Ex Parte Karabinis

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2012

11291192 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/291,192 12/01/2005 Peter D. Karabinis 9301-150 9080
20792 7590 12/19/2012
MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC
PO BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
EXAMINER
HUYNH, CHUCK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2644
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2012 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 PETER D. KARABINIS
____________

Appeal 2010-008560
Application 11/291,192
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before, KEVIN F. TURNER, BRIAN J. McNAMARA and
RAMA G. ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-008560
Application 11/291,192

2

SUMMARY

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10-21, 23-30, 32, 34, 36, and 38-51. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S. C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention concerns location based broadcast messaging for users
of radioterminals (Abstract) in which a broadcast message which includes region
information is received, a determination is made at the radioterminal as to whether
the radioterminal is located in a region of applicability and a functional mode is
activated in response to the determination. (Spec. ¶ [0009]).
Claim 1 is illustrative.
1. A method of operating a radioterminal, the method comprising:
receiving at the radio terminal over a wireless air interface a broadcast
message that comprises region information that defines a geographic region of
applicability;
determining by the radioterminal whether the radioterminal is located in the
region of applicability;
generating a first message from the radioterminal to a user in response to
determining that the radioterminal is within the region of applicability; and
generating a second message, which is different from the first message, from
the radioterminal to the user in response to determining that the radioterminal is
outside the region of applicability.

Appeal 2010-008560
Application 11/291,192

3

THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 6, 10-16, 19-21, 23-30, 32, 34, 38-42, and 45-51 were rejected
under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over US 6,785,551 (“Richard”) in view of
US 7,035,647 (“de Verteuil”).
Claims 8 and 36 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over
Richard in view of de Verteuil as applied to claims 1 and 30 and further in view of
Examiner's official notice.
Claims 17 and 43 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Richard in view of de Verteuil as applied to claims 1 and 30 and
further in view of US Patent Publication 2004/0080454 (“Camp”).
Claims 18 and 44 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over
Richard in view of de Verteuil as applied to claims 1 and 30 and further in view of
"A Cellular Architecture for Supporting Geocast Services," Vehicle Technology
Conference, Sept. 24-28, 2000, Piscataway, NJ, USA, IEEE; vol. 3, pg. 1452-1459
(“Beongku”).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 30
Appellant groups method claim 1 and apparatus claim 30 together, arguing
claim 1 as representative of the group. The Examiner finds that Richard discloses
the particulars of claim 1, including receiving a broadcast message comprising
region information and determining by the radio terminal whether the terminal is
located in the region of applicability. (Ans. 3-4). Noting that Richard is unclear
about generating first and second messages, the Examiner finds that at column 10,
lines 20-30, de Verteuil discloses generating a first message, e.g. “home zone”,
when the radio terminal is within the reach of applicability and generating a second
Appeal 2010-008560
Application 11/291,192

4

message different from the first message when the radio terminal crosses out of a
region of applicability, e.g., “outside home zone.” (Ans. 4, 22-23).
Appellant contends that the combination of Richard and de Verteuil does not
disclose all the features of independent claims 1 and 30 and that Richard teaches
away from the combination. (App. Br. 7). Appellant notes that de Verteuil
describes a cellular system that tracks the location of a mobile unit to determine
whether the mobile unit has moved across a boundary, changing the mobile unit’s
billing rate. (App. Br. 9). Citing col. 10, lines 36-42 of de Verteuil, Appellant
argues that in de Verteuil, the mobile unit receives a non-broadcast message
because the message is addressed only to the targeted mobile and is not relevant to
and cannot be received by any other mobile units within the service area. (Id.,
Reply Br. 3). However, as the Examiner points out, Richard, not de Verteuil, was
cited to disclose a broadcast message. (Ans. 23). The Examiner cited de Verteuil
to disclose generating the claimed first and second messages. (Ans. 22).
Appellant further argues that because de Verteuil’s message is always
applicable to the present billing rate zone, de Verteuil fails to disclose the mobile
unit making any determination to display different text upon receipt of the same
message. (App. Br. 9-10). According to Appellant, in de Verteuil, there is no
information in the message from which the mobile unit can choose to display a
first or second message, so that the message displayed is the message received.
(Id., 11).
Appellant acknowledges that in Richard, a receiver compares a geo-code in
a broadcast message to a logical geographic boundary fence drawn by the receiver
around the geo-code identifying the receiver’s location. (Ap. Br. 10). In Richard,
the broadcast message includes regionally relevant data (col. 2, ll. 41-44) that is
processed at the receiver to be passed to a presentation module for various output
Appeal 2010-008560
Application 11/291,192

5

devices, such as a video/text display and speakers. (Col. 6, ll. 50-52). Appellant
notes that in Richard, when the geo-code in the broadcast message is within the
fence, the message is kept and processed, otherwise, the message is not kept and
processed. (Id.). According to Appellant, discarding the message in Richard
teaches away from the claimed features of generating a first message if the receiver
is inside the region of applicability and generating a second message if the receiver
is outside the region of applicability. (App. Br. 11).
Claim 1 broadly recites generating different first and second messages from
the radioterminal in response to the radioterminal’s determining that it is inside or
outside a region of applicability. Claim 30 broadly recites that the radioterminal
comprises a controller that is configured to determine whether the radio terminal is
located in the region of applicability and to generate a first message in response to
determining that the radioterminal is within the region of applicability and to
generate a second, different message, in response to determining that the
radioterminal is outside the region of applicability of the broadcast message.
We agree with the Examiner that Richard discloses the particulars of claim
1. In Richard, the receiver determines its location from the geo-code, receives a
broadcast message including a geo-code, determines if the geo-code received in the
broadcast message indicates that the receiver is in the same region and, based upon
the result, the receiver takes one of two steps – the receiver either process the
message to present it to the user or does not fully process the message. We do not
agree with Appellant’s assertion that Richard “teaches away” from the claimed
invention because it does not further process a received packet with a geo-code
outside the boundary fence. (App. Br. 11). The decision to not process a message
with a geo-code corresponding to an area outside the logical fence does not
preclude the user from being presented with a different message, since Richard
Appeal 2010-008560
Application 11/291,192

