Ex Parte Daniel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2017

13533006 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 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.
13/533,006 06/26/2012 Tomer Daniel P43981 1348
72517 7590
Shichrur & Co.
Azrieli Business Center
Triangle Tower, 38 th Floor
Tel Aviv, 6701101
ISRAEL
EXAMINER
WOOLWINE, SHANE D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2135
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2017 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):
DocketingUS @ ShichrurLaw.com
Y ael @ ShichrurLaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TOMER DANIEL, YARON ALPERT, and EHUD RESHEF
Appeal 2017-005751
Application 13/533,006
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC B. CHEN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and IRVIN E. BRANCH,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1—27, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal 2017-005751
Application 13/533,006
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to controlling access to location sources,
which includes storing cached location information based on location
information retrieved from two or more location sources, receiving location
requests from multiple applications, selecting between retrieving requested
location information from the location sources, and retrieving the requested
location information from the cache, and, providing a location response to
the applications. (Abstract.)
Claims 1,13, and 19 are exemplary, with disputed limitations in
italics:
1. A device comprising:
two or more location sources; and
a location caching controller to store cached location information in a
cache based on location information retrieved from the two or more location
sources, the location information indicating an estimated location of the
device, the location caching controller to receive at least one location
request from at least one application, to select between retrieving requested
location information from at least one of said location sources and retrieving
the requested location information from said cache, and to provide to said
application a location response including the requested location
information.
13. A method performed by a mobile device, the method
comprising:
receiving from a first application a first location request for receiving
location information from at least one location source of said mobile device
receiving from a second application a second location request for
receiving location information from said location source of said mobile
device;
coalescing the first and second location requests into a coalesced
location request to retrieve location information from the location source',
and
2
Appeal 2017-005751
Application 13/533,006
providing to said first and second applications first and second
location responses based on the retrieved location information from the
location source.
19. A system comprising:
a mobile device including:
a radio;
one or more antennas;
a memory;
one or more location information sources; and
a location caching controller to retrieve location information
from said location sources, to store in said memory cached location
information corresponding to the location information retrieved from
said location sources, and to dynamically update a location caching
profde based on a plurality of location requests from a plurality of
applications executed by said mobile device,
wherein in response to a location request from an application of
said plurality of applications, said location caching controller is to
select, based on said location caching profile, between retrieving
requested location information from said one or more location sources
and retrieving the requested location information from said memory,
and to provide to said application a location response including the
requested location information.
Claims 1, 8, and 12 stand rejecting under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Niranjan (US 2012/0136849 Al; May 31, 2012) and
Huang (US 2011/0077862 Al; Mar. 31, 2011).
3
Appeal 2017-005751
Application 13/533,006
Claims 2—7 and 9-11 stand rejecting under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Niranjan, Huang, and Tysowski (US 2009/0189811 Al;
July 30, 2009).1
Claims 13—18 and 24—27 stand rejecting under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tysowski and Niranjan.
Claims 19-23 stand rejecting under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Niranjan and Tysowski.
ANALYSIS
§103 Rejection—Niranjan, Huang, and Tysowski
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 8—9) that the
combination of Niranjan, Huang, and Tysowski would not have rendered
obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “the location
caching controller to receive at least one location request from at least one
application ... to provide to said application a location response including
the requested location information.”
The Examiner found that the application of Niranjan, in which a client
application initiates a search for location information, corresponds to the
limitation “the location caching controller to receive at least one location
request from at least one application ... to provide to said application a
location response including the requested location information.” (Final
Act. 14; see also Ans. 4.) We agree with the Examiner’s findings.
1 Appellants do not present any substantive arguments with respect to the
rejection of dependent claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Thus, any such
arguments are deemed to be waived.
4
Appeal 2017-005751
Application 13/533,006
Niranjan relates to “location based selection of point-of-interest (POI)
search services.” (| 1.) Niranjan explains that the mobile device for point-
of-interest search includes “a client application accepting a user input and
originating a search request, the search request including a location
information acquired by a mobile device at a location defined by the location
information.” (| 23.) Niranjan further explains that “[t]he term ‘search
request’ is intended to describe any request sent by a mobile device and
received by a carrier or a server” and that “[t]he search request may include
or be accompanied by a location information or other search context.”
