Ex Parte PfaffDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 18, 201613335883 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/335,883 12/22/2011 11764 7590 Ditthavong & Steiner, P,C, 44 Canal Center Plaza Suite 322 Alexandria, VA 22314 05/20/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Matthias PFAFF 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. P6911USOO 9695 EXAMINER MOBIN, HASANUL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2168 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/20/2016 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): docket@dcpatent.com Nokia.IPR@nokia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MATTHIAS PFAFF Appeal2014-005169 Application 13/335,883 Technology Center 2100 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ERIC B. CHEN, and SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-005169 Application 13/335,883 This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-20, all of the claims pending in the application. (Claims App.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's invention relates to managing contact data in a phonebook by utilizing social proximity information, in a mobile device. (Abstract.) Claim 1 is exemplary with disputed limitations in italics: 1. A method for managing contact data in a phonebook, comprising: processing, via one or more processors, one or more contact details associated with one or more contacts to determine a similarity to one or more other contact details associated with one or more users, one or more other contacts, or a combination thereof; determining social proximity information associated with the one or more contacts, the one or more users, the one or more other contacts, or a combination thereof; and utilizing the social proximity information to manage the contact data in the phonebook. Claims 1-5 and 11-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Belz (US 2009/0157473 Al; June 18, 2009) and Schnurr (US 2005/0157689 Al; July 21, 2005). Claims 6, 9, 16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Belz, Schnurr, and Ramsten (US 2007 /0293193 Al; Dec. 20, 2007). 2 Appeal2014-005169 Application 13/335,883 Claims 7, 8, 10, 17, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Belz, Schnurr, and Cohen (US 2006/0218111 Al; Sept. 28, 2006). ANALYSIS § 103 Rejection-Belz and Schnurr First, we are unpersuaded by Appellant's argument (App. Br. 5, 7; see also Reply Br. 2) that the combination of Belz and Schnurr does not teach or suggest "managing contact data in a phonebook," as recited in independent claim 1. We agree with the Examiner's finding that Belz's disclosure of a social interaction profile, including data tracking of end users, teaches the claim recitation of "managing contact data in a phonebook." (Ans. 2; see also Final Act. 4.) At the outset, we note the preamble of claim 1 recites "[a] method for managing contact data in a phoneboo!C' (emphasis added). The body of claim 1 further recites the limitation "utilizing the social proximity information to manage the contact data in the phoneboo!C' (emphasis added). Because the preamble of claim 1 recites a limitation of the claim, we construe the preamble recitation of "managing contact data in a phonebook" as a claim limitation. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett- Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("If the claim preamble, when read in the context of the entire claim, recites limitations of the claim . . . then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim."). 3 Appeal2014-005169 Application 13/335,883 Belz relates to targeted advertising (il I), and particularly to "monitoring proximity data indicating proximity between a first end user device and at least one second device" (Abstract). In one embodiment of Belz, end user devices include a "proximity device capable of identifying and exchanging proximity tokens data ... with other end user devices with proximity capability," such proximity token data including, for example, phone numbers. (i-f 10.) Moreover, Belz explains that a "social interaction profile contains data that keeps track of those end users who are in social or physical proximity" and "physical proximity is when an end user device is within physical proximity (within a specified distance, for example, 3 feet) to an individual with an end user proximity device (proximity may be resolved through several means, such as a phone list or wireless polling of other similar devices)." (i-f 15.) Because Belz explains that end user devices (e.g., mobile phones (i142)) resolve proximity by polling phone lists when such end user devices are within a specified distance, Belz teaches the recitation "managing contact data in a phonebook." Appellant argues that "Belz is concerned with targeting marketing advertisements by using proximity data, wherein historical behavior profiles for end user devices are employed as a basis for targeting advertisements" (App. Br. 5) and "while Belz suggests the notion of contacts in a phonebook, it does not disclose or suggest the 'management' of those contacts" (id. at 7; see also Reply Br. 2). Contrary to Appellant's argument, Belz explains that the mobile phones of Belz can resolve proximity by polling phone lists, thus correlating proximity location of mobile phones with phone lists stored on such mobile phones. (See i-f 15.) 4 Appeal2014-005169 Application 13/335,883 Second, we are also unpersuaded by Appellant's argument (App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 3) that the combination of and Schnurr does not teach or suggest "processing, via one or more processors, one or more contact details associated with one or more contacts to determine a similarity to one or more other contact details associated with one or more users," as recited in claim 1. We agree with the Examiner's finding that the proximity data exchange of Belz, in which end users exchange proximity data to become part of a social network, corresponds to the limitation "processing, via one or more processors, one or more contact details associated with one or more contacts to determine a similarity to one or more other contact details associated with one or more users." (Ans. 3; see also Final Act. 4.) Belz explains that "when end users come within a predetermined distance of each other, they exchange proximity data and become part of a social network for a particular end user." (i-f 26.) Belz further explains that a "computer program or device associated with the server in communication with being user devices examines the historical behavior profile data for each of the end user devices" and "the historical behavior profiles for each of the end user devices in the social network for end user A and determines which data elements are in common between the members of end-user A's social network." (Id.) Because the computer program of Belz examines historical behavior profiles for each of the end user devices in the social network for end user A for the common data element, Belz teaches the limitation "processing, via one or more processors, one or more contact details associated with one or more contacts to determine a similarity to one 5 Appeal2014-005169 Application 13/335,883 or more other contact details associated with one or more users," as recited in claim 1. Appellant argues none of the data or operations described in Belz are germane to the management of contact data or details of a phonebook and no determination of similarity "to one or more other contact details associated with one or more users, one or more other contacts, or a combination thereof' is made in Belz. (App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br 3.) However, the claim limitation "one or more contact details associated with one or more contacts to determine a similarity to one or more other contact details associated with one or more users" is broad enough to encompass the computer program of Belz, which determines common data elements between members of a social network, such that proximity data (e.g., phone numbers) is used to form such social network. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Belz and Schnurr would have rendered independent claim 1 unpatentable. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2-5 depend from claim 1, and Appellant has not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1. Independent claim 11 recites limitations similar to those discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellant has not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We sustain the rejection of claim 11, as well as dependent claims 12-15, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. 6 Appeal2014-005169 Application 13/335,883 § 103 Rejection-Belz, Schnurr, and Ramsten Although Appellant nominally argues the rejection of dependent claims 6, 9, 16, and 19 separately (App. Br. 9), the arguments presented do not point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellant merely argues "Ramsten does not cure the previously argued deficiencies of the combination of Belz and Schnurr." (Id.) Accordingly, Appellant has not presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claims 1 and 11, from which claims 6, 9, 16, and 19 depend. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection. § 103 Rejection-Belz, Schnurr, and Cohen Although Appellant nominally argues the rejection of dependent claims 7, 8, 10, 17, 18, and 20 separately (App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 4), the arguments presented do not point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellant merely argues "Cohen does not cure the previously argued deficiencies of the combination of Belz and Schnurr" (App. Br. 9) and with respect to claims 8 and 18, Appellant provides a conclusory statement that "[ t ]he cited potions of Cohen describe a 'relationship tree,' which is not a 'hierarchy' diagram, but merely a diagram of relationships" (id.; see also Reply Br. 4). Accordingly, Appellant has not presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[T]he Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation 7 Appeal2014-005169 Application 13/335,883 of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art."). We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claims 1 and 11, from which claims 7, 8, 10, 17, 18, and 20 depend. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation