Ex Parte Lambert et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2017

14545018 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
14/545,018 03/16/2015 Christopher
78792 7590 09/28/2017
GOOGLE
Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP
600 South Avenue West
Westfield, NJ 07090
INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
Lambert GOOGLE 3.0-009 CON 7064
EXAMINER
BOCCIO, VINCENT F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2158
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2017 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):
eOfficeAction @ ldlkm. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER LAMBERT,
MIKE CHU, and ROHAN SETH
Appeal 2017-005437
Application 14/545,0181
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and MARC S. HOFF,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants’ invention is a method and system for refining a user’s
location. The method includes receiving location signals, from one or more
processors, comprising geographical information associated with the user.
The location signals are associated with geographical tags, temporal
information, and one or more confidence scores within an index. The
1 The real party in interest is Google Inc.
Appeal 2017-005437
Application 14/545,018
processors compare a confidence score associated with the current estimated
location with one or more confidence scores associated with the
geographical tags. If one or more of the geographical tags provides a more
accurate location than the estimated current location, the method selects the
geographical tag with the highest confidence score as a refined current
location of the user. See Abstract; Spec. 40, 51, 55—58.
Claims 1 and 7 are exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A method for refining a user's location, the method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, location signals comprising
geographical information associated with the user;
associating, by the one or more processors, the location signals with
geographical tags, temporal information, and one or more confidence scores
within an index;
receiving, by the one or more processors, a current estimated location
of the user at a current time, wherein the current estimated location
corresponds to a geographical location;
associating, by the one or more processors, a first confidence score
with the current estimated location;
comparing by the one or more processors, the first confidence score to
the one or more confidence scores associated with the geographical tags;
determining, by the one or more processors, based on the comparing,
whether one or more of the one or more geographical tags provides a more
accurate location than the estimated current location at the current time; and
in response to determining that one or more of the one or more
geographical tags provides a more accurate location than the estimated
current location, selecting the geographical tags with the highest confidence
score, over the estimated current location, as a refined current position of the
user.
7. A method for refining physical location information for a place of
interest, comprising:
analyzing at least one electronic database containing information
about one or more activities associated with a person that interacts with one
or more devices, to determine whether the at least one electronic database
includes geographical information for the one or more activities;
2
Appeal 2017-005437
Application 14/545,018
extracting a result set from the at least one electronic database, the
result set including the geographical information;
performing geopoint extraction on the result set to obtain specific
physical locations for each item of geographical information in the result set;
constructing, by a processor, a spatial index containing the specific
physical locations, geographical tags, and time information for one or more
of the specific physical locations;
ranking, by the processor, results in the spatial index to indicate a
confidence in the specific physical locations;
estimating, by the processor, a current location of the person wherein
the current location corresponds to a geographical location;
associating, by the one or more processors, a first confidence score
with the current location;
comparing by the one or more processors, the confidence in the
specific physical locations to the first confidence score;
determining, by the processor, whether one or more of the specific
physical locations provides a more accurate location than the estimated
current location; and
in response to determining that one or more of the specific physical
locations provides a more accurate location than the estimated current
location, selecting the specific physical location with the highest confidence
as a refined current position of the user.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Claims 1—4, 6,1,9, 11, 14—17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brandenberg and Suryanarayana.
Brandenberg
Suryanarayana
Wang
Dupray
US 2003/0063072 A1
US 2004/0162090 A1
US 2009/0258656 A1
US 2006/0276201 A1
Apr. 3, 2003
Aug. 19, 2004
Oct. 15,2009
Dec. 7, 2006
3
Appeal 2017-005437
Application 14/545,018
Claims 5, 10, 12, 13, and 182 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Brandenberg, Suryanarayana, and Wang.
Claims 8 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brandenberg, Suryanarayana, and Dupray.3
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed Sept. 15, 2016), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Feb.
10, 2017), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jan. 11, 2017) for
their respective details.
ISSUE
1. Does the combination of Brandenberg and Suryanarayana disclose
or suggest associating, by one or more processors, the location signals with
geographical tags, temporal information, and one or more confidence scores
within an index?
