Ex Parte LowndesDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 22, 201713747663 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2017) Copy Citation 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 INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/747,663 01/23/2013 TIMOTHY A. LOWNDES MPCS-31427 4695 25883 7590 06/26/2017 HOWISON & ARNOTT, L.L.P P.O. BOX 741715 DALLAS, TX 75374-1715 EXAMINER SALVUCCI, MATTHEW D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2613 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/26/2017 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): patents @ dalpat.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TIMOTHY A. LOWNDES Appeal 2017-000788 Application 13/747,6631 Technology Center 2600 Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, SHARON FENICK, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—3, 6—10, 13—17, 20-22, 24, 25, and 27—30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to plotting of cell towers and call data records on a map to provide a graphical representation of the towers and associated 1 Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Br.”) identifies the real party in interest as MetroPCS Wireless, Inc. Br. 6. Appeal 2017-000788 Application 13/747,663 sectors. Spec. 11. Claim 1, reproduced below with argued limitations in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An apparatus, comprising: a non-transitory, computer readable storage medium containing a set of instructions for a general purpose computer, wherein execution of the set of instructions by the general purpose computer configures the general purpose computer to: determine a position of at least one cell tower on a map responsive to data indicating a position of the cell tower; determine boundaries associated with a plurality of sectors associated with the at least one cell tower responsive to an azimuth associated with each of the plurality of sectors; receive network based historical call data record data generated by a cellular network describing historical information with respect to at least one historical call event, the historical call record data originating from a cellular handset usage activity comprising at least one of general packet radio service (GPRS) data, or call detail records (CDR); determine historical call information related to the at least one historical call event responsive to the at least one network based historical call data record data generated by the cellular network relating to the cellular handset usage activity related to the historical call event; generate a plot of the map including the at least one cell tower and the boundaries associated with the plurality of sectors associated with the at least one cell tower marked on the map and the plot of the map further including the historical call information of the at least one historical call event located on the map. App. Br. 28 (Claims Appendix). 2 Appeal 2017-000788 Application 13/747,663 REJECTIONS Claims 1—3, 6—10, 13—17, 20-22, 24, 25, and 27—30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Culpepper (US 2011/0156901 Al, published June 30, 2011) and Hazzani (US 2011/0069172 Al, published May 24, 2011). Final Act. 5. ISSUES First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the cited combination teaches or suggests “at least one of general packet radio service (GPRS) data, or call detail records (CDR),” and “the plot of the map further including the historical call information of the at least one historical call event located on the map,” as recited in claim 1? Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Culpepper and Hazzani are properly combinable? ANALYSIS First Issue Appellant contends the cited combination does not teach or suggest “at least one of general packet radio service (GPRS) data, or call detail records (CDR),” as recited in claim 1. The Examiner relies on Hazzani, finding that it teaches the use of call detail records (CDRs) and corresponding locations in a CDR/location database. Final Act. 3^4 (citing Hazzani 136). Appellant argues although “the Hazzani reference describes GPRS data and CDR data, it does not disclose determining historical call information from the GPRS data or CDR data and then plotting on a map the 3 Appeal 2017-000788 Application 13/747,663 determined historical call information that has been generated from the GPRS data or CDR data.” Br. 24. According to Appellant, “the . . . fact that there is a disclosure of GPRS data and CDR data within the Hazzani reference and that there is a disclosure of the generation of a map showing a current call location does not inherently tie the displayed current call location to the previously discussed GPRS data and CDR data.” Id. at 24— 25. