Ex Parte O

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 15, 2016

13733406 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/733,406
25319 7590
Shapiro Cohen LLP
P.O. Box 13002
Kanata, ON K2K OE2
CANADA
01/03/2013
07115/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Darrell O'DONNELL
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.
292-02 US CON 7342
EXAMINER
HOFFLER, RAHEEM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2155
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
07/15/2016 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 DARRELL O'DONNELL1
Appeal2015-003350
Application 13/733,406
Technology Center 2100
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Continuum Loop Inc. as the real party in interest.
Br. 3.
Appeal2015-003350
Application 13/733,406
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's invention is directed to "searching and retrieval of
information having a geospatial component." Spec. i-f 1.
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized in italics:
1. A method comprising:
providing a geospatial request for results of a geospatial
analysis of geospatial data including location and characteristic data
relating to natural and constructed features and boundaries on the
Earth from a first system to a second other system;
receiving at the first system from the second other system a
plurality of different process-dataset solutions for geospatially
processing said request, each process-dataset solution comprising a
dataset comprising location and characteristic data relating to natural
and constructed features and boundaries on the Earth and a geospatial
information process for geospatially processing said dataset of the
process-dataset solution, some process-dataset solutions for providing
different results;
providing from the first system to the second other system a
user selection between the process-dataset solutions; and
in response to the user selection receiving at the first system
from the second other system a result of processing according to the
user selection the process-dataset solution in accordance with a
geospatial combination of spatial software and analytical methods
upon terrestrial and/or geographic datasets.
2
Appeal2015-003350
Application 13/733,406
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1--4, 10, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Lancefield et al. (US 2005/0165738 Al;
July 28, 2005) ("Lancefield"). Final Act. 2-7.2
Claims 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lancefield and Chang et al. (US 2008/0140625 Al;
June 12, 2008) ("Chang"). Final Act. 7-9.
Claims 8, 9, 11-16, 19, 20, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lancefield and Fitzgerald et al.
(US 2010/0312464 Al; Dec. 9, 2010) ("Fitzgerald"). Final Act. 9-12. 3
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Based on Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief (Br. 7-15), the
issue presented on appeal is whether the Examiner erred in finding
Lancefield discloses the disputed limitations as recited in independent claims
1, 17, and 25.
2 Although omitted from the listing of claims appearing at page 2 of the
Final Action, claim 25 is included under the heading "Claim Rejections - 35
USC § 102" and is treated as such by Appellant. See Final Act. 7, Br. 9. We
find the Examiner's typographical error omitting claim 25 from the list of
claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Lancefield
et al. to be harmless.
3 We note the Examiner erroneously refers to US Pub No. 2010/0312464 Al
of Fitzgerald et al. as, instead, "Chang" in rejecting claims 8, 9, 11-16, 19,
20, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rather than "Fitzgerald" as used
throughout the remainder of the rejection. We find the Examiner's
typographical error referring to Chang instead of Fitzgerald to be harmless.
3
Appeal2015-003350
Application 13/733,406
ANALYSIS4
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments the Examiner has erred. Br. 6-10. We disagree with Appellant's
conclusions. We adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-14),
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to
arguments made in Appellant's Appeal Brief (Ans. 13-16). We highlight
and address specific findings and arguments below.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Lancefield discloses
several disputed limitations as recited in independent claims 1, 17, and 25.
Br. 6-10. In particular, Appellant argues Lancefield's list of Uniform
Resource Locators (URLs) are solutions to original geospatial processing,
and there is no further geospatial processing involving geospatial software.
Br. 7. See also Br. 6. Appellant concludes Lancefield's list ofURLs is not
"for geospatially processing said request," as recited in claim 1 (Br. 6-7),
and "in response to the user selection, processing according to the user
selection the process-dataset solution in accordance with a geospatial
combination of spatial software and analytical methods upon terrestrial
and/or geographic datasets," as recited in independent claim 17 (Br. 7).
Appellant further argues Lancefield's list ofURLs involves a direct
communication between a user system and a server. Br. 7. Appellant
concludes "a user system would communicate directly with those servers
and would not respond to the second system as recited in claim 1," and
4 In this Opinion, we refer to Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed July 28,
2014); the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed February 28, 2014); and
the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed on November 19, 2014).
4
Appeal2015-003350
Application 13/733,406
further concludes "there would be no further response from the second
system to the first system as recited in claim 1." Br. 7. Appellant also
argues Lancefield's list ofURLs is "not processes [sic] for processing
[Lancefield's] FIXED DATASET." Br. 7-8. Appellant concludes "there is
no formation of a list of process dataset solutions with 'the at least a selected
dataset'," as recited in claim 25. Br. 8.
In response to Appellant's arguments, the Examiner finds
paragraphs 7 4--85 of Lancefield "provide further elaboration [of]
Applicant's claim language." Ans. 15-16 (citing Lancefield i-fi-174--85). The
Examiner further finds Lancefield' s list of "URLs [is] nothing more than
accompaniments to the area definitions (location descriptions, coordinates,
etc.) and information resources that direct the querying user towards each
respective information source that is returned." Ans. 15. Appellant does not
provide sufficient evidence or argument to persuasively rebut these findings.
Therefore, in the absence of persuasive rebuttal in reply to the Examiner's
analysis in the Answer responding to Appellant's arguments, we find the
Examiner's findings to be reasonable and agree with the Examiner's
unrebutted finding that Lancefield discloses the disputed limitations as
recited in independent claims 1, 17, and 25.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of independent
claims 1, 17, and 25. Additionally, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of
dependent claims 2-16 and 18-24, which were not argued separately. See
Br. 6-12.
5
Appeal2015-003350
Application 13/733,406
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-25.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6