2. Does the combination of Brandenberg and Suryanarayana disclose
or suggest comparing by the one or more processors, the first confidence
score to the one or more confidence scores associated with the geographical
tags?
3. Does the combination of Brandenberg and Suryanarayana disclose
or suggest constructing a spatial index containing the specific physical
locations, geographical tags, and time information for one or more of the
specific physical locations?
2 The appeal brief refers to claims 20, 22, and 24 also standing rejected on
these grounds. Claims 22 and 24 are not present in this application. The
rejection of claim 20 is discussed with the rejection of claim 1 in the Final
Action. Final Act. 13—14.
3 The Examiner has withdrawn the previous § 101 rejection of claims 14—20.
Ans. 2.
4
Appeal 2017-005437
Application 14/545,018
4. Does the combination of Brandenberg and Suryanarayana disclose
or suggest associating a first confidence score with the current location, and
comparing confidence in the specific physical locations to the first
confidence score?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-6 and 14—20
Independent claim 1 recites “associating, by the one or more
processors, the location signals with geographical tags, temporal
information, and one or more confidence scores within an index,” and
“comparing by the one or more processors, the first confidence score [i.e.,
the one associated with the user’s current location] to the one or more
confidence scores associated with the geographical tags.” Independent claim
14 recites analogous limitations.
The Examiner cites Figures 1C and IE of Brandenberg as disclosing
the claimed association. Final Act. 5; Ans. 3. Figure 1C is an abstract
latitude-longitude plot of several user locations. Figure IE is a table
representation of some types of basic information that can be aggregated or
assembled for a particular user. Brandenberg | 844. This table includes a
confidence column expressing a determination by a software agent of a
confidence level (e.g., “High”, “Medium”, or “Tow” in Figure IE) in the
accuracy of the data element.
In the Final Action, the Examiner finds that Brandenberg discloses
associating location signals with geographical tags. Final Act. 5. The
Examiner cites Figures 1C to IE of Brandenberg in support of that finding.
5
Appeal 2017-005437
Application 14/545,018
We do not agree, however, that Brandenberg teaches the claimed association
between location signals and geographical tags. Figure IE of Brandenberg
only contains a “Region” as geographical information. Figure 1C of
Brandenberg deliberately provides only place names (“home”, “work”,
“school”) rather than precise locations, in an effort to protect the privacy of
the user. Brandenberg Fig. 1C; 1 614; see also App. Br. 8—10.
In the Answer, the Examiner admits that Brandenberg fails to teach
associating the location signals with geographical tags and temporal
information. Ans. 4. The Examiner cites to Suryanarayana, “as applied is
deemed to render obvious, to, ‘generate and index’”, with confidence scores,
where the confidence scores used in the process of, accuracy of estimate,
based on, amount of historical information, improving the accuracy,
including using, thereby determining, highest likelihood or probability, (a
form of Scoring), to determining the current location.” Ans. 4. The Examiner
does not cite to any section of Suryanarayana here. In the Final Action, the
Examiner quotes paragraphs 11 and 31 of Suryanarayana. Final Act. 9—10.
These paragraphs disclose determining a refined current location based on
historic data. “The accuracy of an estimate of a location is commensurate
with the amount of historical information gathered and processed.”
Suryanarayana 111. “The location determination server 30 accesses the
history database storage 32 to determine if there is a history of location data
for the present session of the wireless device.” Suryanarayana
131. “Based on this historical data, a location of highest likelihood or
probability within the range of the current NAP at about the time stamp is
determined, and the current location is estimated to be this location.” Id.
6
Appeal 2017-005437
Application 14/545,018
Despite the Examiner’s analysis, we agree with Appellants’ argument
that Suryanarayana, as well as Brandenberg, fails to disclose or suggest
associating the location signals with geographical tags and temporal
information. Reply Br. 2.