(138.) Because Niranjan explains that the client application originates a
search request, including a location information acquired by the mobile
device, Niranjan teaches the limitation “the location caching controller to
receive at least one location request from at least one application ... to
provide to said application a location response including the requested
location information.”
Appellants argue that “[i]t is clear from this description of Niranjan et
al. that the search request is sent from a mobile device to a server.” (Br. 9
(emphasis omitted).) However, Appellants’ arguments are not
commensurate in scope with claim 1, because the claim does not exclude
accessing a server.
Appellants further argue that “it is clear from the description of
Niranjan et al. that the search request already includes location information”
and “this description of Niranjan et al. with respect to a client application
originating a search request, which already includes location information, is
fundamentally different from a location request for requested location
information.” {Id. (emphases omitted).) However, Niranjan explains that
5
Appeal 2017-005751
Application 13/533,006
“[t]he search request may include or be accompanied by a location
information or other search context.” (138 (emphasis added).) In other
words, because Niranjan uses the language “may include,” Niranjan
discloses an alternative embodiment in which such search request does not
include location information. Moreover, Niranjan explains that “a client
application accepting a user input and originating a search request, the
search request including a location information acquired by a mobile device
at a location defined by the location information” (123), which suggests that
such location information is not currently known, otherwise the client
application would not be requesting such location information.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Niranjan
and Huang would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation “the location caching controller to receive at least one
location request from at least one application ... to provide to said
application a location response including the requested location
information.”
We are further unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 11—12)
that the combination of Niranjan, Huang, and Tysowski would not have
rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “to
select between retrieving requested location information from at least one of
said location sources and retrieving the requested location information from
said cache.”
The Examiner found that the point-of-interest (POI) search of Niranja,
as partially illustrated in Figure 5, in which the mobile device can either use
a cached location or wait until GPS or Cell-ID becomes available,
corresponds to the limitation “to select between retrieving requested location
6
Appeal 2017-005751
Application 13/533,006
information from at least one of said location sources and retrieving the
requested location information from said cache.” (Final Act. 14—15; see also
Ans. 5.) We agree with the Examiner’s findings.
Figure 5 of Niranjan illustrates a flow chart of the POI search using
multiple engines flflf 17—18), such that “[i]f no GPS or other location
information for example but not limited to Cell ID is available 502, then the
mobile [device] may use cached location 504 or wait until the location
information becomes available” and “[i]f both GPS and Cell-ID information
is available 506, other forms’ location determination such as MS-assisted
technology may be used 508” (1 88). Because Tysowski explains that if no
GPS or other location information (e.g., Cell ID) is available, the mobile
device can either: (i) used the cached location; or (ii) wait until the location
information becomes available, Tysowski teaches the limitation “to select
between retrieving requested location information from at least one of said
location sources and retrieving the requested location information from said
cache.”
Appellants argue that “[t]he flow in Fig. 5 of Niranjan et al. does not
include any operation of selecting between retrieving requested location
information from at least one of said location sources and retrieving the
requested location information from said cache.” (Br. 12 (emphasis
omitted).) In particular, Appellants argue that “as clearly shown in Fig. 5,
block 504 is an ‘if block which relates to checking whether or not cached
location is available” and “[a]s also clearly shown in Fig. 5, the operation of
block 504 is only performed if there is no location information available in
block 502.” (Id. (emphasis omitted).) However, as discussed previously,
Niranjan explains that “[i]f no GPS or other location information ... is
7
Appeal 2017-005751
Application 13/533,006
available 502, then the mobile [device] may use cached location 504 or wait
until the location information becomes available” (1 88) and accordingly,
Niranjan teaches the limitation “to select between retrieving requested
location information from at least one of said location sources and retrieving
the requested location information from said cache.”
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Niranjan
and Huang would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation “to select between retrieving requested location
information from at least one of said location sources and retrieving the
requested location information from said cache.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 8 and 12 depend from claim 1, and Appellants have
not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these
claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 12 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a), for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent
claim 1.
