Ex Parte CollinsDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 21, 201814316099 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/316,099 06/26/2014 12394 7590 Travelers Companies c/o Fincham Downs LLC 90 Grove Street Suite 205 Ridgefield, CT 06877 08/27/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Dean M. Collins 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. TRO 1-041-01 3722 EXAMINER CHOI, YUK TING ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2153 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/27/2018 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): bripple@travelers.com docketing@finchamdowns.com docketing@cpaglobal.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DEAN M. COLLINS Appeal2018-002090 Application 14/316,099 Technology Center 2100 Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JUSTIN BUSCH, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4, 9--11, and 23-25, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant's invention generally relates to using location information to gather, analyze, and manage value subjects and to "inform various processes and decisions such as insurance underwriting, risk assessment, pricing, and risk/loss control." Spec., Abstract. Aspects of Appellant's invention include receiving, via a graphical user interface (GUI), user input Appeal2018-002090 Application 14/316,099 of "an indication of a user-defined location." Spec. ,r 99, Fig. 8. "The user- defined location may comprise, for example, a point, line, and/or polygon input by the user." Spec. ,r 99. "User input received via the interface may simply comprise graphical points, lines, and/or polygons overlaid on a map of a geographical area, for example," and "[i]n some embodiments, the points, lines, and/or polygons may be converted to and/or assigned to one or more geospatial and/or geo-referenced coordinates such as a latitude and longitude coordinate, a GPS coordinate, and/or a certified location certificate, number, identifier, etc." Spec. ,r 102. "Based on the received user input and/or user-defined location data, for example, one or more relevant value objects may be identified, defined, and/or otherwise determined." Spec. ,r 100. Claim 1, with the disputed limitation italicized, reads as follows: 1. A system comprising: a processing device; and a memory device in communication with the processing device, the memory device storing instructions that when executed by the processing device result in: receiving, via a graphical user interface comprising a graphical depiction of a geographical area, an indication of a user-defined location on the graphical depiction of the geographical area, wherein the indication of the user-defined location comprises at least one of (i) a line and (ii) a polygon; querying, utilizing the at least one of (i) the line and (ii) the polygon, a database storing value subject data and location data related to the value subject data; identifying, based on the querying of the database, a value subject associated with the user-defined location; 2 Appeal2018-002090 Application 14/316,099 selecting, based on the identifying of the value subject associated with the user-defined location, data descriptive of the value subject; and providing, via the interface, the selected data descriptive of the value subject. REJECTIONS Claims 1--4, 9, 10, 23, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Smith (US 2007 /0273558 Al; Nov. 29, 2007). Final Act. 4--15. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Smith and Vengroff (US 2009/0005968 Al; Jan. 1, 2009). Final Act. 15-16. Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Smith and von Kaenel (US 2004/0117358 Al; June 17, 2004). Final Act. 16-17. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Smith discloses every element recited in independent claims 1 and 23. See Final Act. 4--6, 10-14. Of particular relevance to this Appeal, the Examiner finds Smith's maps receive various types of input from multiple users and the input can include location information about buildings ( or other objects at certain locations), where the objects may be composed of lines and polygons. Final Act. 4--5 ( citing Smith ,r,r 65, 68, 104--105), 11-12. The Examiner also finds Smith discloses that user input may include hovering a mouse over objects depicted in a map in order to identify information related to locations depicted on the map at the location over which the user hovers the mouse. Ans. 6 ( citing Smith ,r 64 ). The Examiner finds the desired information is provided within the object of interest's boundaries, which may be defined using lines and 3 Appeal2018-002090 Application 14/316,099 polygons. Ans. 6 ( citing Smith ,r 64 ). The Examiner finds these aspects of Smith disclose "receiving, via a [GUI] of a geographical area, an indication of a user-defined location ... compris[ing] at least one of (i) a line and (ii) a polygon," as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in claim 23. Final Act. 4--5. The Examiner further finds Smith discloses querying, based on a user's location or a location input by the user, multiple repositories that contain a compilation of data entered by various users and include various locations, objects, and annotations. Final Act. 5 ( citing Smith ,r,r 65, 79, 111, 174). The Examiner finds Smith, in response to the query, renders a map of the requested area including information from the repositories related to the requested area, wherein the information may relate to buildings or objects represented by polygons and lines. Final Act. 5 ( citing Smith ,r,r 65, 79, 111, 174). The Examiner finds these aspects of Smith disclose "querying, utilizing the at least one of (i) the line and (ii) the polygon, a database storing value subject data and location data related to the value subject data," as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in claim 23. Final Act. 5. Appellant argues Smith does not anticipate independent claim 1 because Smith fails to disclose "querying, utilizing the at least one of (i) the line and (ii) the polygon, a database storing value subject data and location data related to the value subject data." App. Br. 14--16; Reply Br. 2-5. Appellant contends Smith discloses two different aspects of its system, each of which has different users interacting therewith-a receiver component that receives user input to define "meta-tagged location data" and build repositories and a rendering component in which a user may submit a 4 Appeal2018-002090 Application 14/316,099 request for the "meta-tagged location data" added by users of the receiver component. App. Br. 15. Appellant argues claim 1 relates to requesting data from "previously-stored meta-tagged location data," which is similar to Smith's users accessing the rendering component. App. Br. 16. Appellant does not contest that Smith discloses using lines and polygons to define the meta-tagged location data in order to build the repositories that are later searched and rendered. Noting the distinction in Smith's two distinct components and users associated therewith, Appellant argues Smith discloses "utilizing a user's location ( e.g., a point- or system-defined