We further agree with Appellants that Suryanarayana fails to disclose
or suggest comparing a first confidence score to one or more confidence
scores associated with the geographic tags, as claimed. App. Br. 10; Reply
Br. 3. First, we agree that the cited references necessarily fail to disclose this
limitation, because they fail to disclose associating location signals with
geographical tags, temporal information, and one or more confidence scores
within an index. App. Br. 8. Second, as discussed supra, the portion of
Suryanarayana relied upon by the Examiner discloses determining a user’s
location more accurately by reference to historical information, not by
comparing the current location’s confidence score to one or more confidence
scores associated with geographic tags and location information provided by
one or more processors, as is claimed. See Suryanarayana 11, 31.
We find that Brandenberg in combination with Suryanarayana fails to
disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention. We do not sustain the
Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 1—4, 6, 14—17, and 20.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of dependent
claims 5 and 18 over Brandenberg, Suryanarayana, and Wang, which
similarly rely upon the combination of Brandenberg, Suryanarayana to teach
the limitation of independent claims 1 and 14.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claim 19
over Brandenberg, Suryanarayana, and Dupray, which similarly rely upon
7
Appeal 2017-005437
Application 14/545,018
the combination of Brandenberg, Suryanarayana to teach the limitation of
independent claim 14..
Claims 7-13
Independent claim 7 recites “performing geopoint extraction on the
result set to obtain specific physical locations for each item of geographical
information in the result set,” “ranking, by the processor, results in the
spatial index to indicate a confidence in the specific physical location,”
“estimating ... a current location of the person,” “associating, by the one or
more processors, a first confidence score with the current location,” and
“comparing by the one or more processors, the confidence in the specific
physical locations to the first confidence score.” We consider these
limitations to correspond to the claim limitations found in independent claim
1 concerning (a) associating location signals with geographical tags,
temporal information, and one or more confidence scores, and (b) comparing
the first confidence score to the one or more confidence scores associated
with the geographical tags.
As with claim 1, the Examiner relies on the disclosure illustrated in
Brandenberg Figures 1C to IE. Ans. 11—12. As we explained in our analysis
of claim 1, supra, Brandenberg provides only a rough indication of “Region”
as geographic information, deliberately obscures other location data to
protect privacy, and fails to disclose associating location signals with
geographical tags, temporal information, and confidence scores.
The Examiner again relies on Suryanarayana as supposedly teaching
“activities or locations, ranked to indicate a confidence in the specific
physical locations ... by comparing, confidence or scores and ranking, one
location over another.” Ans. 13. We agree with Appellants’ argument that
8
Appeal 2017-005437
Application 14/545,018
Suryanarayana fails to supply this teaching. “Rather, as described above,
Suryanarayana states that the ‘location of highest likelihood or probability’
is determined based on the network access point at which a subscriber is
currently connected.” Reply Br. 3; Suryanarayana 131. “Suryanarayana
states that an estimate location is chosen by selecting a location with the
highest likelihood or probability score.” Id. We agree with Appellants that
Suryanarayana fails to teach of suggest comparing the confidence in the
specific physical locations to the first confidence score, as claim 7 requires.
See Reply Br. 3.
We find that Brandenberg in combination with Suryanarayana fails to
disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention. We do not sustain the
Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 7, 9, and 11.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 10,
12, and 13 over Brandenberg, Suryanarayana, and Wang, which similarly
rely upon the combination of Brandenberg, Suryanarayana to teach the
limitation of independent claim 7..
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claim 8
over Brandenberg, Suryanarayana, and Dupray, which similarly rely upon
the combination of Brandenberg, Suryanarayana to teach the limitation of
independent claim 7..
CONCLUSIONS
1. The combination of Brandenberg and Suryanarayana fails to
disclose or suggest associating, by one or more processors, the location
9
Appeal 2017-005437
Application 14/545,018
signals with geographical tags, temporal information, and one or more
confidence scores within an index.
2. The combination of Brandenberg and Suryanarayana fails to
disclose or suggest comparing by the one or more processors, the first
confidence score to the one or more confidence scores associated with the
geographical tags.
3. The combination of Brandenberg and Suryanarayana fails to
disclose or suggest constructing a spatial index containing the specific
physical locations, geographical tags, and time information for one or more
of the specific physical locations.
4. The combination of Brandenberg and Suryanarayana fails to
disclose or suggest associating a first confidence score with the current
location, and comparing confidence in the specific physical locations to the
first confidence score.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
10