Ex Parte Luoma et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 29, 201812147554 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/147,554 06/27/2008 139885 7590 08/31/2018 HERE Global/ Alston & Bird Bank of America Plaza 101 South Tryon Street, Suite 4000 Charlotte, NC 28280-4000 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Kristian Luoma 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. 064359/345184 7138 EXAMINER FIGUEROA, JAIME ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3664 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/31/2018 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): usptomail@alston.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KRISTIAN LUOMA, MIKKO BLOMQVIST, JUKKA ALAKONTIOLA, and MARCEL DUEE Appeal2016-000880 Application 12/147,554 1 Technology Center 3600 Before JASON J. CHUNG, JOYCE CRAIG, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. INVENTION The invention is directed to sharing information regarding the location of a device. Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below with emphasis highlighting the disputed limitation: 1. A method comprising: accessing a name associated with a first point of interest and a first geographic cell associated with the first point of 1 According to Appellants, Nokia Corp. is the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal2016-000880 Application 12/147,554 interest, the first geographic cell including first geographic cell boundaries; receiving location information, the location information describing a location of a device; determining, via a processor, whether the location described by the location information is within the first geographic cell boundaries; associating the device with the first point of interest in response to the location described by the location information being within the first geographic cell boundaries, wherein associating the device with the first point of interest includes associating the device with the first point of interest in response to receiving a user selection of the first point of interest from a selection display interface; and causing the name of the first point of interest to be shared in response to the location described by the location information being within the first geographic cell boundaries. REJECTIONS AT ISSUE2,3 Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for lacking antecedent basis. Final Act. 3. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 2 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should consider the limitation "wherein associating the device with the first point of interest includes associating the device with the first point of interest in response to receiving a user selection of the first point of interest from a selection display interface" recited in claim 1 ( and similarly recited in claims 7, 13, and 19) in light of35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lacking written- description support. 3 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should consider the limitation "wherein associating" recited in claim 1 ( and similarly recited in claims 7, 13, and 19) in light of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for lacking antecedent basis. 2 Appeal2016-000880 Application 12/147,554 § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (CA 2615202 Al; published Dec. 18, 2007). Final Act. 7-12. Claims 2, 8, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Martin and Caspi et al. (US 2005/0079873 Al; published Apr. 14, 2005). Final Act. 12-13. Claims 3, 9, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Martin and Frank et al. (US 2007/0264974 Al; published Nov. 15, 2007). Final Act. 13-14. Claims 6, 12, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Martin and Vellanki et al. (US 2008/0019317 Al; published Jan. 24, 2008). Final Act. 14--17. ANALYSIS Rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph The Examiner concludes claim 1 lacks antecedent basis for the limitation "via the processor." Final Act. 3 ( emphasis in original). Appellants amended claim 1 on December 23, 2013 to recite "via a processor." Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)/103(a) Independent claim 1 recites "causing the name of the first point of interest to be shared in response to the location described by the location information being within the first geographic cell boundaries" ( emphasis added). Independent claims 7, 13, and 19 recite similar features. 3 Appeal2016-000880 Application 12/147,554 The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 19, and 20 under both 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Final Act. 7-12. For purposes of this analysis, we address the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) infra. The Examiner finds Martin teaches User A can share a custom zone with one or more secondary users, which the Examiner maps to the limitation "causing the name of the first point of interest to be shared in response to the location described by the location information being within the first geographic cell boundaries" recited in claim 1 (and similarly recited in claims 7, 13, and 19). Final Act. 8 (citing Martin ,r,r 58, 61). Also, the Examiner finds Martin determines if a user's device is near a zone. Ans. 19 (citing Martin, Fig. 4, ,r 58) Appellants argue the cited paragraphs of Martin illustrate a method for sharing a first user's custom zones with a second user, but Martin fails to teach this sharing of a user's custom zones with another user requires the user/device location being within the custom zone. App. Br. 17-18; Reply Br. 7-8. Furthermore, Appellants argue Martin teaches that the user may share any of the one or more custom zones the user has created at any time rather than as a result of a device location being within a first geographic cell boundary. App. Br. 15-18 (citing Martin ,r,r 61-72). We agree with Appellants. The cited portions of Martin disclose User A can share a custom zone with one or more secondary users. Final Act. 8 ( citing Martin ,r,r 5 8, 61 ). In addition, the cited portions disclose determining if a user's device is near a zone. Ans. 19 (citing Martin, Fig. 4). We find there is no requirement of a causal connection between Martin's paragraph 58 and Martin's Figure 4 because Martin's Figure 4 is not required as a condition precedent to 4 Appeal2016-000880 Application 12/147,554 Martin's paragraph 58. Martin ,r,r 58, 61-72, Fig. 4. Rather, Martin discloses User A may share custom zones with User B at any time regardless of a device location being within a first geographic cell boundary. Id. Stated differently, Martin is silent as to whether User A sharing a custom zone with one or more secondary users can occur before, after, or simultaneously with Martin's determining if a user's device is near a zone. Id. Even if Martin's embodiment of determining if a user's device is near a zone occurs before Martin's embodiment of User A sharing a custom zone with one or more secondary users, it is unclear if Martin's embodiment of determining if a user's device is near a zone causes Martin's embodiment of User A sharing a custom zone with one or more secondary users. Id. Consequently, the cited portions of Martin fail to teach a nexus (i.e., the "in response to" claim 1 limitation) between: (1) a condition precedent of the location described by the location information being within the first geographic cell boundaries; and (2) a subsequent result of causing the name of the first point of interest to be shared. We, therefore, agree with Appellants that the cited portions of Martin fail to teach "causing the name of the first point of interest to be shared in response to the location described by the location information being within the first geographic cell boundaries" ( emphasis added) as recited in claim 1 ( and similarly recited in claims 7, 13, and 19). Therefore, the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is deficient. Moreover, the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) is deficient for similar reasons. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of: (1) independent claims 1, 7, 13, and 19; and (2) dependent claims 2---6, 8-12, 14--18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 103(a). 5 Appeal2016-000880 Application 12/147,554 DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 103(a). REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation