Ex Parte Feldman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 13, 2016

10999994 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
10/999,994 12/01/2004 Israel Feldman
26486 7590 04/15/2016
BURNS & LEVINSON, LLP
125 SUMMER STREET
BOSTON, MA 02110
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.
OLS-004DIV 6419
EXAMINER
MANCHO, RONNIE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3664
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/15/2016 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):
docketing@burnslev.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ISRAEL FELDMAN, ARIE TRINKER, YOCHAI MELTZER,
ALLON ESHP AR, and AMNON LOTEM
Appeal2014-003224
Application 10/999 ,994
Technology Center 3600
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, JILL D. HILL, and LISA M. GUIJT,
Administrative Patent Judges.
Hill, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Israel Feldman et al. ("Appellants") appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 16, 27-34, 36, 38--45, 47,
and 48. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Claims 2, 19, 20, and 49-70 are withdrawn, and claims 3-15, 17, 18, 21-
26, 35, 37, and 46 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-003224
Application 10/999 ,994
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Sole independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal. The key disputed limitation is italicized.
1. A method for modeling and processing vehicular traffic
data, comprising the steps of:
generating a representation of a road network associated
with the vehicular traffic data, the road network comprising a
plurality of road sections; and
acquiring vehicular traffic data associated with said road
network from a plurality of mobile sensors in communication
with a wireless telecommunication network, wherein
acquiring vehicular traffic data comprises selecting a
sample comprising vehicle-carried mobile sensors from the
plurality of mobile sensors and tracking locations of said vehicle-
carried mobile sensors of said sample over the road network,
the method further including a procedure for protecting
privacy of individuals associated with said vehicle-carried
mobile sensors, comprising tracking locations of said vehicle-
carried mobile sensors of said sample without identifYing tracked
vehicles by using phone numbers, and keeping identities of the
vehicle=carried mobile sensors \'l1ithin the location of the \'l1ireless
telecommunications network so that privacy of the individuals
associated with said vehicle carried mobile sensors are protected.
Appeal Br. 15, Claims App. (emphasis added).
THE REJECTION
Claims 1, 16, 27-34, 36, 38--45, 47, and 48 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Lapidot (US 6,341,255 Bl; iss. Jan. 22,
2002).
2
Appeal2014-003224
Application 10/999 ,994
ANALYSIS
Regarding claim 1, Appellants argue that Lapidot fails to disclose the
step of tracking locations of vehicle-carried mobile sensors without
identifying tracked vehicles by using phone numbers, as required by claim 1.
Appeal Br. 6. Appellants also argue that "[t]he absence of the term 'phone
number' in [Lapidot] provides no reason to conclude that the reference
discloses tracking locations ... without identifying tracked vehicles by using
phone numbers." Reply Br. 7. Appellants reason that "[c]onsidering that
Lapidot does not discuss any privacy considerations, there are no reasons to
conclude that cell phones described in the reference would send signals and
messages without using phone numbers." Id. at 6.
The Examiner responds that Lapidot "is completely silent of the term
'phone number,' [h]ence, Lapidot '255 does not use any telephone numbers
to identify tracked vehicles." Ans. 5. The Examiner asserts that, although
Lapidot relies on sending and receiving text messages to track cell phones,
"[u]sing a phone number could be one of many means to identify a mobile
device's location, but it is not ... [the] only means." Id. at 6. The Examiner
notes that Lapidot discloses that a vehicle may be tracked with a GPS
device, as well. Id. at 7. The Examiner reasons that "[ s ]ince tracking the
GPS location using a GPS signal is the same as tracking the vehicle location
it implies that phone numbers are not used." Id.
Lapidot discloses a method of tracking vehicles by automatically and
repeatedly sending messages from a mobile phone. See Lapidot, col. 6,
11. 8-11. The Examiner contends that, despite using messages from a mobile
phone to track the vehicle, a phone number does not have to be used to
identify the tracked phone. Ans. 5-7. The Examiner, however, does not
3
Appeal2014-003224
Application 10/999 ,994
provide any explanation as to how the mobile phone can be tracked
otherwise. See id. Anticipation requires that a reference disclose each and
every limitation either explicitly or inherently. The Examiner admits that
Lapidot is silent with respect to how the messages are tracked. The
Examiner fails to show that the messages must necessarily be tracked by a
means other than phone number. Thus, the Examiner's finding that phone
numbers are not used is not supported by evidence. We therefore do not
sustain the rejection of claim 1. Claims 16, 27-34, 36, 38--45, 47, and 48
depend from claim 1, and we therefore similarly do not sustain the rejection
of these claims.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 16, 27-34, 36,
38--45, 47, and 48.
REVERSED
4