Ex Parte Endler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 21, 2013

10820832 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2013)

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.
10/820,832 04/07/2004 INV001Sean Christopher Endler 7114-86604-US 8497
37123 7590 03/22/2013
FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP
120 SOUTH LASALLE STREET
SUITE 1600
CHICAGO, IL 60603-3406
EXAMINER
WEISS, JOHN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3688
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SEAN CHRISTOPHER ENDLER, JOSEPH STEVEN HERRES,
and IPPEI TAMBATA
___________

Appeal 2011-001478
Application 10/820,832
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-001478
Application 10/820,832

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Sean Christopher Endler et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35
U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-30. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM. 1

THE INVENTION
This invention relates “to displaying promotions based on a location
of a participant.” Spec. 1:7-8.
Claims 1 and 17, reproduced below, are illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A method comprising:
detecting a device capable of receiving and
transmitting an electronic message;
searching for a plurality of promotions stored in a
storage module;
receiving a signal from the detected device and
detecting a device profile corresponding to the
device using information contained in the signal
wherein the device profile contains a preference
for a product or a service and a geographical
boundary; and
selecting a particular promotion from the plurality
of promotions based on the preference for the

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,”
filed May 10, 2010) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jul. 20,
2010).

Appeal 2011-001478
Application 10/820,832

3
product or the service and the geographical
boundary associated with the device profile.
17. A method comprising:
detecting a plurality of devices capable of
receiving and transmitting an electronic message;
detecting a jointly scheduled meeting stored on at
least one of the plurality of devices, wherein the
scheduled meeting is among participants including
at least one participant associated with the at least
one of the plurality of devices;
receiving a location parameter from the at least one
of the plurality of devices for the scheduled
meeting;
searching for a plurality of promotions stored in a
storage module; and
selecting a particular promotion from the plurality
of promotions based on the location parameter.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Baranowski
Jokinen
US 2003/0195833 A1
US 7,343,317 B2
Oct. 16, 2003
Mar. 11, 2008

The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-5, 7-16, and 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§102(e) as being anticipated by Jokinen.
2. Claims 17-22 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a, e)
as being anticipated by Baranowski.

Appeal 2011-001478
Application 10/820,832

4
ISSUES
The first issue is whether claims 1-5, 7-16, and 23-28 are anticipated
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by Jokinen. Specifically, the issue is whether
Jokinen describes “receiving a signal from the detected device and detecting
a device profile corresponding to the device using the information contained
in the signal” (Claim 1). See also claims 16 and 23.
The second issue is whether claims 17-22 and 29-30 are anticipated
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a, e) by Baranowski. Specifically, the issue is
whether Baranowski describes “receiving a location parameter from the at
least one of the plurality of devices for the scheduled meeting” (Claim 17).
See also claim 29.

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following findings of fact are supported by at least a
preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427
(Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings
before the Office).
We adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact which appear on pages 12-
14 of the Examiner’s Answer.

ANALYSIS
We have carefully considered all of the Appellants’ arguments (Br.
15-28) concerning the rejection of independent claims 1, 16, and 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Jokinen and concerning the
rejection of independent claims 17 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a, e) as
being anticipated by Baranowski. We find the Appellants’ arguments
Appeal 2011-001478
Application 10/820,832

5
unpersuasive for the reasons set forth on pages 12-14 of the Examiner’s
Answer, which we will not repeat here.
We note that the Appellants have not provided any separate arguments
to traverse the rejection of dependent claims 4-5, 7-15, and 24-28 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Jokinen (see Br. 23-24) or the
rejection of dependent claims 18-22 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a, e) as
being anticipated by Baranowski (see Br. 28). Therefore, the rejections of
these claims shall stand or fall with the rejections of their parent claims. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5 and 7-30 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Klh