Ex Parte Coppens et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 22, 2019

11685194 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/685, 194 03/12/2007
48116 7590 05/24/2019
FAY SHARPE/NOKIA
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Toon Coppens
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.
LUTZ200779 4178
EXAMINER
WAQAS, SAAD A
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/24/2019 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):
docketing@faysharpe.com
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TOON COPPENS,
BART KAREL HEMMERYCKX-DELEERSNIJDER,
HANS DE MONDT, and
GEERT ARTHUR EDITH VAN WONTERGHEM
Appeal2018-000885
Application 11/685,194 1
Technology Center 2400
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, HUNG H. BUI, and NABEEL U. KHAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1, 3, 14--16, 21, 22, and 27-39. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real-party-in-interest is Alcatel Lucent. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal2018-000885
Application 11/685,194
BACKGROUND
THE INVENTION
Appellants describe the invention as follows:
A wireless relay device emits a beacon and makes a wireless
connection with a terminal responding to the beacon, which
includes a selecting section capable of alternatively selecting a
normal mode in which the beacon is emitted in a first cycle and
a power saving mode in which the beacon is emitted in a second
cycle longer than the first cycle.
Abstract.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below with added
brackets.
1. A communication system for interconnecting a plurality of
users, compnsmg:
a communication server configured to establish a
communication session between at least first and second users of
a plurality of users;
a context vault configured to maintain context information
relating to the plurality of users, including session-based media
content contextually relating to the first user during the
communication session, the context vault comprising a location
vault configured to maintain location information relating to a
plurality of locations, the location information including
location-based media content contextually relating to at least
some locations of the first user during the communication
session; and
a community context manager configured to maintain user
information for the plurality of users, including access rights of
the second user to context and location information associated
with the first user, the community context manager comprising a
location context manager configured to determine locations of
the first user during the communication session;
[ 1] wherein said community context manager is
configured to select context information from said context vault
2
Appeal2018-000885
Application 11/685,194
relating to the first user during the communication sess10n
between the at least first and second users;
[2] wherein the context vault is configured to provide
said second user with the selected context information associated
with the first user during the communication session between the
at least first and second users in accordance with said access
rights of the second user to context information associated with
the first user;
[3] wherein the location context manager is configured
to select location information from the location vault based on
the determined locations for the first user during the
communication session between the at least first and second
users such that the selected location information is in context to
the corresponding determined location for the first user; [ and]
[ 4] wherein the location vault is configured to provide
the second user with the selected location information during the
communication session between the at least first and second
users in accordance with the access rights of the second user to
location information associated with the first user.
REFERENCES AND REJECTION
Claims 1, 3, 14--16, 21, 22, and 27-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) over Ivashin (US 2004/0230651 Al; Nov. 18, 2004), Johnson (US
2006/0022048 Al; Feb. 2, 2006) and Ebling (US 2005/0187368 Al; Aug.
25, 2005). Final Act. 3-34.
DISCUSSION
Appellants argue "neither Ivashin, nor Johnson, nor Ebling, nor any
combination thereof disclose or fairly suggest the third and fourth 'wherein'
clause." App. Br. 9. The third "wherein" clause of claim 1 requires the
location context manager to select location information based on the
3
Appeal2018-000885
Application 11/685,194
determined location of a first user "during the communication session
between the at least first and second users." The fourth "wherein" clause of
claim 1 requires the location vault to provide the second user with location
information "during the communication session between the at least first and
second users." Thus, the third and fourth "wherein" clauses are similar to
the extent that certain steps are required to occur "during the communication
session between the at least first and second users."
Appellants acknowledge that"[ w]hile the Johnson web service can
provide location based information associated with another user device to
the user device participating in the communication session with the web
service" this communication session between the user device and the web
service does not teach "the claimed communication session between the first
and second user devices." App. Br. 11-12. Similarly, Appellants argue that
while Ebling "may include collection of location context information" the
teachings of Ebling "do not apply to the claimed location context features
for a communication session between two users." App. Br. 14. In other
words, Appellants argue while Johnson and Ebling may disclose certain
aspects of the third and fourth "wherein" clauses, they do not disclose a
communication session between at least first and second users.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds
"Johnson teaches that users interoperate with each other through web
services [Johnson: 0036]" and "Johnson provides an enhanced location
based services experience for users wanting to interact with other users
through the web service." Ans. 4. The Examiner further finds "this
interoperation and interaction among users including performing location
based service action through web services reads on the claimed
4
Appeal2018-000885
Application 11/685,194
communication session between first and second user devices." Ans. 4
(citing Johnson ,r,r 36, 60, 66). Appellants argue that Johnson's disclosed
"interoperation" does not teach the claimed "communication session"
because the references to "interoperation" refer to "communication session
between the web service and a user of the web service." Reply Br. 4, 7-8,
10. However, these arguments do not address Johnson's explicit disclosure
of users "interoperating with each other through the web services." Johnson
,r 36.
Moreover, each reference cited by the Examiner must be read, not in
isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a
whole. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, the Examiner relies on I vashin as teaching the claimed
"communication session between at least a first and second users of a
plurality of users." Final Act. 3 (citing Ivashin ,r 36). The Examiner finds
that one of ordinary skill would have considered Johnson's teachings and
incorporated those in Ivashin. Final Act. 4. Appellants' arguments against
Johnson in isolation do not address the Examiner's findings that Ivashin
teaches the claimed communication session, and thus do not persuasively
show the Examiner erred. Appellants also present arguments against Ebling
in isolation (App. Br. 14), which do not persuasively show error in the
Examiner's findings that one of ordinary skill would have combined
Ebling's teachings with those oflvashin and Johnson (Final Act. 10-11).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Appellants present the same arguments for independent claims 14 and 21
(see App. Br. 14--21) and thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of those
independent claims as well. Appellants do not present arguments for
5
Appeal2018-000885
Application 11/685,194
separate patentability for the pending dependent claims, and thus, for the
aforementioned reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of the pending
dependent claims.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 14--16, 21, 22, and 27-39
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. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6