Ex Parte Jennings et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 13, 2016

13613666 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/613,666 09/13/2012 Kenneth Jennings
119000 7590 06/13/2016
Concert Technology Corporation
5400 Trinity Road, Suite 303
SUITE 160
Raleigh, NC 27607
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.
CT-CRD-012C/US
(P480C)
EXAMINER
RECEK, JASON D
9743
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2458
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/13/2016 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 KENNETH JENNINGS,
CHRISTOPHER M. AMIDON,
and RA VI REDDY KATPELL Y
Appeal2014-008453
Application 13/613,666
Technology Center 2400
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, 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 final
rejection of claims 1, and 10-20. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ). We reverse.
We have reviewed Appellants' contentions in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, the Examiner's response to Appellants' contentions,
and the evidence of record. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner
errs in finding Sano (US 2009/0115617 Al; May 7, 2009) discloses
iteratively identifYing crowds for a series of two or more outwardly
1 Claims 3-9 are allowed. Adv. Act. 1.
Appeal2014-008453
Application 13/613,666
radiating, differently sized, concentric geographic regions ("iteratively
identifying" limitation), as set forth in independent claim 1 and
commensurately set forth in independent claims 19 and 20.
The Examiner finds Sano discloses identifying crowds for two or
more concentric regions because Sano describes identifying crowds for
multiple positions ("two or more" regions) that are centered at a user's
position (concentric). Final Act. 4--5 (citing Sano Fig. 23; i-fi-f 12-13, 34, 71,
355-357); see also Ans. 6-7. The Examiner finds Sano discloses the
regions can be differently sized because the area range can be set. Final Act.
5 (citing Sano i1355). The Examiner also finds Sano describes updating a
search and therefore discloses a series of two or more since the crowd
identification procedure is performed more than once. Ans. 7 (citing Sano
Fig. 19, i-fi-f 336-339).
The cited sections of Sano describe a user may specify an area range
for a iocation where peopie are gathering reiative to the user's current
position (e.g., within a radius of x km, within the same city). Crowd
information is generated for different positions 34A, 34B within the area
range. Sano Fig. 23; i-fi-134, 356. We agree with Appellants (Reply Br. 3)
that the different positions 34A, 34B described in Sano do not share the
same center and are thus not concentric. To the extent the Examiner may be
relying on multiple searches to inherently disclose the claimed series of two
or more differently sized, concentric regions, the cited section of Sano
merely describe updating the search if conditions have changed (Sano Fig.
19, i-fi-1337-339) and is not sufficient to establish Sano necessarily discloses
the second search is for a differently sized region concentric with the first
search. See In re Oelrich, 666 F .2d 578, 581 (CCP A 1981) ("Inherency,
2
Appeal2014-008453
Application 13/613,666
however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere
fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not
sufficient.").
Appellants persuade us the Examiner has not established that Sano
discloses the "iteratively identifying" limitation. The Examiner does not
rely on the additional reference of record, Stewart (US 2011/0136506 Al;
June 9, 2011), teaches or suggest this limitation. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of
independent claims 1, 19, and 20, and dependent claims 2 and 10-18.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 10-20.
REVERSED
3