12840579 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2017)

Ex Parte Curtis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 28, 2017

12840579 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/840,579 07/21/2010 Scott Curtis CT-LBS-020/US (P460) 1399 71739 7590 03/02/2017 Concert Technology Corporation 20 Depot Street Suite 2 A Peterborough, NH 03458 EXAMINER NGUYEN, DINH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2645 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2017 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 u spto_alert @ concerttechnology .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SCOTT CURTIS, STEVEN L. PETERSEN, and SEAN T. PURDY Appeal 2015-002767 Application 12/840,579 Technology Center 2600 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, 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—23, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2015-002767 Application 12/840,579 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention is directed to systems and methods for “obtaining secondary indications of locations of users for use by a location- based service,” the secondary indications being “derived from data whose primary purpose is not to serve as a location update for the one or more users” (Spec. H 4, 31; Abstract). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method comprising: obtaining, at a processing device other than respective mobile devices of one or more users, a secondary indication of a previous location of the one or more users from a secondary source, the secondary source being other than the respective mobile devices of the one or more users, the secondary indication comprising the previous location of the one or more users and timing information that defines when the one or more users were at the previous location; assigning a weight to the secondary indication based on an accuracy of locations identified by secondary indications previously obtained from the secondary source; and utilizing, at the processing device, based on the assigned weight, the secondary indication of the location of the one or more users to provide a location-based service. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1—3, 5, 6, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Smith (US 2003/0006911 Al; published Jan. 9, 2003) and Mehta (US 2010/0004997 Al; published Jan. 7, 2010). 2 Appeal 2015-002767 Application 12/840,579 (1) The Examiner rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Smith, Mehta, and Weinroth (US 2009/0286550 Al; published Nov. 19, 2009). (2) The Examiner rejected claims 7—10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Smith, Mehta, and Moon (US 2009/0104920 Al; published Apr. 23, 2009). (3) The Examiner rejected claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Smith, Mehta, and Alderucci (US 2010/0203953 Al; published Aug. 12, 2010). (4) The Examiner rejected claims 13—16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Smith, Mehta, and Wilson (US 2005/0143097 Al; published June 30, 2005). (5) The Examiner rejected claims 17—19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Smith, Mehta, and McGary (US 2012/0003998 Al; published Jan. 5, 2012). (6) The Examiner rejected claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Smith, Mehta, and Busch (US 2008/0248815 Al; published Oct. 9, 2008). (7) The Examiner rejected claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Smith, Mehta, Busch, and Demello (US 2001/0036224 Al; published Nov. 1, 2001). ANALYSIS With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds the combination of Smith and Mehta teaches obtaining a secondary indication comprising a previous location of one or more users and timing information that defines when the 3 Appeal 2015-002767 Application 12/840,579 one or more users were at the previous location, and assigning a weight to the secondary indication, as claimed (Final Act. 3^4; Ans. 3, 5—6). Particularly, the Examiner finds Smith selects advertisements on an on going basis depending on a particular location, time, date, and client/user demographic profile, teaching and suggesting a secondary indication comprising the user’s previous location and timing information defining when the user was at the previous location, as claimed (Ans. 3 (citing Smith 55, 131)). The Examiner also finds Mehta’s average dwell time per visit teaches timing information that defines when a user was at a previous favorite location (Final Act. 4 (citing Mehta Fig. 2A, user’s Avg dwell time per visit to favorite location Fav 1); Ans. 3). The Examiner also finds Mehta teaches assigning a weight to a secondary indication of a dwell time threshold value (Final Act. 4 (citing Mehta Fig. 2A; H 40, 44-45); Ans. 6). We do not agree. We agree with Appellants, neither Smith nor Mehta teaches or suggests assigning a weight to a secondary indication comprising timing information that defines when one or more users were at a previous location, as recited in claim 1. Rather, Mehta merely assigns a weight to an indication of “whether the user has spent a sufficient amount of time at the current location and/or its vicinity to indicate a valid estimate as a visited location” (Reply Br. 8 (emphasis added)). That is, Mehta assigns a weight to an indication of how long the user was/dwelt at the previous location (Reply Br. 7—8; App. Br. 21—22). Smith does not make up for the above-noted deficiencies of Mehta. Smith’s client records indicate a client’s geographic location, but not timing information defining when the client was at the geographic location, as required by the claim (Reply Br. 4—5 (citing Smith 4 Appeal 2015-002767 Application 12/840,579 1 55); App. Br. 16—17). Smith’s interactive advertising also does not use such timing information; rather, Smith assigns advertisements based on an indication of an advertising platform’s current location and a user’s current proximity to the advertising platform (Reply Br. 5, 7 (citing Smith | 131)). The Examiner has not shown the additional teachings of Weinroth, Moon, Alderucci, Wilson, McGary, Busch, and Demello cure the above- noted deficiencies of Smith and Mehta. Thus, for the reasons set forth above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2—19, 22, and 23 dependent therefrom. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 20 and 21, argued for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 (App. Br. 16, 22). DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—23 is reversed. REVERSED 5