§103 Rejection—Tysowski and Niranjan
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 18—20) that the
combination of Niranjan, Huang, and Tysowski would not have rendered
obvious independent claim 13, which includes the limitation “coalescing the
first and second location requests into a coalesced location request to
retrieve location information from the location source.”
The Examiner found that the user monitoring application of Tysowski,
which requests GPS pre-acquisition until a GPS lock, and the camera
application of Tysowski collectively correspond to the limitation “coalescing
8
Appeal 2017-005751
Application 13/533,006
the first and second location requests into a coalesced location request to
retrieve location information from the location source.” (Final Act. 31—32;
see also Ans. 7.) In particular, the Examiner found that “[t]he waiting for a
GPS fix for the user monitor application and the camera application as part
of the GPS pre-acquisition is the coalescing of location requests” because
“both applications are requesting location information and both are waiting
for the GPS fix, and thereby their requests are combined into the same GPS
fix location request for the current location data.” (Id. (emphases omitted).)
We do not agree with the Examiner’s findings.
Tysowski relates to “handheld electronic devices equipped with
digital cameras and, in particular, to geotagging techniques for such devices”
(12), in particular, “monitoring user activity with respect to the camera”
such that “the device can begin pre-acquisition of a [GPS] position fix by
obtaining any needed ephemeris data before the photograph is actually taken
(125). Figure 1 of Tysowski illustrates a flowchart outlining steps of a
method for obtaining ephemeris data for a GPS-enabled handheld electronic
device (132), including step 12, in which a user monitoring application “can
then report user activity related to the camera to the operating system or to
an intermediate manager that initiates acquisition of a GPS position fix prior
to a digital photo being taken by the camera,” also referred to as GPS pre­
acquisition (| 35), step 14 in which a determination that a position fix is
currently available, and
if at step 14, a determination is made that the GPS receiver does
not have a current position fix, e.g. that new ephemeris data is
required in order to acquire a GPS fix, then the device optionally
determines at step 16 whether it should wait for a GPS position
fix to be acquired or whether it should proceed immediately to
step 20 to enable the digital photo to be taken right away.
9
Appeal 2017-005751
Application 13/533,006
(136.) Tysowski further explains that “camera application 160 that has a
geotagging feature enabled communicates requests for [GPS] position data
to API 152 (e.g. Java JSR 179) which obtains GPS data from the GPS
cache 130.” (148.)
Although the Examiner cited to the user monitoring application of
Tysowski, which initiates GPS pre-acquisition while waiting for a GPS fix,
the Examiner had provided insufficient evidence to support a finding that
Tysowski teaches the limitation “coalescing the first and second location
requests into a coalesced location request to retrieve location information
from the location source.” In particular, Tysowski explains that for the
Figure 1 embodiment, the user monitoring application initiates GPS pre­
acquisition while waiting for a GPS fix, but is silent with respect to a camera
application performing a similar request for GPS data. (See H 35—36.)
While Tysowski further explains that camera application 160 includes a
geotagging feature, Tysowski is silent with respect to such camera
application 160 and the user monitoring application of Figure 1 both
initiating GPS pre-acquisition and accordingly, the Examiner has not
demonstrated that Tysowski teaches the limitation “coalescing the first and
second location requests into a coalesced location request to retrieve location
information from the location source,” as recited in claim 1.
Thus, we are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that “[b]ased on a
detailed review of the entire description of Tysowski et al., no basis could be
found for the contention of the Office Action that ‘requests are combined
into the same GPS fix location request for the current location data’” and
“the description of the attempt to acquire a GPS fix and the request from
camera application 160 for GPS data is provided in two separate sections of
10
Appeal 2017-005751
Application 13/533,006
Tysowski et al. which relate to different aspects/features.” (Br. 20
(emphases omitted).)
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 14—18 depends from independent
claim 13. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), as well as dependent claims 14—18, for the same reasons discussed
with respect to independent claim 13.
Independent claim 24 recite limitations similar to those discussed with
respect to independent claim 13. We do not sustain the rejection of
claim 24, as well as dependent claims 25—27, for the same reasons discussed
with respect to claim 13.