area around a point) to query stored meta-tagged location data." App. Br. 16. Appellant contends that, although Smith's output (i.e., the rendered objects) "may indeed comprise a polygon defining the pizza restaurant," the output is determined based on query-initiating user input consisting of keywords and a user's current location, not either a line or a polygon. Reply Br. 3--4. Appellant asserts Smith does not allow a user to query a database using at least one of a line and a polygon received from that user, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 16. Appellant also asserts Smith's disclosed mouse-hover action that the Examiner identifies in the Answer also fails to disclose the disputed limitation because the boundaries (i.e., the polygons and lines) the Examiner points to are again part of Smith's output used to depict objects retrieved from the database and are not input used to query a database. Reply Br. 4. Appellant further argues the mouse-hover input is "a point-input," which Smith determines coincides with a particular boundary of a rendered object. Reply Br. 4. 5 Appeal2018-002090 Application 14/316,099 Aspects of Smith relate to displaying map information in conjunction with advertisements or data about locations based on a geographical location and user information. Smith ,r,r 8-11, Abstract. Smith includes, among other elements, a receiver component for obtaining map information and associated data from multiple users and entities and a rendering component for dynamically displaying the map information and customized associated data to a user "based on a user inquiry that can include a specification location and/or a range (e.g., 10 miles, 25 miles) surrounding a location." Smith ,r,r 63---65, 69-71, Fig. 1; see also Smith ,r,r 163-165 ( describing the process of receiving and retaining object and metadata information), Fig. 16 ( depicting the same). The receiver component may "include various modules including a user interface module 208, a location information module 210, and/or a time information module 212." Smith ,r 75; see Smith ,r,r 74, 76-87, Fig. 2. Smith may also include a boundary component that is capable of inferring boundaries of particular areas. Smith ,r,r 103-105, Fig. 5 ( element 502). In a situation where Smith's receiver component receives "a parcel polygon or geometric figure ( e.g., circle, rectangle, square, cube, ... ) that defines a rooftop or viewable surface," Smith's boundary component may, for example, "utilize that parcel polygon information and infer that there is potentially only one building ( or other area of interest) inside that parcel polygon area." Smith ,r 105. The rendering component may "obtain and display a specified geographic area and related information of a web-based map" where "[t]he geographic area can be manually input by a user ( e.g., geographic coordinates, street address, name of location (e.g., "White House") and so 6 Appeal2018-002090 Application 14/316,099 forth) or it can be inferred based on the location of the user ( e.g., GPS, or other locating means)." Smith ,r,r 94--97, Fig. 3; see also Smith ,r,r 166-168 ( describing the process of depicting object and metadata information based on a received location request, including retrieving "a parcel polygon for the location request"), Fig. 17 ( depicting the same). Smith may tailor the displayed information to the requesting user. Smith ,r,r 97-102, 109-118, Figs. 3--4, 6; see also Smith ,r,r 173-175 (describing the process of configuring or customizing the display for a particular user utilizing the retrieved metadata information and user parameters), Fig. 19 ( depicting the same). There is no dispute that Smith discloses using polygons to represent objects that are stored, retrieved, and displayed. However, we disagree with the Examiner that the cited aspects in Smith disclose "querying, utilizing the at least one of (i) the line and (ii) the polygon, a database storing value subject data and location data related to the value subject data." Rather, we agree with Appellant that the aspects of Smith relating to polygons disclose utilizing those polygons when generating data for a database or displaying elements retrieved in response to a user query. Smith does not utilize the polygons ( or lines), however, to query a database. Smith discloses utilizing location information in a query, but only discloses: (1) using location information determined "when a user hovers a mouse over the object," Smith ,r 64; (2) "a user inquiry that can include a specific location," where "[t]he location can be based on geographic coordinates, street name, street address, city, street, or other means of identifying a place, person, and/or thing to be viewed," Smith ,r 70; and (3) manually inputting a geographic area using, for example "geographic coordinates, street address, name of 7 Appeal2018-002090 Application 14/316,099 location (e.g., 'White House') and so forth[,] or it can be inferred based on the location of the user (e.g., GPS, or other locating means)," Smith ,r 97. The only argued difference between claim 1 and Smith's system is that claim 1 recites the query of a database utilizes at least one of a polygon or line, whereas Smith discloses using a point ( e.g., hovering a mouse over an object in a GUI) or an automatically detected location ( e.g., GPS coordinates of a user's device). Nevertheless, a claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference. Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Because the Examiner rejects claim 1 only as anticipated, we make no determination as to whether Smith's variously disclosed query input methods may teach or suggest the recited utilization of a line or polygon in a query. Accordingly, constrained by this record, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Smith. Nor do we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 23, which recites similar limitations and which Appellant argues is patentable for the same reasons. App. Br. 17 ("As described in Section 3 .1.1 supra, Smith does not describe users being able to query stored meta-tagged location data based on user-defined line or polygon input."). Claims 2--4, 9, and 10 directly depend from claim 1, and claim 25 directly depends from claim 23. These claims, therefore, incorporate the limitations of claims 1 and 23, and stand therewith. Claims 11 and 24 directly depend from claims 1 and 25, respectively. Although the Examiner rejects claims 11 and 24 as obvious in view of Smith in combination with Vengroff and von Kaenel, respectively, the Examiner 8 Appeal2018-002090 Application 14/316,099 makes no finding, and therefore provides no supporting rationale, that any of Smith, Vengroff, and von Kaenel teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Because our determination is dispositive of this appeal, we do not address Appellant's other arguments. See, e.g., Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (explaining that an administrative agency may render a decision based on "a single dispositive issue"). DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 9-11, and 23-25. REVERSED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation