Ex Parte Forstall et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2017

12019035 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 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.
12/019,035 01/24/2008 Scott Forstall 18962-094001/P5208US1 9289
26183 7590 03/01/2017
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (APPLE)
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
EXAMINER
D AGOSTA, STEPHEN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2643
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2017 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):
PATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SCOTT FORSTALL, GREGORY N. CHRISTIE,
ROBERT E. BORCHERS, and KEVIN TIENE
Appeal 2016-003162
Application 12/019,0351
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—39, all of the pending claims in the
present application. (Appeal Br. 1.) We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We affirm.
Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to mobile devices and data related to
location and routing. A first mobile device may provide an indication of a
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Apple Inc. (Appeal
Br. 1.)
Appeal 2016-003162
Application 12/019,035
potential route, and a route locus (a location on the route or within a
predefined proximity of the route) which is the location of a second mobile
device. (Spec. 67—72, Abstract.)
Illustrative Claims
Claims 1 and 34 are illustrative of Appellants’ invention, as
reproduced below with certain limitations italicized:
1. A method, comprising:
at a first mobile device associated with a first user,
accessing location sharing preference data associated with the
first user, the location sharing preference data indicating that
location data of the first mobile device may be shared with a
second user;
determining that the second user is associated with a
second mobile device;
based on the determination, allowing location data of the
first mobile device to be shared with the second mobile device,
including transmitting, from the first mobile device to the second
mobile device, data indicating an anticipated route to be taken by
the first user;
receiving, at the first mobile device from the second
mobile device, location data indicating a current location of the
second mobile device;
comparing, by the first mobile device, the current location
of the second mobile device to the anticipated route to be taken
by the first user,
based on the comparison, determining, by the first mobile
device, that the current location of the second mobile device is
on or near the anticipated route to be taken by the first user; and
responsive to the determination that the current location of
the second mobile device is on or near the anticipated route to be
taken by the first user, indicating on a graphical user interface of
the first mobile device the current location of the second mobile
device.
2
Appeal 2016-003162
Application 12/019,035
34. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that the first mobile device traversed the
anticipated route in a first length of time;
determining that the second mobile device traversed the
anticipated route in a second length of time;
comparing the first length of time to the second length of
time; and
determining whether the first mobile device or the second
mobile device traversed the anticipated route more quickly based
on the comparison.
Examiner’s Rejection and References
Claims 1—39 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Grube et al. (US 2003/0100326 Al; pub. May 29, 2003),
Davis et al. (US 2005/0222756 Al; pub. Oct. 6, 2005) and either Suomela et
al. (US 2006/0069503 Al; pub. Mar. 30, 2006) or Schnurr (US 7,035,618
B2; iss. Apr. 25, 2006.) (Final Action 3—20.)
Issues
Appellants raise the following issues:
(A) Did the Examiner err in finding that Grube, in combination with
other cited art, teaches or suggests, “comparing, by the first mobile device,
the current location of the second mobile device to the anticipated route
to be taken by the first user,” as recited in claim 1?
(B) Did the Examiner err in taking Official Notice of certain facts, as
in the rejection of claim 34?
3
Appeal 2016-003162
Application 12/019,035
ANALYSIS
(A) Claim 1 —“comparing, by the first mobile device, the current
location of the second mobile device to the anticipated route to be
taken by the first user ”
The Examiner finds that Grube, in combination with Davis and
Suomela or Schnurr, teaches or suggests comparing the current location of
the second mobile device to an anticipated route to be taken by the first user.
(Final Action 5; Answer 4—5.)
Appellants contend that, while Grube teaches comparing the current
location of a device to a geographical area to determine if a device has
entered or exited the area, it does not teach comparing a current location to
an anticipated route to be taken by a user of another device. (Appeal Br. 13—
14.)
We agree with the Examiner. Grube contains several disclosures
which teach or suggest the claimed comparison to one of ordinary skill in the
art. For example, Grube teaches announcement blocks of information which
indicate “the location of other subscribers or additional data such as the past
or intended future trajectory/route of selected subscribers. (Grube 135
(cited in Final Action 5).) Additionally, Grube teaches an operator interface
with a map display window in which the client user’s own location and
anticipated route, and the location and anticipated routes for a plurality of
users are displayed. (Grube Tflf 28, 30, 61, Fig. 2 (cited in Final Action 4—
5)-)
4
Appeal 2016-003162
Application 12/019,035
Additionally, the Examiner finds that the comparison of the location
of one user and the intended route of another user is used to initiate
“snapping” in Grube, which occurs as the result of a comparison of the
location of one user (claimed second user) close to the anticipated route of
another user (claimed first user). (Grube Tflf 79, 81—82; Final Action 6;
Answer 6.) We agree with the Examiner that in the “snapping” embodiment
Grube teaches the claimed comparison, comparing a location of the second
user to the anticipated route of the first user. Although, as the Examiner
finds, Grube does not “use this comparison in the same manner as the
claims” (Answer 6), the comparison is taught by Grube, and other references
are used in combination to teach or suggest the claimed use of the
comparison.
Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1,
independent claims 11, 21, 27, 28, 29 argued on the same basis (Appeal Br.
17—19) and dependent claims 2—10, 12—20, 22—26, and 30-33, not separately
argued.
(B) Official Notice
The Examiner takes Official Notice of certain well-known facts to
reject claims 34—39. Appellants argue that the use of Official Notice is
improper, as no basis has been provided for the facts of which Official
Notice has been taken. (Appeal Br. 21—22.)
Appellants’ challenge to the Official Notice as to the old and well-
known tracking of the time taken for two users to traverse a path and the
comparison of those times is insufficient to establish error with the
Examiner’s finding. In particular, Appellants have not specifically pointed
out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice including
5
Appeal 2016-003162
Application 12/019,035
stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or
well-known in the art. An adequate traverse must contain adequate
information or argument to create on its face a reasonable doubt regarding
the circumstances justifying Examiner’s notice of what is well known to one
of ordinary skill in the art. In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728 (CCPA 1971).
That has not been done here. When an Appellant does not seasonably
traverse a well-known statement during examination, the object of the well-
known statement is taken to be admitted prior art. In re Chevenard, 139
F.2d711, 713 (CCPA 1943).
Although Appellants argue that the Examiner must provide an
affidavit or declaration to support the finding (Appeal Br. 22), citing the
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2144.03, this is only true
when the Appellants have adequately traversed the assertion of Official
Notice. As this has not occurred, no affidavit or declaration in support is
required.
Additionally, although the Appellants make arguments regarding
improper use of hindsight in the rejection of claim 34 (Appeal Br. 20—21),
these arguments are more directed towards the facts of which the Examiner
has taken Official Notice, rather than any hindsight used in a combination of
the various teachings and suggestions of the prior art and facts for which
Official Notice was taken.
Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 34,
or claims 35—39, argued on the same basis (Appeal Br. 21—22).
6
Appeal 2016-003162
Application 12/019,035
Conclusion
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims
1-39.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—39 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv), no time period for taking any
subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended.
AFFIRMED
7