Ex Parte Curtis et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 29, 201613248846 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/248,846 09/29/2011 Scott Curtis 119000 7590 10/03/2016 Concert Technology Corporation 20 Depot Street Suite 2A Peterborough, NH 03458 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. CT-CRD-029/US (P609) 2049 EXAMINER GILLESPIE, NICOLE K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2612 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/03/2016 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): uspto.correspondence@sceneralabs.com uspto _alert@concerttechnology.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SCOTT CUR TIS, MICHAEL W. HELPINGS TINE, and ANDREW V. PHILLIPS Appeal2014-009839 Application 13/248,846 Technology Center 2600 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal2014-009839 Application 13/248,846 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention is directed to a "system and methods for informing users of social interactions." (Spec. i-f 2). Independent claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A method, comprising: obtaining, by a user device, conversation data for a geographic area of interest, the conversation data indicating a topic for a conversation currently occurring within the geographic area of interest and a location of the conversation within the geographic area of interest; presenting a visual representation of the geographic area of interest by the user device; and presenting at least one visual indicator in association with the visual representation of the geographic area of interest, the at least one visual indicator representing the topic of the conversation and the location of the conversation. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 8, 12-14, 19-21, 24, 25, 28, and 31under35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Oh (US 2010/0056183 Al; published Mar. 4, 2010). The Examiner rejected claims 6, 7, 15-18, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Oh and Marchioro (US 2010/0205242 Al; published Aug. 12, 2010). The Examiner rejected claims 9-11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Oh and Lee (US 2011/0320373 Al; published Dec. 29, 2011). ANALYSIS The Examiner, among other things, finds Oh teaches "conversation data indicating a topic for a conversation currently occurring within the 2 Appeal2014-009839 Application 13/248,846 geographic area of interest and a location of the conversation within the geographic area of interest" (Ans. 2, 26; Advisory Act.; Oh i-fi-f 11, 46, 26). We do not agree. We agree with Appellants arguments that Oh does not anticipate Appellants' claimed invention (App. Br. 8-18). Particularly, we agree that although Oh's paragraph 11 states a "chat session can relate to a subject of interest" it "does not teach conversation data that indicates a topic for a corresponding conversation" as it "may or may not be related to a point of interest" (App. Br. 13). That is, the topic of conversation in Oh is unknown to the user (id.). In contrast, claim 1 recites a geographic area of interest and conversation data indicating the location of a conversation within the geographic area in addition to the topic of the conversation (id.). "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 Calif., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). "The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient." In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). We also agree "Oh does not obtain any information about a specific location of the conversation within the geographic area of interest" (Reply Br. 7; App. Br. 14). Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5, 8, 12- 14, 19-21, 24, 25, 28, and 31 as anticipated by Oh. As claims 6, 7, 9-11, 15-18, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, and 30 depend, directly or indirectly, from independent claims 1 and 28, we also do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections over the combination of Oh and Marchioro or Lee. 3 Appeal2014-009839 Application 13/248,846 DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 8, 12-14, 19-21, 24, 25, 28, and 31under35 U.S.C. § 102(a) is reversed. The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 6, 7, 9-11, 15-18, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation
