Ex Parte Gutierrez et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 5, 201613160667 (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/160,667 06/15/2011 74701 7590 05/09/2016 ADDMG - Harris 255 S ORANGE A VENUE SUITE 1401 ORLANDO, FL 32801 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Guillermo E. Gutierrez 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. HITS-003 (64030) 3821 EXAMINER GILLESPIE, NICOLE K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2616 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/09/2016 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): creganoa@addmg.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte J. GUILLERMO E. GUTIERREZ, GILBERT CHRISTOPHER DUNCAN, and BELINDA R. VILLEGAS Appeal2014-009798 Application 13/160,667 Technology Center 2600 Before JASON V. MORGAN, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal2014-009798 Application 13/160,667 Il'IJVENTION Appellants' invention "relates to the field of communications systems, and, more particularly, to communications systems for manipulating three dimensional geospatial models and related methods." Spec. iJ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013) (representative claims). 1. A communications system comprising: an image data server having a scalable level of functionality and configured to store a three dimensional (3D) geospatial model, and generate a series of two dimensional (2D) images corresponding to different vantage points for a given area of the 3D geospatial model; and a mobile electronic device having a fixed level of functionality configured to cooperate with said image data server and comprising a display, and a processor coupled to said display and configured to scale the scalable level of functionality of said image data server based upon the fixed level of functionality of said mobile electronic device, present an initial image from the series of 2D images on said display corresponding to an initial vantage point, permit selection of a next vantage point, and display a next image of the series of 2D images on said display corresponding to the next vantage point. 2 Appeal2014-009798 Application 13/160,667 REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1-7 and 10-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Zhu (US 2010/0215 250 A 1; Aug. 26, 2010) and Tosun (US 2010/0171756 Al; July 8, 2010). Final Act. 2-10. Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Zhu, Tosun, and Lantrip (US 7,555,496B1; June 30, 2009). Final Act. 10-12. ISSUE Appellants' contentions present the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding Tosun teaches a mobile electronic device having a fixed level of functionality, configured to cooperate with an image data server, and configured to scale a scalable level of functionality of said image data server based upon the fixed level of functionality, as recited in representative claim 1? ANALYSIS Appellants contend the Examiner has not established that Tosun teaches or suggests representative claim l's mobile electronic device having a fixed level of functionality, configured to cooperate with an image data server, and configured to scale a scalable level of functionality of said image data server based upon the fixed level of functionality. App. Br. 7-1 O; Reply Br. 2-4. Appellants particularly argue that Tosun's mobile device does not perform any part of-and thus fails to cooperate in-Tosun's cited scaling of a map image. Id. Appellants argue in the Appeal Brief: 3 Appeal2014-009798 Application 13/160,667 Each of the independent claims recites that the image data server has a scalable level of functionality and the model [sic] electronic device has a fixed level of functionality, and the processor in the mobile electronic device cooperates with the image data server to scale the scalable level of functionality of the image data server based upon the fixed level of functionality of the mobile electronic device. In the Office Action, the Examiner acknowledged that the Zhu reference lacks any teaching of such a feature. The Examiner specifically relied on Tosun et al. as allegedly disclosing this feature of the claimed embodiments. [Tosun's] proxy server receives a request for mapping information from the handheld device, and the proxy server identifies the requesting handheld device. Based on identification of the handheld device, the proxy server will scale the map accordingly. Notably, the handheld device in Tosun et al. does not cooperate with the image data server to scale the map, as in the claimed embodiments. Instead, the scaling ... is initiated by the proxy server .... App. Br. 7-9. And, Appellants similarly state in the Reply Brief: "[T]he proxy server receives a request for mapping information from the handheld device, and the proxy server identifies the requesting handheld device. Based on identification of the handheld device, the proxy server will scale the map accordingly[.]" Reply Br. 2-3. We are not persuaded of error. Appellants' arguments address Tosun alone; whereas the Examiner applies a combination of Zhu's and Tosun's teachings against claim l's cooperating and scaling. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) ("[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by 4 Appeal2014-009798 Application 13/160,667 attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references."). In applying the combination, the Examiner particularly reads claim l's cooperating on Zhu's teachings of a mobile device communicating with a server; and claim l's scaling on Tosun's teachings of a mobile device requesting a server to generate a map image in accordance with the device's display capabilities. Ans. 3-4 (citing Zhu iJ 37 and Tosun iJ 19), 12-13 (citing Tosun iii! 4, 16). Moreover, we observe Tosun's cited disclosures teaches the cooperating and scaling insofar the mobile device provides (via the request) information identifying fixed display capabilities of the device and thereby dictates scaling of the map image by the proxy/image server 18, 26. See Tosun iii! 15-19; see also Ans. 4 (citing Tosun iJ 19), 12-13 (citing Tosun iii! 4, 16). For the foregoing reasons, Appellants do not persuade us that the Examiner erred. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of: (1) independent claim l; (2) independent claims 11, 15, and 18, argued together with claim l; and (3) dependent claims 2-10, 12-14, 16, 17, and 19-23, which are not argued. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-23 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation