Ex Parte Foster

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

13455622 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/455,622 04/25/2012
10949 7590 10/03/2016
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Nick Foster
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.
042933/418709 4019
EXAMINER
FANG,PAKEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2642
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NICK FOSTER
Appeal2015-005968
Application 13/455,622 1
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1, 3---6, 8, 9, 11, and 14--22. Claims 2, 7, 10, 12, and 13
are cancelled. (Appeal Br. 12-14.) These are all the claims pending in the
case. (Final Action 2.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(l).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Nokia Corporation as the real party in interest.
(Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal2015-005968
Application 13/455,622
Invention
Appellant's invention relates to the prioritization of contact entries on
an electronic device. Based on the location of the electronic device and the
location of a contact associated with a contact entry, location matches are
determined. Contract entries are then prioritized based on the location
match. (Abstract.)
Representative Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized~ is
representative:
1. An apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory including computer program code,
the at least one memory and the computer program code
configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus
to perform at least the following:
enable determination of a location match between a
location of an electronic device and a location of a contact, the
contact associated with a contact entry for the electronic device,
and
enable the contact entry to be prioritized based on the
location match, wherein one or more of the following conditions
is true:
the location of the electronic device used in the
location match is a future location of the electronic device
determined from a calendar event associated with the
electronic device; or
the location of the contact used in the location
match is the future location of the contact determined from
location data provided by an apparatus associated with
the contact of the contact entry.
2
Appeal2015-005968
Application 13/455,622
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9, 11, and 15-22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Angiolillo (US 2010/0330972 Al; pub.
Dec. 30, 2010) and Hans et al. (US 2011/0194682 Al; pub. Aug. 11, 2011).
(Final Action 2-9.)
The Examiner rejects claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Angiolillo, Hans, and Mock et al. (US 2004/0128151 Al;
pub. July 1, 2004.) (Final Action 9.)
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Angiolillo and Hans discloses the disputed limitation of claim 1 conditioning
enablement of contact entry prioritization on the occurrence of the at least
one of the two recited conditions. (Appeal Br. 7-11; Reply Br. 1--4.)
The Examiner finds Hans discloses the disputed limitation. (Final
Action 2--4; Answer 3-5.) Hans provides a user with a predictive contact
list, and selects contacts to include on such a list based on a determined
probability regarding a user and a contact. (Hans Abstract, i-f 11.) The
probability is determined based on "location information of the user and
location information associated with contacts in a contact list; distance to a
particular location; time, both absolute and relative to times associated with
calendar entries, and the like." (Id.) Hans further discloses "geographic
locations visited by [a user's] contact can ... be logged in memory," (id. i-f
33), and that a prediction of a high probability for a contact may be based on
past events, such as a call or meeting at a restaurant that occurred on
approximately the same date in prior years (id. i-f 42.)
3
Appeal2015-005968
Application 13/455,622
Appellant argues that, although Hans discloses the use of future
calendar events, "this is only to predict the 'imminence of events' to reduce
the number of contract entries gathered in a previous step" and is used to
"filter down a previous prediction." (Appeal Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 1-3.)
Appellant additionally argues "Hans' teachings in relation to future calendar
events are solely related to how soon the future calendar event is" and not to
a calculation of a distance between locations. (Appeal Br. at 8-9; Reply Br.
3.) Appellant contends Hans' "central tenet" is "looking at historical aspects
and not looking at future issues" and that this is supported by Hans'
discussion of events and location in the past tense. (Appeal Br. 9-10; Reply
Br. 3--4.)
With respect to Appellant's argument that Hans discloses the use of
future calendar events only to determine temporal imminence of events or to
filter down previous predictions, we note that the disputed limitation
requires that "a future location of the electronic device [be] determined from
a calendar event associated with the electronic device." In the absence of
limiting claim recitation or explicit definition of the disputed technology, we
find a broadest reasonable broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
language in light of the specification does not require that the calendar event
used to determine the future location of the electronic device be a future
calendar event. As Appellant admits (Appeal Br. 9-10), in Hans "historical
aspects" of events are used in determining prioritization of contacts. Thus,
past events, e.g., the disclosed use of annual birthday celebrations at a
specific restaurant in the past, are used to predict the probability of
proximity to a contact in the future. (See, e.g., Hans i-fi-1 42, 47--48.) Thus, as
Appellant's argument regarding Hans' lack of disclosure regarding "future
4
Appeal2015-005968
Application 13/455,622
calendar events" is not commensurate in scope with the claim and the
disclosure of Hans, in combination with Angiolillo, teaches or suggests the
disputed limitation, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
For the reasons discussed, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1, 17, 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and of dependent
claims 3---6, 8, 9, 11, and 14--16, and 19-22, argued on the same basis.
(Appeal Br. 11.)
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9, 11,
and 15-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Angiolillo and
Hans.
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Angiolillo, Hans, and Mock.
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
5