Ex Parte Hampel et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 12, 201611437152 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 111437, 152 05/19/2006 Karl Georg Hampel 15800 7590 02/16/2016 Condo Roccia Koptiw LLP 1800 JFK Boulevard Suite 1700 Philadelphia, PA 19103 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. 19-17-43 9183 EXAMINER PEREZ, JULIO R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2644 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 02/16/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KARL GEORG HAMPEL, WILLIAM MICHAEL MACDONALD, and VISWANATH POOSALA Appeal2013-008943 Application 11/437,152 Technology Center 2600 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. PETTING, and BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1, 3-6, and 8-22 which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We REVERSE. Appeal2013-008943 Application 11/437,152 THE INVENTION The Appellants' claimed invention is directed to providing location- based message delivery and other services to mobile user devices (Spec. 1, 11. 24--26). Claim 1, reproduced below with the numbering in brackets added, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method of providing location-based services, the method comprising the steps of: [ 1] identifying a plurality of mobile user devices associated with a wireless network that are located within a common geographic area; and [2] delivering location-based service information to the plurality of mobile user devices associated with the wireless network over a broadcast channel shared by said mobile user devices; [3] wherein the delivering step further comprises delivering content summaries to the plurality of mobile user devices over the broadcast channel; [ 4] the method further including the steps of: [5] responsive to delivery of the content summaries over the broadcast channel, receiving from a given one of the mobile user devices a request for particular content associated with a corresponding one of the content summaries; and [ 6] delivering the particular content to the given mobile user device; [7] wherein the request for particular content is automatically generated within the given mobile user device as a function of the delivered content summaries and a location measurement performed by the given mobile user device. THE REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 1, 3---6, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Keronen (US 2003/0003909 Al, pub. Jan. 2, 2003) and Rankin (US 6,879,838 B2, iss. Apr. 12, 2005). 2 Appeal2013-008943 Application 11/437,152 2. Claims 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Keronen, Rankin, and Ives (US 2007/0067267 Al, pub. Mar. 22, 2007). 3. Claims 9, 10, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Keronen, Rankin, and Pihl (US 2002/0077126 Al, pub. June, 20, 2002). FINDINGS OF FACT We have determined that the findings of fact and the Analysis section below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence1. ANALYSIS The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because the cited prior art fails to disclose elements of claim limitation [7] identified above (App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 2, 3). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited claim limitation is found in Rankin at the Abstract; column 1, lines 61---67; column 2, lines 5-15; and Keronen at Figures 3-5, and paras. 27-30 (Final Act. 5; Ans. 3-5). We agree with the Appellants. The cited claim limitation [7] requires: [7] wherein the request for particular content is automatically generated within the given mobile user device as a function of the delivered content summaries and a location measurement performed by the given mobile user device. App. Br. 15 (emphasis added). 1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). 3 Appeal2013-008943 Application 11/437,152 Thus, the claim requires that the request for the particular content is generated as a function of the delivered content summaries and a location measurement performed on the mobile user device. Here, the above citations to the prior art fail to disclose this. For example, Rankin at column 1, lines 61---67 does disclose that a mobile communication device can determine its location and trigger downloading a map. While Rankin, at this portion, does show a location measurement performed by the mobile communication device it fails to specifically disclose that request for particular content is automatically generated as a function that includes the delivered content summaries as required by the cited claim limitation [7]. The other citations to both Rankin and Keronen also fail to disclose the requirement that the request for particular content is automatically generated as a function that includes the delivered content summaries as required by the cited claim limitation [7] as well. For these reasons the rejections of claim 1 and its dependent claims is not sustained. The remaining independent claims 12 and 1 7 contain as similar rejection and the rejection of these claims and their dependent claims is not sustained for the same reasons given above. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejection section above. 4 Appeal2013-008943 Application 11/437,152 DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3---6, and 8-22 is reversed. REVERSED em 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation