Ex Parte Chao et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 11, 2019

11323850 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
11/323,850 12/30/2005 Yi-Chung Chao
111332 7590 01/15/2019
Perspectives Law Group, Corp.
3150 De La Cruz Blvd.
Suite 206
Santa Clara, CA 95054
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.
59-006 4478
EXAMINER
DHRUV, DARSHAN I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2498
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/15/2019 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):
efs@perspectiveslaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YI-CHUNG CHAO, ROBERT RENNARD, and HAIPING JIN
Appeal2017-006256 1
Application 11/323,8502
Technology Center 2400
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. PETTING, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
March 22, 2016) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed February 1, 2017), and
the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed December 1, 2016) and Final Office
Action ("Final Act.," mailed October 15, 2015).
2 Appellants identify Telenav, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-006256
Application 11/323,850
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention "relates generally to hybrid systems,
and more particularly, to a system for a location based services and
navigation system wherein a client and a server communicate to carry out
the location based service and navigation tasks" (Spec. ,r 1 ).
Claims 1, 6, and 11 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An intelligent location based services and
navigation hybrid method with a client having location based
service capability and a server comprising:
setting a condition for updates of relevant information
including updates when the client may enter a no server access
region based on sampled relevant information including
navigation and point of interest information in surrounding
service areas of the no server access region;
selecting the relevant information for the updates by the
server or the client, or a combination thereof;
transmitting the relevant information from the server or
the client;
receiving the updates of the relevant information by the
server or the client; and
selecting an operational mode by the client.
REJECTION
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Mahonen (US 2006/0089152 Al, pub. Apr. 27, 2006), Reich
(US 2007/0143017 Al, pub. June 21, 2007), and Laird et al.
(US 2005/0075116 Al, pub. Apr. 7, 2005) ("Laird").
2
Appeal2017-006256
Application 11/323,850
ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 2-5
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because none of
Mahonen, Reich, or Laird, individually or in combination, discloses or
suggests "setting a condition for updates of relevant information including
updates when the client may enter a no server access region based on
sampled relevant information including navigation and point of interest
information in surrounding service areas of the no server access region," as
recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 12-15).
Mahonen is directed to location-based synchronization of mobile
terminals, and discloses methodology that "makes it possible to have the
content of the mobile terminal be dependent on a current position/location of
the mobile terminal" (Mahonen Abstract). Mahonen discloses at
paragraph 63, cited by the Examiner, that when the mobile terminal changes
its location from a first location ( at the start of a predetermined time interval)
to a second location ( at the end of the predetermined time interval), a
location-based synchronization is initiated if the distance between the first
and second locations exceeds a predetermined distance during the
predetermined time interval. In that situation, application content is sent to
the mobile terminal specific to the location of the terminal at the end of the
predetermined time period (id. ,r 63).
Mahonen, thus, discloses updating a client with location information
if the distance between first and second locations exceeds a predetermined
distance. But we find nothing in the cited portions of Mahonen that
discloses or suggests that "a condition for updates ... include[ es] updates
3
Appeal2017-006256
Application 11/323,850
when the client may enter a no server access region based on sampled
relevant information ... in surrounding service areas of the no server access
region," as called for in claim 1.
Reich discloses a GPS device that includes, inter alia, a data store for
storing mapping data (i.e., geographic navigation bundles that include street
level mapping data for a particular geographical area) and a predictive
algorithm that ensures that suitable data are located within the data store
prior to the time that the data are needed by the GPS device (Reich ,r 11 ).
Reich describes that the predictive algorithm can be optionally configured to
retrieve data far enough in advance to ensure that a lack of wireless
connectivity over a geographical region is not problematic, e.g., the GPS
device could be configured with a 40 mile update buff er; therefore, so long
as the region that lacks wireless connectivity is less than or equal the update
buffer region, the GPS device can function without interruption (id. ,r 12).
Reich also discloses that the predicative algorithm can use navigation
information, e.g., roadway connections, so that, for example, if the
navigation information indicates that the current road curves south so that
the vehicle is likely to enter a particular grid zone, the geographical
navigation bundle of that grid zone can be retrieved (id. ,r 48). However, we
find nothing in the cited portions of Reich that discloses or suggests
retrieving updates based on "sampled relevant information ... in
surrounding service areas of the no server access region," as called for in
claim 1.
We also find no such disclosure or suggestion in the cited portions of
Laird. Laird is directed to a wireless virtual campus escort system, and
describes that the system monitors the progress of a user along a route by
4
Appeal2017-006256
Application 11/323,850
monitoring the location and movement of the user's mobile handset (Laird
,r 5). Laird discloses in paragraph 108, cited by the Examiner, that current
and predicted information about the quality of the GPS signal coverage for
the campus and along potential route segments is stored, and is used by users
in selecting routes that have maximum signal coverage and avoiding routes
that have spotty or non-existent coverage. But we find nothing in this
paragraph, or elsewhere in the cited portions of Laird, that discloses or
suggests that a condition is set for updates based on information in areas
surrounding the spotty or non-existent GPS coverage areas, i.e., "in
surrounding service areas of the no server access region," as called for in
claim 1.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, we
also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-5. Cf In re Fritch,
972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("dependent claims are nonobvious if
the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious").
Independent Claims 6 and 11 and Dependent Claims 7-10 and 12-20
Independent claims 6 and 11 include language substantially similar to
the language of independent claim 1, and stand rejected based on the same
rationale applied with respect to claim 1 (Final Act. 6). Therefore, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent
claims 6 and 11, and claims 7-10 and 12-20, which depend therefrom, for
the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
5
Appeal2017-006256
Application 11/323,850
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.
REVERSED
6