Ex Parte Cao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2016

13576615 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/576,615 08/01/2012
10949 7590 09/28/2016
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
HappiaCao
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.
042933/441495 5606
EXAMINER
LEE, WILSON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2155
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2016 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HAPPIA CAO, TENGFEI BAO, and JILEI TIAN
Appeal2015-005303
Application 13/576,615
Technology Center 2100
Before MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, SCOTT B. HOW ARD, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 28--44, which constitute all claims pending in the
application. Claims 1-27 and 45--47 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claimed invention relates to processing "contextual information"
captured by mobile devices, such as the user's position, ambient noise, time,
and other data, and associating that information with a user activity, such as
1 Appellants identify Nokia Corporation as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal2015-005303
Application 13/576,615
driving to work, shopping, or working in the office. Spec. 1, 6. Claims 28,
33, and 40 are independent. Claim 28 is illustrative of the invention and
reads as follows:
28. A method comprising:
accessing a context data set comprised of a plurality of
context records, each context record including a number of
contextual feature-value pairs associated with a specified time
period;
generating at least one grouping of contextual feature-
value pairs based on a co-occurrence of at least two contextual
feature-value pairs in at least two context records; and
defining at least one user context based on the at least
one grouping of contextual feature-value pairs, wherein the user
context is associated with at least one activity of the user.
App. Br. 11 (emphasis added).
THE REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 28--44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Ma et al. (US 2011/0070863 Al; pub. Mar. 24, 2011) ("Ma"). Final Act.
2-5.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellants could
have made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). On this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
rejections from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer,
and highlight the following for emphasis.
2
Appeal2015-005303
Application 13/576,615
Appellants argue all of the claims as a group, with claim 28
representative of the group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv); App. Br. 8-10.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Ma discloses "the user
context is associated with at least one activity of the user," as recited in
claim 28. App. Br. 8. Appellants argue Ma discloses only temporal
characteristics, and not an "activity" of the user, such as "shopping,"
"driving a car to ... work," and "working," the examples cited in
Appellants' Specification (at 6). App. Br. 8-10. We disagree.
As the Examiner finds, Ma discloses user context associated with
"vacation" and "workday," among other things. Ans. 5---6; Final Act. 3
(citing Ma i-f 65, Table 2 (i-f 93) ). Giving the term "activity" in claim 28 its
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellants' Specification,
see In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004),
we agree with the Examiner's finding that "vacation" discloses "at least one
activity" as recited in the claim. Although "vacation" is not one of the
activities disclosed in Appellants' Specification, the Specification repeatedly
referred to the activities therein as "examples," Spec. 6, and the claim
language does not limit "activity" to the examples in the Specification.
Furthermore, in the Answer the Examiner finds additional support in
Ma's paragraphs 53 and 55, which disclose user context associated with
going to the gym and, specifically, "working out," "aerobics," and
"exercise." Ans. 6 (citing Ma i-fi-153, 55). We find, as did the Examiner,
these also are "activities" as recited in the claim. Id. In the Reply Brief (at
4), Appellants argue the disclosure of exercise-related activities in Ma's
paragraphs 53 and 55 fails to satisfy a different part of the claim element,
namely, "at least one grouping of contextual feature-value pairs." But the
3
Appeal2015-005303
Application 13/576,615
Examiner relies on other disclosures in Ma for that limitation. See Final Act.
3 (citing Ma i-fi-f l, 65, 144, 147). Appellants fail to demonstrate error in the
Examiner's findings.
To the extent Appellants' Reply Brief purports to argue additional
claim limitations not argued in the Opening Brief, see, e.g., Reply Br. 2
(citing "generating" limitation), such arguments do not persuade us of error
and, in any event, were waived, see 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 28--44 as
anticipated by Ma.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 28--44 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Ma 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)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4