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Appellant does not dispute that Hazzani teaches the recited call detail records. Id. at 24 (“Hazzani reference describes . . . CDR data”). Rather, Appellant disputes that those call detail records are used as “historical call data” and included on the plot of the map. We disagree. Hazzani teaches that “PSAP 36 stores Call Detail Records (CDRs) of emergency calls and the corresponding locations in a CDR/location database 84.” Hazzani 136. Thus, Hazzani teaches storing CDRs in a database. Because the stored CDRs persist in the database after each call has been completed, we agree with the Examiner that the stored CDRs are historical call data. We also are persuaded by Appellant’s contention that Hazzani’s teachings are limited to plotting current call locations and not historical call data, because non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the combined teachings the references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, it is Culpepper, and not Hazzani, that is relied upon for plotting the map. Ans. 33. As the Examiner explains, “Hazzani is referenced in order to modify the teachings of the Culpepper reference, including the cell tower plotting.” Ans. 33. Thus, Culpepper teaches generating a plot of a map that includes cell towers 4 Appeal 2017-000788 Application 13/747,663 and sectors, while Hazzani shows that it was known to store historical call information in CDRs. It is these combined teachings that render the claim obvious. Because Appellant’s arguments attack Hazzani individually, and because the rejection is based on the combined teachings of Culpepper and Hazzani, we are not persuaded of error. Second Issue In setting forth the proposed combination, the Examiner finds each of Culpepper and Hazzani are analogous art to the claimed invention, as each relates to tracking call location. Ans. 28 (citing Culpepper, Abstract; Hazzani 122). Hazzani, in particular, teaches using call detail records to store historical call data and call locations. The Examiner further finds Hazzani provides a specific suggestion to combine its teachings with those of Culpepper because it teaches the use of a point of interest recognition process in a PSAP which provides greater location accuracy. Ans. 29 (citing Hazzani 136). Appellant contends the Examiner has failed to provide a sufficient motivation to combine the references because “[tjhere [has] only been provided a conclusory statement that one could perform the recited combination without any discussion of why such a combination would be suggested from the disclosure of each of the references.” Br. 22. More specifically, Appellant argues: In this case, the Examiner has stated that it was obvious to modify a reference to show a limitation in order to achieve a particular goal. However there is no discussion as to whether this goal is suggested by either of the references but is merely a means to insert the limitation into a reference based on the blueprint established by Applicant’s claim language and not by the teaching of the references being utilized. 5 Appeal 2017-000788 Application 13/747,663 Br. 22. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. In KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that “when a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” Id. at 417 (quoting Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976)). Here, the Examiner finds that Culpepper generally teaches that it was known to generate a plot of a map which includes the location of cell towers and cell sector boundaries. Final Act. 7; Ans. 33 (citing Culpepper H 69, 99). The Examiner further finds that Hazzani shows it was known to map call data, and to capture historical call data, including location information, in call detail records. Final Act. 8. In the proposed combination, the use of Culpepper’s plotting function and Hazzani’s CDR database amount to nothing “more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” KSR Int’l Co., 550. U.S. at 417. Moreover, contrary to Appellant’s assertion, the Examiner has pointed to a specific motivation found in Hazzani that would have led a skilled artisan to combine its teachings with those of Culpepper. In particular, the Examiner finds that Culpepper and Hazzani are analogous art because both address the same general problem of tracking the location of devices engaging in wireless communication. We agree with this finding. The Examiner further identifies a specific teaching in Hazzani, namely that location can be established with greater accuracy using collected point of interest information (Hazzani 136), that would have prompted a skilled artisan to supplement the teachings of Culpepper with those of Hazzani, as 6 Appeal 2017-000788 Application 13/747,663 Culpepper could benefit from improved location accuracy. As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner has failed to provide “some articulated reason with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness,” KSR Int’l Co., 550. U.S. at 417, and we find the Examiner has provided a sufficient rationale to support the combination. Summary Because we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of error, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Culpepper and Hazzani. For the same reason, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding independent claims 8 and 15 obvious, as Appellant presents substantially the same arguments for patentability as to those claims. The remaining claims depend from one of independent claims 1,8, and 15. Appellant presents no separate arguments for patentability of those claims. Accordingly, the dependent claims each fall together with their respective independent claims.2 DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3, 6—10, 13—17, 20—22, 24, 25, and 27—30 is affirmed. 2 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider whether or not the claims are eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. §101 in light of recent subject matter eligibility decisions. See, e.g., Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Inf 1, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014). 7 Appeal 2017-000788 Application 13/747,663 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation