Ex Parte ODownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 15, 201613733406 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 15, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation