Ex Parte Buccieri

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 15, 2014

11669581 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte VITTORIO BUCCIERI
____________

Appeal 2012-006071
Application 11/669,5811
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.

McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–11 and 13–28. App. Br. 2. Claim 12 has been
cancelled. See id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 The real party in interest is Verizon Communications Inc. and its
subsidiary companies, which currently include Verizon Business Global,
LLC (formerly MCI, LLC) and Cellco Partnership (doing business as
Verizon Wireless, and which includes as a minority partner affiliates of
Vodafone Group Plc). App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2012-006071
Application 11/669,581

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates generally to a method and apparatus for
providing an instant location service. Spec. 1, ll. 11–12. More specifically,
the invention is directed to a wireless device of a first user receiving
mapping information that specifies the position of a second user within a
prescribed proximity. A communication session may be selectively initiated
between the first and second users over the wireless network. See Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below, with key disputed
limitations emphasized:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, at a wireless device of a first user, mapping
information of a second user over a wireless network, wherein
the mapping information specifies position of the second user;
notifying the first user of location of the second user by
displaying a map generated by an instant locator remote from
the location of the first and second users, the map depicting the
location of the second user thereon based on the received
mapping information; and
initiating, by the wireless device, a communication
session over the wireless network to the second user.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Hu US 2004/0193601 A1 Sept. 30, 2004
Haney US 2006/0223518 A1 Oct. 5, 2006
Furuichi US 2007/0275706 A1 Nov. 29, 2007
Claims 1–11, 13–21, 23–26, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Furuichi and Haney. Ans. 5–13.
Appeal 2012-006071
Application 11/669,581

3
Claims 22 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Furuichi, Haney, and Hu. Ans. 13–14.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON FURUICHI AND HANEY
The Examiner here finds that Furuichi teaches each element of claim
1, except for a map generated by an instant locator remote from the location
of the first and second users. Ans. 5. The Examiner, however, relies on
Haney for this feature. Ans. 5–6.
Appellant, on the other hand, contends that neither Furuichi nor
Haney teaches a map generated by an instant locator remote from the
location of the first and second users. App. Br. 8–10. According to
Appellant, Haney’s Rubicon server (instant locator) merely forwards a
packet of information and if a map is generated, it is by Haney’s initiator
device (first user device), not Haney’s Rubicon server. App. Br. 9–10.
Further, Appellant asserts that because Hanley describes that any associated
needed maps are requested from a mapper server, it is this map server that
“generates the needed maps in Hanley.” Reply Br. 3–4.

ISSUE
Do Furuichi and Haney collectively teach a map generated by an
instant locator remote from the location of the first and second users, as
recited in claim 1?

Appeal 2012-006071
Application 11/669,581

4
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–11, 13–21, 23–26
Based on the record before us, we find that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting the claim 1 as obvious. Specifically, we are unpersuaded that
Haney fails to teach the claimed map generated by an instant locator remote
from the first and second users. App. Br. 8.
Appellant maintains that any map generated in Haney is by the
initiator device or the map server, not the Rubicon server. See App. Br. 10
(“If a map is generated in Haney, it is at the initiator device (the requestor’s
device.”)); Reply Br. 3–4 (“[A] distinct ‘map server,’ [not the Rubicon
server,] is what generates the needed maps in Haney.”). According to
Appellant, “the Rubicon server, at best, compiles all the data needed to
render a map, but then that information is sent in a packet to the wireless
device and the wireless device generates the map for display. The Rubicon
server, itself, does not generate the map.” Reply Br. 4.
We disagree, however, that the Rubicon’s server compiling all
information necessary to display the map fails to teach the claimed map
generated by an instant locator. As the Examiner explains, and Appellant
admits, the Rubicon server compiles a packet with all information necessary
to display a map. See Ans. 16–17 (citing Haney ¶ 59, “The complete
response is compiled, including any data needed to render a map on the
recipient wireless device display. . . .”); Reply Br. 4 (citing the same); see
also Haney ¶ 87 (“The [Rubicon] server’s main function is to serve maps to
the cell phones registered in the Buddy Watch system . . . .”).
We agree with the Examiner, particularly in view of the Specification,
that Haney’s compilation generates the claimed map. As the Examiner
Appeal 2012-006071
Application 11/669,581

