Ex Parte Gargi

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 30, 2012

11049925 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ULLAS GARGI
____________

Appeal 2012-002174
Application 11/049,925
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and
JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.

LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ullas Gargi (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
final rejection of claims 56-88. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2002).

Appeal 2012-002174
Application 11/049,925

2
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.1

THE INVENTION
Claim 56, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
56. A system comprising:
a plurality of beacons to provide location information to a
client, the location information indicating a current location of the
client;
a location verification system to verify the current location of
the client;
a media storage system to receive a request from a client for
content, the request including the location information; and,
a rights management system to determine whether the client is
permitted to receive the content from the media storage system, based
on the location information and based on whether the location
verification system has successfully verified the current location of
the client,
wherein responsive to the rights management system
determining that the client is permitted to receive the content from the
media storage system, the media storage system is to transmit the
content to the client,
and wherein responsive to the rights management system
determining that the client is not permitted to receive the content from
the media storage system, the media storage system is not to transmit
the content to the client.

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Apr. 7, 2011) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Sep. 26, 2011)
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed Jul. 27, 2011).
Appeal 2012-002174
Application 11/049,925

3
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Neher
Vesuna
Glick ‘588
Glick ‘254
US 6,362,778 B2
US 2005/0243781 A1
US 6,985,588 B1
US 7,120,254 B2
Mar. 26, 2002
Nov. 3, 2005
Jan. 10, 2006
Oct. 10, 2006
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 56-88 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being anticipated
by Glick ‘254.
2. Claims 56-88 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable
over Glick ‘588 and Neher.
3. Claims 60, 71, and 82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Glick ‘588, Neher, and Vesuna.

ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 56-88 under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being anticipated
by Glick ‘254.
The Appellant argued claims 56-88 as a group (App. Br. 5). We
select claim 56 as the representative claim for this group, and the remaining
claims 57-88 stand or fall with claim 56. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2007).
The issue is straightforward. Does Glick ‘254 expressly describe “a
location verification system to verify the current location of the client”
(claim 56) – this being the only argument raised by the Appellant to
challenge the rejection.
The facts are not in dispute. Both the Examiner and the Appellant
take the view that Glick ‘254 describes determining whether an appliance’s
Appeal 2012-002174
Application 11/049,925

4
location is consistent with a region defined by a stored location identity.
Col. 9, ll. 25-37 of Glick ‘254, reproduced below, supports the view:
At step 224, the method determines the location of the appliance
accessing the digital information. As will be described
below, there are numerous possible ways to determine the
appliance location 160. The appliance location 160 is stored
for further use in the method. At step 226, the method
determines whether the location of the appliance is consistent
with the region defined by the location identity 140. If the appliance
location 160 is consistent with the location identity 140, then access to
the geolocked digital information 218 is allowed at step 228.
Conversely, if the appliance location 160 is not consistent with the
location identity 140, then access is denied at step 230.
See Answer 11 and App. Br. 5.
The dispute is over whether “a location verification system to verify
the current location of the client” (claim 56) reads on the Glick ‘254
disclosure of “determin[ing] whether the location of the appliance is
consistent with the region defined by the location identity.”
The Specification does not appear to provide a definition for
“verification.” Nor has the Appellant directed us to one. The Specification
does describe a location verification system (Specification [0025]) but the
precise mechanism by which the verification must necessarily be performed
remains unexplained. Accordingly, the ordinary and customary meaning for
“verification” will be used. In that regard, the ordinary and customary
meaning of “verification” is “establishment or confirmation of the truth or
accuracy of a fact.” (See WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY 1482 (3rd Ed.
1988.)(Entry for “verification.”) Accordingly, given this meaning, the claim
limitation at issue is reasonably broadly construed to cover a system to
establish the accuracy of the current location of the client (e.g., media
playback appliance, see Specification [0019]).
Appeal 2012-002174
Application 11/049,925

5
Turning now to Glick ‘254, it describes determining if appliance
location 160 is consistent with the location identity 140; that is, a
comparison is made between location 160 and location identity 140.
Location identity 140 “precisely defines the region in which access or
playback of the digital information will be allowed” (col. 8, ll. 28-31) and
location 160, which is the actual location of the appliance, can be
determined in any number of ways (col. 9, ll. 25-30). Thus, when appliance
location 160 is compared to the location identity 140 and determined to be
consistent, the fact that the appliance is located at location identity 140
“establish[es] or confirm[s] the truth or accuracy of [the] fact” that the
appliance is located at location identity 140; in other words, the fact that the
appliance is located at location identity 140 is “verified.”
Accordingly, Glick ‘254 indeed describes “a location verification
system to verify the current location of the client” (claim 56) as that
limitation is reasonably broadly construed.
The Appellant argues that Glick does not verify the client’s location
because a client can be nefarious and manipulate location information.
Reply Br. 2. This is not a persuasive argument as to error in the rejection.
The claimed subject matter is not limited so as to include an element
functioning to further determine the veracity of the verified location. The
claimed subject matter reasonably broadly covers “verify[ing] the current
location of the client,” whether or not the current location is in fact correctly
identified.
No other arguments remaining, for the foregoing reasons, the rejection
is affirmed.

Appeal 2012-002174
Application 11/049,925

6
The rejection of claims 56-88 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Glick ‘588 and Neher.
The rejection of claims 60, 71, and 82 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Glick ‘588, Neher, and Vesuna.
These rejections are also affirmed. The Appellant relies on the
argument made in challenging the rejection of claim 56 to challenge these
rejections with respect to Glick ‘588, which also discloses determining if
appliance location 160 is consistent with the location identity 140; that is, a
comparison is made between location 160 and location identity 140. See
col. 8, ll. 16-35. App. Br. 3-4. For the foregoing reasons, the argument is
unpersuasive as to error in the rejections.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 56-88 is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

mls