content is transmitted to the wireless
communication device continuously.”

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 2-7, 10, and 12 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) and the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 9 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(1)(iv).

9
Appeal 2009-005273
Application 10/744,254

AFFIRMED

ELD

CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
950 PENINSULA CORPORATE CIRCLE
SUITE 3020
BOCA RATON, FL 33487

10