Ex Parte Brown

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 14, 2014

11743490 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 2014)

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.
11/743,490 05/02/2007 Stephen J. Brown 06-0613 6939
60683 7590 08/15/2014
Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc.
2400 GENG ROAD, SUITE 200
PALO ALTO, CA 94303
EXAMINER
LIEU, JULIE BICHNGOC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2684
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/15/2014 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte STEPHEN J. BROWN
____________________

Appeal 2011-013167
Application 11/743,490
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG,
and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-013167
Application 11/743,490

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–5, 7–22, and 24–36. Claims 6 and 23 have been canceled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellant, the invention relates generally to an
electronic tracking and containment system and, more particularly to, a web-
based user customizable containment system (Spec. 0001).
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A containment system comprising:
at least one user programmable device having an owner
proximity sensor and
capable of receiving:
GPS data from a GPS source for determining the
current location of the device,
variable inputs including owner proximity data
received from said owner proximity sensor, and
a rule script;
a remote server having a web-based application, the
remote server being
communicatively coupled to said user programmable
device;
a user interface capable of accessing said web-based
application allowing a user to program a rule script defining a
GPS-based boundary;
wherein, said user programmable device executes the
rule script, and a set of variable rules written in the rule script
Appeal 2011-013167
Application 11/743,490

3
determines the activation and deactivation of said user
programmable device.
C. REJECTION1
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Mock US 2008/0143516 A1 June 19, 2008
Troxler US 2002/0196151 A1 Dec. 26, 2002
Claims 1–4 , 7, 9, 15–21, 24, 26, 30, and 32–34 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mock.
Claims 5, 8, 10–14, 22, 25, 27–29, 31, 35, and 36 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mock and Troxler.
II. ISSUE
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding
that Mock teaches or would have suggested “a user interface capable of
accessing said web-based application allowing a user to program a rule
script defining a GPS-based boundary” (claim 1, emphases added).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Mock
1. Mock is related to establishing geo fence boundaries based
upon a fixed reference point or safe zone, wherein the object of Mock’s
invention is to enable users (for example, pet owners) to set an anchor

1 Although Appellant states that the claims have been rejected under 35
U.S.C §102(e) (App. Br. 2), this statement is in error since the claims have
been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) (Final Rejection 2).
Appeal 2011-013167
Application 11/743,490

4
beacon with a user adjustable range and the geo fence boundary can be
based upon this range (0006).
2. Mock discloses associating an object tracking device with
anchor beacons, wherein within a signal range, the object tracking device is
believed to be in a safe region (0007).
3. The range can be any configurable value (0008).
4. Instead of an anchor beacon, the geo fence boundary (i.e. safe
region) can be based upon a position of any mobile device (0010).
5. The user can adjust a power setting of the anchor beacon to
adjust the range and size of the safe region as well as one or more antenna
orientation (0021).
6. The tracking device includes additional components such as a
GPS component (0041).
7. The user accesses the administration interface via a computer
device (0044).
IV. ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that although “the Patent Office bears the initial
burden of factually supporting any prima facie conclusion of anticipation
under 35 U.S.C. 102” (App. Br. 8), “the Patent Office has failed to establish
a prima facie case of the unpatentabiity of Appellant’s claims at issue” (App.
Br. 10). In particular, as for claim 1, Appellant contends the Examiner
“failed to specify (e.g. by direct quotation) where the Patent Office-cited
portions of Mock expressly teach at least a ‘GPS-based boundary’ as in
Claim 1” (App. Br. 13). Appellant further contends the Examiner “failed to
specify (e.g. by direct quotation) where the Patent Office-cited portions of
Mock expressly teach at least a ‘user interface . . . allowing a user to
Appeal 2011-013167
Application 11/743,490

5
program a rule script defining a GPS-based boundary’ as in Claim 1” since
“mock does not recite a ‘user interface’ at all” (App. Br. 16).
However, the Examiner finds Mock discloses a “tracking device” that
“has a GPS component 318” and a “geo fence” that “can be based upon a
position of any mobile device, such as a mobile phone, and the tracking
device can also be [an]other mobile phone” (Ans. 14). Thus, the Examiner
finds “Mock[’s] geofence boundary is a GPS-based geofence” (id.). The
Examiner further finds “interface 351 is used by a system user to establish
the rule script such that the allowed distance (safe distances) between the
tracking device 315 and the mobile device are defined” and thus “it is a user
interface used for programming the rule script defining the GPS-based
boundary” (Ans. 14–15).
We find no error with the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and
ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness.
Although Appellant contends the Examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102 (App. Br. 8–10),
because the Examiner rejects the claims as obvious over Mock (and Mock in
view of Troxler), the test for obviousness is not what each individual
reference expressly teaches but what the teachings would have suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986).
Mock discloses establishing geo fence boundaries based upon a safe
zone by setting an anchor beacon with a user adjustable range and the basing
the geo fence boundary upon this range (FF 1). In Mock, the object tracking
device is believed to be in a safe region within the signal range, the range
being any configurable value, wherein the user accesses an administration
Appeal 2011-013167
Application 11/743,490

6
interface to adjust the range and size of the safe region (FF2, 3, 5, and 7). In
Mock, the geo fence boundary (i.e., safe region) can be based upon an
anchor beacon or a position of a mobile device (FF 4). That is, in Mock, the
user accesses a user interface to define a safe region/geo fence boundary
wherein the boundary is defined either through the use of an anchor beacon
or the position of a mobile device (1–5, and 7).
Thus, we find no error with the Examiner’s finding Mock at the least
would have suggested a “user interface” allowing a user “to program a rule
script” defining a “boundary” as in required by claim 1.
Further, in Mock, The tracking device includes additional components
such as a GPS component (FF 6). Also, as discussed above, the geo fence
boundary can be based upon a position of a mobile device (FF 4). Thus, we
find no error with the Examiner’s finding “Mock[’s] geofence boundary” is
“GPS-based” (Ans. 14).
The Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Thus, even if arguendo that Mock’s user-programmed boundary is not
a “GPS-based” boundary (FF 4 and 6), we are not persuaded, and Appellant
has presented no persuasive evidence that modifying Mock’s geo fence
boundaries determined based on a device’s position to be “GPS-based” was
“uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.”
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). The skilled artisan is “a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR at 420–21.
Appeal 2011-013167
Application 11/743,490

7
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Mock.
Appellant repeats the above arguments that the Examiner fails to
establish a prima facie case of anticipation under U.S.C. 102 for independent
claim 18 (App. Br. 21–27) and independent claim 35 (App. Br. 28–34),
reciting similar claim language as claim 1. However, the Examiner also
rejects claims 18 and 35 as obvious over Mock. As discussed above, we
agree with the Examiner’s finding Mock teaches or would have suggested “a
GPS-based boundary” defined by a user. Accordingly, we also affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 18 and 35, and claims 2–4, 6–9,
15–17, 19–21, 24, 26, 30, and 32–34 depending respectively from claims 1
and 18 but have not been argued separately (App. Br. 20 and 27) over Mock.
Appellant provides no argument for claims 5, 8, 10–14, 22, 25, 27–29,
31, 35, and 36 separate from those of claims 1, 18, and 35 from which they
respectively depend (App. Br. 20, 27, and 34). Accordingly, we also affirm
the rejection of claims 5, 8, 10–14, 22, 25, 27–29, 31, 35, and 36 over Mock
in further view of Troxler.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5, 7–22, and 24–36 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).

AFFIRMED
kme