6

discloses a dynamic system which permits multiple broadcast messages with
different geo-codes. (Col. 5, ll. 25-30, col. 6, ll. 24-41). Thus, Richard does not
preclude the receiver from generating a second different message if the
radioterminal determines that it is not within the region of applicability of a
particular broadcast message. Even if this were not the case, de Verteuil discloses
a receiver which displays different messages depending upon whether the receiver
is located in one geographic area or another. In view of de Verteuil, providing the
user of Richard’s system different messages depending on whether the receiver is
inside or outside a geographic area of interest is a combination of familiar elements
with predictable results. See, KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417
(2007).
Thus, giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, we conclude
that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1 and 30 as obvious over Richard
in view of de Verteuil and we affirm the rejection.
Claims 4, 11, 12 and 32
Appellant groups method claims 4, 11, 12 and apparatus claim 32 together,
arguing claim 4 as representative of the group. Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and
recites displaying different messages based on first and second payload
information defined by the broadcast message in response to the radioterminal’s
determining whether the radioterminal is outside the applicable area. Appellant
argues claim 4 requires that the radioterminal displays different messages defined
in the same received broadcast message (Reply Br. 6, emphasis added), while in de
Verteuil, the non-broadcasted message is either “home zone” or “outside home
zone,” but not both. (App. Br. 12). Thus, Appellant contends that de Verteuil does
not describe or suggest that the non-broadcast message can contain a plurality of
different payloads. (Id.).
Appeal 2010-008560
Application 11/291,192

7

We agree that neither Richard nor de Verteuil discloses that the broadcast
message includes different payload information to be displayed depending upon
whether the radioterminal determines it is located in the region of applicability.
Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 4, 11, 12 and 32.
Claims 6 and 34
Appellant groups method claim 6 and apparatus claim 32 together, arguing
claim 6 as representative of the group. Claim 6, which depends from claim 1,
recites that generating the first and second messages comprises generating different
audible announcements. However, unlike claim 4, claim 6 is not limited to a
broadcast message that includes different payload information to be provided
depending upon whether the radioterminal determines it is located in the region of
applicability. Appellant’s arguments concerning claim 6 repeat the arguments
offered with respect to claim 1. (App. Br. 13-14). We affirm the rejection of
claims 6 and 34 for the same reasons as our affirmance of the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 27 and 49
Appellant groups claims 27 and 49 together, arguing claim 27 as
representative of the group. Claim 27 depends from claim 26, which depends from
claim 1. Claim 27 recites that the broadcast information includes payload
information, displaying the payload information corresponding to the area of
applicability, storing in non-volatile memory within the radioterminal at least a
portion of the payload information and the associated region not being displayed in
response to a determination that the radioterminal is outside the region of
applicability and retrieving and displaying the stored payload information in
response to the radioterminal becoming within the area of applicability. (Claim
27). The Examiner finds that Richard discloses retrieving stored payload
information from non-volatile memory and displaying it, performing the intended
Appeal 2010-008560
Application 11/291,192

8

functional mode, and regional geo-codes and information before filtering. (Ans.
12). The Examiner does not specifically address whether Richard discloses storing
in non-volatile memory in the receiver a portion of the payload information not
being displayed because that portion of the payload information corresponds to a
region outside the region of applicability and retrieving and displaying that portion
of the payload information when the receiver enters the region of applicability.
Since we do not find these features of claims 27 and 34 disclosed in Richard or de
Verteuil, we reverse the rejection of claims 27 and 34.
Claims 29 and 51
Appellant groups method claim 29 and apparatus claim 51 together, arguing
claim 29 as representative of the group. Claim 29 depends from claim 28. Claim
29 recites features similar to those of claim 27, except that an audible
announcement is generated. For the same reasons we reverse the rejection of claim
27, we reverse the rejection of claims 29 and 51.
Claims 8, 10, 13, 16-26, 28, 30, 36, 38-48 and 50
Having affirmed the rejection of the independent claims from which
dependent claims 8, 10, 13, 16-26, 28, 30, 36, 38-48 and 50 directly or indirectly
depend, and because Appellant have presented no further arguments with respect
to the patentability of these claims, we affirm the rejection of claims 8, 10, 13, 16-
26, 28, 30, 36, 38-48 and 50.

ORDER
The rejection of claims 1, 6, 8, 10, 13-16, 19-21, 23-26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36,
38-42, and 45-48, and 50 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over Richard in
view of de Verteuil is affirmed.
Appeal 2010-008560
Application 11/291,192

9

The rejection of claims 4, 6, 11, 12, 27, 29, 32, 49 and 51 under 35 U.S.C.
103(a) as unpatentable over Richard in view of de Verteuil is reversed.
The rejection of claims 8 and 36 were under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
unpatentable over Richard in view of de Verteuil and further in view of Examiner's
official notice is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 17 and 43 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Richard in view of de Verteuil and further in view of Camp is
affirmed.
The rejection of claims 18 and 44 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable
over Richard in view of de Verteuil and further in view of Beongku is 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

cu