5
points out, Haney’s process is analogous to the cited claim support in
Appellant’s Specification. Ans. 18. The Specification, in particular,
describes that the mapping module outputs mapping information to the
wireless device that then displays the map to the user. See Spec. ¶ 23
(“[T]he mapping module 117. . . outputs mapping information for displaying
these users onto a map. In step 307, the wireless device 103a, for example,
receives the mapping information over the wireless network 109, and
presents the map of the users to the particular subscriber (step 309).”). We
agree with the Examiner then that, when construing the disputed limitation
broadly but reasonably in light of the Specification, Haney’s Rubicon server
compiling (or generating) all information needed to display a map to a user
satisfies the claimed map generated by the instant locator.
Appellant additionally argues that “to whatever extent Haney could be
interpreted as disclosing a separate ‘instant locator,’ as claimed, and
Appellant asserts that it cannot be so interpreted, Haney and Furuichi are not
combinable because the type of map disclosed in Furuichi is different from
the type of map in Haney.” App. Br. 11. This blanket assertion, however,
fails to explain what “types” of maps are disclosed and why they could not
be combined. Thus, without more, we find this argument unpersuasive.
As the Appellant points out, each of independent claims 10, 18, and
23 recites similar limitations. App. Br. 7–8. For these claims, Appellant
relies on the same arguments as presented for claim 1 that we find
unpersuasive. As such, we are also unconvinced that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 10, 18, and 23 as obvious.
Appeal 2012-006071
Application 11/669,581

6
Therefore, we find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1,
10, 18, and 23, as well as dependent claims 2–9, 11, 13–17, 19-21, and 24–
26 not argued with particularity, as obvious in view of Furuichi and Haney.

Claim 28
Appellant here argues separately the patentability of claim 28. Claim
28, which depends on claim 8, recites
wherein the mapping module cross-references the contact list
with a predefined proximity of the first and second user,
depicting the location of the second user on the map only when
the second user is a member of the contact list and is within the
predefined proximity.

According to Appellant, neither Furuichi nor Haney discloses this feature.
App. Br. 11.
Specifically, Appellant asserts that
[d]isplaying positions of active users within a certain range, as
in Haney, is not a disclosure, or even a suggestion, of “the
mapping module cross-references the contact list with a
predefined proximity of the first and second user, depicting the
location of the second user on the map only when the second
user is a member of the contact list and is within the predefined
proximity.” That is, in accordance with the claimed invention,
it is the “mapping module” that cross-references a contact list
with a predefined proximity of a first and second user. Haney
discloses no such mapping module with this function.

App. Br. 13. In other words, Appellant does not appear to dispute that
Haney cross-references the contact list with a predefined proximity of the
users, but contends that it is not a mapping module that performs this
function. We disagree.
Appeal 2012-006071
Application 11/669,581

7
The Examiner relies on Haney’s Rubicon Server to satisfy the claimed
features of the mapping module. See Ans. 13, 20–22. Haney expressly
teaches that its “Mapit” feature “shows the mapit page where the positions
of active users within the radius set up in the preferences of the center point
XXX within radius YYY shown.” (Haney ¶ 60). Moreover, Haney
expressly teaches
The [Rubicon] server’s main function is to serve maps to the
cell phones registered in the Buddy Watch system and
implement GPS position data exchanges between itself and the
phones on a buddy list to enable members of a buddy list to
view the locations of other members of the list.

Haney ¶ 87 (emphasis added); see also Ans. 22. In other words, Haney
teaches that the Rubicon server cross references a user’s buddy list with
location information to determine whether to provide the locations of the
other members on the user’s list. We agree with the Examiner, then, that
Haney teaches the claimed cross-referencing limitation.
Therefore, we find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 28
as obvious over Furuichi and Haney.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON FURUICHI, HANEY, AND HU
Claims 22 and 27
With respect to claims 22 and 27, Appellant relies on the same
arguments presented for claim 1. See App. Br. 13. As discussed above, we
find these arguments unpersuasive. Therefore, we also find that the
Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 22 and 27 as obvious over Furuichi,
Haney, and Hu.
Appeal 2012-006071
Application 11/669,581

8

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–11 and 13–28.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–11 and 13–28 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

msc