Ex Parte Granger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 12, 2017

13613617 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 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.
13/613,617 09/13/2012 Thomas Benjamin Granger 51026-P198US 3164
120607 7590
Winstead PC (IF)
P.O. Box 131851
Dallas, TX 75313-1851
EXAMINER
GRIJALVA LOB OS, BORIS D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2446
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/14/2017 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):
ifdocket @ winstead. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS BENJAMIN GRANGER and
THOMAS GRANGER
Appeal 2017-006814
Application 13/613,617
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, BETH Z. SHAW, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-006814
Application 13/613,617
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Representative Claims
Representative claims 1 and 28 under appeal reads as follows
(bracketing and emphasis added):
1. A personal safety communications system comprising
a plurality of user terminals belonging to a plurality of
individual users and being interconnected via one or more
networks, the system including the user terminals including an
alert management apparatus, the alert management apparatus
comprising:
[A.] a relationship database for storing a set of
dependant-guardian relationships among users of said user
terminals, wherein the set of dependant-guardian relationships
is user-defined and designates at least one other user as a
guardian of the user,
[B.] an alert initiation interface by which a first user
having one or more designated guardians can use their user
terminal to initiate an alert situation and to indicate their
location;
[C.] a guardian response interface responsive to initiation
of said alert situation for providing to the one or more user-
defined guardians via their user terminals, notification of the
alert including an indication of the location of the first user and
for receiving, from the one or more user-defined guardians, an
indication whether they will attend or not attend to assist the
first user;
[D.] in the event that they will attend, receiving from the
user-defined guardian’s user terminal, an indication of the user-
defined guardian’s location; and
2
Appeal 2017-006814
Application 13/613,617
[E.] a situation monitoring interface for informing the
first user of the identity and location of the one or more user-
defined guardians who have indicated they will attend.
28. A computer program product for configuring a
programmable user terminal device to implement the user
terminal functions of the alert management apparatus in a
personal safety communication system as claimed in claim 19.
Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 28 and 30 under 35U.S.C. § 101
because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.1
The Examiner rejected claims 1-8, 10, 11, and 13-30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Haney (US
7,353,034 B2; Apr. 1, 2008) and Barash et al. (US 2011/0117878 Al; May
19, 2011).2
The Examiner rejected claims 9 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over various combinations of Haney, Barash, and other
prior art references.3
1 Arguments are not presented for the § 101 rejection of claims 28 and 30.
We affirm pro forma the Examiner’s § 101. Except for our ultimate
decision, this rejection is not discussed further herein.
2 We select claim 1 as representative. Separate patentability is not argued
for claims 2-8, 10, 11, and 13-30. Except for our ultimate decision, the
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 2-8, 10, 11, and 13-30 is not discussed further
herein.
3 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 9 and 12. Appellants merely
reference the arguments for claim 1. App. Br. 9. Therefore, our decision as
to these rejections turn on our decision as to claim 1. Except for our
ultimate decision, these rejections of these claims are not discussed further
herein.
3
Appeal 2017-006814
Application 13/613,617
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
Appeal Brief arguments (Appeal Brief) that the Examiner has erred.
A
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 because:
While Haney discloses location sharing, there is no disclosure in
Haney of contacting at least one individual that has been selected
by the user to be contacted in an emergency situation.
App. Br. 6.
The Examiner responds:
[T]he embodiment relied upon by the examiner in the rejection
dated 4/8/2015 is substantially different from the embodiment
argued by applicant, in the sense that in the embodiment relied
upon by the examiner a user can designate guardians that respond
to alert messages (Haney, col. 24, lines 46-47 “each user . . . can
define a profile of buddies to which an SOS message is to be
sent[”]), whereas the embodiment argued by the applicant, and
not relied upon by the examiner, the system, and not a user,
designates the guardians (Haney, col. 15, lines 45-57, the system
designates who to send an alert message to).
Ans. 4 (emphasis omitted).
As to Appellants’ contention, we disagree. We agree with the
Examiner that Haney’s teaching of “[ejach user of Buddy Watch can define
a profile of buddies to which an SOS alert is to be sent in the case of
emergency” (Haney, col. 24:46^47), renders obvious “the set of dependent-
4
Appeal 2017-006814
Application 13/613,617
guardian relationships is user defined and designates at least one other user
as a guardian of the user” as claimed. Final Act. 4.
B
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35U.S.C. § 103 because:
While Barash discloses contacting lay responders who are in the
vicinity of the emergency call, there is no disclosure in Barash of
contacting at least one individual that has been selected by a user
to be contacted in an emergency situation.
App. Br. 8. (Emphasis omitted).
As to Appellants’ contention, we disagree. Appellants argue there is
no disclosure in Barash of an emergency contact. App. Br. 8. However, the
Examiner did not cite Barash for the emergency contact limitation. Rather,
the Examiner cited Haney. Final Act. 4. The Examiner relied on Barash to
show (a) an indication whether a guardian will attend or not attend to assist a
first user, (b) receiving from the guardian’s user terminal an indication of the
guardian’s location in the event that they will attend, and (c) wherein the
identity and location of the guardians is informed to the first user when the
guardians indicating they will attend. Final Act. 5.
We conclude that Appellants’ argument does not address the actual
reasoning of the Examiner’s rejections. Instead, Appellants attack the
Barash reference singly for lacking the teachings that the Examiner relied on
a combination of references to show. It is well established that one cannot
show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986). This form of argument is inherently unpersuasive to show
5
Appeal 2017-006814
Application 13/613,617
Examiner error. Our reviewing court requires that references must be read,
not in isolation, but for what they fairly teach in combination with the prior
art as a whole. Id.
C
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35U.S.C. § 103 because:
The cited combination, singularly or in combination, fails to
disclose at least the features of independent claim 1 listed below:
a relationship database for storing a set of
dependant-guardian relationships among users of
said user terminals, wherein the set of dependant-
guardian relationships is user-defined and
designates at least one other user as a guardian of
the user ... a guardian response interface
responsive to initiation of said alert situation for
providing to the one or more user-defined guardians
via their user terminals, notification of the alert
including an indication of the location of the first
user and for receiving, from the one or more user-
defined guardians, an indication whether they will
attend or not attend to assist the first user ... in the
event that they will attend, receiving from the user-
defined guardian’s user terminal, an indication of
the user-defined guardian’s location.
The Applicant-Initiated interview Summary dated April 17,2015
states the following:
During the interview, the examiner submitted that
the argued limitations that are not disclosed by the
secondary reference are disclosed by the primary
reference (for example, page 4 of the Office Action
. . . responders are user defined (Fig. 22, element
252)). [Footnote omitted].
6
Appeal 2017-006814
Application 13/613,617
Appellant respectfully disagrees, and respectfully submits that
Haney does not disclose the features of independent claim 1
listed above.
App. Br. 5.
As to Appellants’ contention, we disagree. Appellants merely recite a
lengthy portion of claim 1 and assert the cited prior art reference does not
disclose the claim features. Without more, this fails to constitute an
argument on the merits. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re Lovin, 652
F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 28 and 30 under
35 U.S.C. § 101, as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
(2) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-30 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) Claims 1-30 are not patentable.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 28 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 101,
as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-30 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7