Ex Parte Marx et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 8, 2013

10765410 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2013)

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.
10/765,410 01/27/2004 Peter Samuel Marx G&C 200.1-US-U1 2194
22462 7590 03/08/2013
GATES & COOPER LLP (General)
HOWARD HUGHES CENTER
6701 CENTER DRIVE WEST, SUITE 1050
LOS ANGELES, CA 90045
EXAMINER
LE, DEBBIE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/08/2013 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 SAMUEL MARX,
AHTI ALAN HUJANEN, and MAYER ALAN BRENNER
____________________

Appeal 2010-002665
Application 10/765,410
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection
of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2010-002665
Application 10/765,410

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to sharing location services
between acquiring, managing, distributing, and presenting contextual data
relating to a known position from and to users, and between users (Spec.
1:14-16).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A contextual location-based service apparatus containing
commercial location-based information and user-supplied
location-based information, comprising:

a) a computer-based infrastructure, comprising:

1) at least one database for storing the commercial
location-based information supplied by a commercial
entity and the user-supplied location-based information,
including a user-supplied location, supplied by a user
other than the commercial entity on at least one location,
wherein the user directly stores the user-supplied
location-based information in the database which stores
both the user-supplied location based information and the
commercial location-based information which is
retrievable by at least one other user;

2) a context manager, coupled to the database, for
indexing and sorting the commercial location-based
information and the user-supplied location-based
information stored in the database;

3) a contribution engine, coupled to the database,
for entering additional user-supplied location-based
information in the database, wherein the user directly
enters the additional user-supplied location-based
information in the database;

Appeal 2010-002665
Application 10/765,410

3
4) a locator, coupled to the contribution engine and
the database, for converting a plurality of references to a
specific location to a common location designation;

5) a location browser, coupled to the database, for
retrieving and reviewing the user-supplied location-based
information in the database; and

b) at least one client, which communicates with the
infrastructure, for at least entering and editing the user-supplied
location-based information in the database.

REFERENCES and REJECTION
Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hose (US 7,024,205 B1, filed Nov. 6, 2000) in view of
Jones (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2002/0069312 A1, Jun. 6, 2002), and further
in view of Chan (U.S Pat. App. Pub. No. 2003/0126150 A1, Jul. 3, 2003).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Hose discloses all of Appellants’ claimed
limitations except for a database storing user-supplied location-based
information and a user directly entering the additional user-supplied
location-based information. However, the Examiner finds Jones discloses
these features (Ans. 4-5). Additionally, the Examiner finds Hose and Jones
do not explicitly teach a database storing both the user-supplied location-
based information and commercial location-based information, but that Chan
discloses this feature (Ans.6).
Appellants contend neither Jones nor Chan cure the deficiencies of
Hose (Br. 7-8). Particularly, Appellants contend Jones requires two data
bases: one to store commercial information and another to store user-
Appeal 2010-002665
Application 10/765,410

4
supplied location-based information (Br. 8). Further, Appellants contend
Chan does not disclose user-supplied location-based information includes a
user supplied location or feedback, as feedback is not a “rating” (id.).
We agree with the Examiner and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our
own. Additionally, we agree Chan discloses user-supplied location-based
information. Paragraph [0028] of Chan discloses position information is
either entered by the information user or computer hardware, contrary to
Appellants’ assertion that Chan only “allows the user to supply feedback
information on a commercially-supplied service or product” and not
“location based information” (Br. 7-8). Additionally, “feedback” is a type of
“rating” as recognized by Appellants (“The rating engine 60 is a mechanism
that allows users to rate locations and provide feedback,” Spec. 9:5-6).
Further, Appellants appear to be arguing the references separately.
Appellants contend the entries in Hose are made by commercial entities and
not by subscribers or users of the system (Br. 8). However, the Examiner
cites Jones for this feature (Ans. 5; see Jones para. [0005], “user
identification component, a location component, a date/time component and
some description annotated information provided by the user” (emphasis
added); Abstract). Appellants have not provided arguments to rebut the
Examiner’s findings.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. Because
we find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s ultimate legal
conclusion of obviousness, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,
2, and 8-10.
Appellants argue claims 3-7 and 11-14 separately (Br. 9). Appellants
contend Jones recites “a user rating a location, not rating the information in
Appeal 2010-002665
Application 10/765,410

5
the database” (Br. 9). As stated above, Jones para. [0005] recites “user
identification component, a location component, a date/time component and
some description annotated information provided by the user” (emphasis
added) (see also Abstract). Appellants have not rebutted this finding.
Thus, for these reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Because we find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s
ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 3-7 and 11-14.
With respect to claim 15, Appellants assert the same arguments as
those with respect to claim 1. Thus, for the reasons set forth above with
respect to claim 1, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. Because we find
the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s ultimate legal conclusion
of obviousness, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-15 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

Vsh/peb