Ex Parte Boyns et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2016

12470475 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/470,475 05/21/2009
23696 7590 09/26/2016
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mark R. BOYNS
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.
081555 3937
EXAMINER
DWIVEDI, MARESH H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2016 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK R. BOYNS, CHAND MEHTA, JEFFREY C. TSA Y, and
GIRIDHAR D. MANDY AM
Appeal2015-004086
Application 12/470,475 1
Technology Center 2100
Before MARC S. HOFF, LARRY J. HUME, and LINZY T. McCARTNEY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-37 and 64--73.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is a system and method
for aggregating and presenting data related to geographic locations. Geotag
data related to geographic locations and associated features or attributes can
be collected to build a regional profile characterizing a set of locations
1 The real party in interest is QUALCOMM Incorporated.
2 Claims 38---63 have been cancelled.
Appeal2015-004086
Application 12/470,475
within the region. Geotag data can include audio data analyzed using
region-specific terms, and user recommendations can be presented via
dynamic menus based on regional profiles, user preferences or other criteria.
See Abstract.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A method of aggregating data associated with a
geographic region, comprising:
receiving, from at least one user device, a set of geotag
data associated with each of a plurality of locations in the
region, the set of geotag data for each of the plurality of
locations comprising at least:
a geographic identifier that identifies the location, and
a set of attributes associated with the location, wherein
the set of attributes includes (i) at least one user description of
the location other than a textual or numerical rating of the
location that is received as user input by the at least one user
device, and/or (ii) media that is captured by the at least one user
device being operated while at the location;
generating a regional profile for the region by
aggregating, from the set of geotag data, the set of attributes for
each of the plurality of locations in the region to identify
combined attributes of the region; and
comparing the regional profile for the region with a set of
regional profiles for an additional set of regions to identify a set
of additional similar regions.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Lehmeier et al.
Schiller
Coifman
Altman et al.
Bandaru et al.
US 2002/0184196 Al
US 2003/0140040 Al
US 2007/0156403 Al
US 2008/0132251 Al
US 2008/0133488 Al
2
Dec. 5, 2002
July 24, 2003
July 5, 2007
June 5, 2008
June 5, 2008
Appeal2015-004086
Application 12/470,475
Claims 1-3, 5-37, and 64--73 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Altman, Schiller, and Bandaru.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Altman, Schiller, Bandaru, Lehmeier, and Coifman.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
("App. Br.," filed Oct, 16, 2014), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Feb.
20, 2015), the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Dec. 24, 2014), and the
Final Office Action ("Final Act." mailed May 14, 2014), for their respective
details.
ISSUE
Does the combination of Altman, Schiller, and Bandaru disclose or
suggest aggregating, from the set of geotag data, the set of attributes for each
of the plurality of locations in the region?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
"It is well settled that a prior art reference may anticipate when the
claim limitations not expressly found in that reference are nonetheless
inherent in it. Under the principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily
functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations, it
anticipates." In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir.
2002) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). "Inherency,
however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere
fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not
sufficient." In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citations
and internal quotation marks omitted).
3
Appeal2015-004086
Application 12/470,475
ANALYSIS
Each of independent claims 1, 15, 22, and 29 recites "aggregating,
from the set of geotag data, the set of attributes for each of the plurality of
locations in the region to identify combined attributes of the region."
Independent claim 32 recites "the regional profile comprising at least a set of
geotag data, received from at least one user device, representing an
aggregation of a set of attributes associated with a plurality of locations in
the region."
The Examiner admits that Altman does not disclose this limitation,
and finds that Schiller teaches corresponding subject matter, citing to
paragraphs 15, 33, and 35, and Figure 4, of Schiller. See Ans. 3, 4.
The Examiner finds that "Figure 4 clearly provides support ... that
there[are] multiple locations within a region as the individual houses and/or
apartments amongst the aggregated total of available houses and/or
apartments each correspond to a location of a plurality of locations within a
region." Ans. 7. While we agree with the Examiner that a listing of a
census tract, e.g., "Malden MA neighborhood #8," as having 2 available
houses, as listed in Schiller Figure 4, necessarily means that there are houses
at a plurality of locations within that tract, we agree with Appellants that
Schiller is completely silent concerning the function of "aggregating [a] set
of attributes for each of [a] plurality of locations in the region," let alone any
aggregating done from a set of geotag data. See Reply Br. 5.
It appears to be the Examiner's position that the column in Schiller
Figure 4 indicating that a plurality of houses or apartments are "available" in
a particular census tract means that Schiller teaches aggregating, from a set
of data, a set of attributes for each of a plurality of locations in a region to
4
Appeal2015-004086
Application 12/470,475
identify combined attributes of that region, as is claimed. We do not agree
that this is necessarily true. We agree with Appellants that Schiller does not
disclose anything about the origin of this information. See App. Br. 11. We
further agree with Appellants that there is no evidence of record that the
number of available houses or apartments is aggregated in accordance with
any process disclosed by Schiller. See App. Br. 12.
We further agree with Appellants that, contrary to the Examiner's
findings, there is no disclosure in Schiller of any aggregation or combination
of "attributes such as individual crime rates, individual school quality, or
individual available dwellings." App. Br. 11, citing Final Act. 92. Given
the absence of such disclosure in Schiller, we are constrained to infer, as
Appellants do, that Schiller does not perform the claimed "aggregating," but
simply collects data that are already provided by the Census Bureau. App.
Br. 11.
We find, supra, that Schiller does not expressly disclose the claimed
aggregation of a set of attributes associated with a plurality of locations in
the region. We further find that the listing of "available houses" or
"available apartments" in Schiller Figure 4 does not necessarily arise from
any aggregation taught by Schiller. Because Schiller is silent as to the
source of the information, we find that it is possible that such data is simply
retrieved from some external database. Thus, we find that Schiller also does
not inherently disclose the claimed aggregation of a set of attributes
associated with a plurality of locations in the region.
As a result, we find that the Examiner's combination of Altman,
Schiller, and Bandaru fails to disclose all the elements of the claimed
5
Appeal2015-004086
Application 12/470,475
invention. We therefore do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 1-3, 5-37, and 64--73.
CLAIM4
Claim 4 depends from independent claim 1. The Examiner's rejection
includes the further combination of Lehmeier and Coifman. The Examiner
does not find that Lehmeier or Coifman remedies the deficiencies noted
supra in Schiller. Therefore, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
of claim 4, for the same reasons given with respect to the rejection of
independent claim 1.
CONCLUSION
The combination of Altman, Schiller, and Bandaru does not disclose
or suggest aggregating, from the set of geotag data, the set of attributes for
each of the plurality of locations in the region.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-37 and 64--73 is reversed.
REVERSED
6