§103 Rejection—Niranjan and Tysowski
We are further persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 22—25) that
the combination of Niranjan and Tysowski would not have rendered obvious
independent claim 19, which includes the limitation “to dynamically update
a location caching profile based on a plurality of location requests from a
plurality of applications executed by said mobile device, wherein in response
to a location request from an application of said plurality of applications.”
The Examiner found that obtaining ephemeris data to acquire a GPS
position fix for the user monitoring application of Tysowski corresponds to
the limitation “dynamically update a location caching profile based on a
plurality of location requests from a plurality of applications executed by
said mobile device.” (Final Act. 46-47; see also Ans. 10-11.) We do not
agree with the Examiner’s findings.
11
Appeal 2017-005751
Application 13/533,006
As discussed previously, Figure 1 of Tysowski illustrates a flowchart
outlining steps of a method for obtaining ephemeris data for a GPS-enabled
handheld electronic device (132), including step 12, in which a user
monitoring application “can then report user activity related to the camera to
the operating system or to an intermediate manager that initiates acquisition
of a GPS position fix prior to a digital photo being taken by the camera,”
also referred to as GPS pre-acquisition (| 35). Tysowski further explains
that “pre-acquisition may entail querying the GPS driver and/or GPS cache
to determine whether the GPS is locked or, in specific variants of the
technology, to determine whether ephemeris data is fresh or stale.” (Id.)
Also discussed previously, Tysowski explains that “camera application 160
that has a geotagging feature enabled communicates requests for [GPS]
position data to API 152 (e.g. Java JSR 179) which obtains GPS data from
the GPS cache 130.” (148.)
Although the Examiner cited to the GPS pre-acquisition of Tysowski,
which includes a determining if ephemeris data is fresh or stale, the
Examiner has provided insufficient evidence to support a finding that
Tysowski teaches the limitation “to dynamically update a location caching
profile based on a plurality of location requests from a plurality of
applications executed by said mobile device, wherein in response to a
location request from an application of said plurality of applications.” In
particular, as discussed previously, Tysowski explains that for the Figure 1
embodiment, the user monitoring application initiates a GPS pre-acquisition
while waiting for a GPS fix, but is silent with respect to a camera application
performing a similar request for GPS data. (See ]Hf 35—36.) While Tysowski
further explains that camera application 160 includes a geotagging feature,
12
Appeal 2017-005751
Application 13/533,006
Tysowski is silent with respect to such camera application 160 and the user
monitoring application of Figure 1 both initiating GPS pre-acquisition, and
accordingly, the Examiner has not demonstrated that Tysowski teaches the
limitation “to dynamically update a location caching profile based on a
plurality of location requests from a plurality of applications executed by
said mobile device.”
Thus, we are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that “[i]t is
respectfully asserted that this operation of ‘determining whether ephemeris
data is needed based on whether the data is fresh or stale’ is fundamentally
different from, and unrelated to, any update of any caching profile.” (Br. 24
(emphases omitted).)
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 20-23 depends from independent
claim 19. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 20—23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent
claim 19.
§103 Rejection—Niranjan, Huang, and Tysowski
Claims 2-A
Dependent claim 2 recites limitations similar to those discussed with
respect to independent claim 19. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 2,
as well as dependent claims 3 and 5, for the same reasons discussed with
respect to the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Niranjan
and Tysowski.
13
Appeal 2017-005751
Application 13/533,006
Claims 5—7 and 9
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claims 5—7 and 9 separately (Br. 27—30), the arguments presented do not
point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent
claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants merely provides a
summary of Tysowski with a conclusory statement that Tysowski does not
teach the features of dependent claims 5—7 and 9. (Id.) We are not
persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to
claim 1, from which claims 5—7 and 9 depend. Accordingly, we sustain this
rejection.
Claim 10
Dependent claim 10 recites limitations similar to those discussed with
respect to independent claim 13. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 10
for the same reasons discussed with respect to the rejection of claim 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tysowski and Niranjan.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 5—9, 11, and 12 is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2—4, 10, and 13—27 is
reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
14