Ex Parte Griffin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 16, 2015

12394243 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 16, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JASON T. GRIFFIN and
SHERRYL LEE LORRAINE SCOTT
____________

Appeal 2012-011953
Application 12/394,243
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1–7 and 9–22. Claim 8 has been
canceled. (App. Br. 2.)1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”) filed February 27, 2009;
Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed June 1, 2012; and Reply Brief (Reply Br.”)
filed August 20, 2012. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
mailed June 22, 2012 and Final Office Action (Final Rejection) (“Final
Act.”) mailed February 1, 2012.
Appeal 2012-011953
Application 12/394,243

2

Appellants’ Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns adaptive pedestrian
billboard systems and methods for displaying information to pedestrians
where the system receives position information from mobile communication
devices of pedestrians near the system and determines a density of
pedestrian traffic based on the collected position information. (Spec. ¶¶ 1,
18; Abstract of the Disclosure.)
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. An adaptive pedestrian billboard system comprising:
a display for passing pedestrian traffic;
a memory for storing a plurality of notifications having
different visual feature detail levels; and
a controller configured to cooperate with said display
and said memory to
determine a density of the passing pedestrian
traffic based upon position information collected from
mobile wireless communications devices of the
pedestrians,
select notifications from said memory based upon
the density of the passing pedestrian traffic so that
notifications for higher density passing pedestrian traffic
have lower visual feature detail levels and so that
notifications for lower visual density passing pedestrian
traffic have higher visual feature detail levels, and
display the selected notifications on said display.

Appeal 2012-011953
Application 12/394,243

3

Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4–7, 9, 11, 17, 20, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lyle (US 2007/0257816 A1,
published Nov. 8, 2007) and Myhr (US 2006/0089870 A1, published Apr.
27, 2006).
2. The Examiner rejects claims 2, 3, 12–15, 18, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lyle, Myhr, and Chen (US
2007/0043500 A1, published Feb. 22, 2007).
3. The Examiner rejects claims 10 and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lyle, Myhr, and Teshima (US
2002/0032035 A1, published Mar. 14, 2002).
4. The Examiner rejects claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lyle, Myhr, Chen, and Teshima.

ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants’
contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue
before us follows:
Does the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Lyle and
Myhr collectively would have taught or suggested “a controller configured
to . . . determine a density of the passing pedestrian traffic based upon
position information collected from mobile wireless communications
devices of the pedestrians” within the meaning of Appellants’ claim 1 and
the commensurate limitations of claims 12 and 17?

Appeal 2012-011953
Application 12/394,243

4

ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Lyle and Myhr. (Final Act. 3–4, 9; Ans. 5–6, 11–13.) Appellants
contend, inter alia, that Lyle in combination with Myhr does not teach
determining pedestrian density utilizing collected mobile device position
information. (App. Br. 6–11; Reply Br. 2–3.) Specifically, Appellants
contend that “[n]othing in these portions of Myhr . . . teaches that the
wireless communications 15/7 are used to collect information from
pedestrians, at all, let alone for a determination (e.g. via a controller) of a
density of the passing pedestrian traffic.” (App. Br. 9–10.)
We agree with Appellants that the cited portions of Myhr do not teach
these features. (App. Br. 8–11; Reply Br. 2–3.) While the Examiner is
correct that Myhr describes behavioral and environmental sensors (Fig. 1,
elements 13, 16; ¶¶ 58, 67), wireless communications (Fig. 1, elements 7,
15; ¶ 58), and measuring people density (Fig. 3, element 17; ¶¶ 68, 69),
Myhr doesn’t use the wireless communication links to collect mobile device
position information. Instead, Myhr makes the people density measurements
using a laser or radar sensor (13) within a sector (17). (Myhr, ¶¶ 68, 69; Fig.
3.) As pointed out by Appellants, nothing in Myhr describes collecting
mobile device position data, much less using such data to determine
pedestrian density. (App. Br. 6–11; Reply Br. 2–3.)
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding Lyle and Myhr teach the recited features of
Appellants’ claim 1. Appellants’ independent claims 12 and 17 include
limitations of commensurate scope. Appellants’ dependent claims 2–7, 9–
11, 13–16, and 18–22 depend on and stand with their respective base claims.
Appeal 2012-011953
Application 12/394,243

5

Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–
7 and 9–22.

CONCLUSION
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–
7 and 9–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–7 and 9–22.

REVERSED

llw