Ex Parte Purdy

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 10, 2016

13027756 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/027,756 02/15/2011 Sean T. Purdy
119000 7590 08/11/2016
Concert Technology Corporation
5400 Trinity Road, Suite 303
SUITE 160
Raleigh, NC 27607
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.
CT-CRD-016/US (P543) 7402
EXAMINER
SCOTT, RANDY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2453
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/11/2016 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 SEAN T. PURDY
Appeal2014-007029
Application 13/027,756
Technology Center 2400
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the Examiner's
rejections of claims 1-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART, and enter NEW GROUNDS OF
REJECTION pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
Appeal2014-007029
Application 13/027,756
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The invention is directed to applying a user's location update to the
user and one or more additional users that are location-synchronized to the
user. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a location update for a first user;
identifying one or more second users that have been
location-synchronized to the first user in response to receiving
the location update for the first user; and
recording a location reported in the location update for the
first user as a current location of the first user and a current
location of each of the one or more second users that have been
location-synchronized to the first user,
wherein at least one of the preceding actions is performed
on at least one electronic hardware component.
Hoffman
Shen
REFERENCES
US 2009/0164574 Al
US 2009/0312033 Al
REJECTIONS
June 25, 2009
Dec. 1 7, 2009
Claims 1-12, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Shen. Final Act. 5.
Claims 13-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Shen and Hoffman. Final Act. 9.
2
Appeal2014-007029
Application 13/027,756
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Claims 1-4, 8-12, and 16-26
Issue 1: Whether Shen discloses recording a location reported in
a location update of a first user as a current location for the first
user and a second user that has been location-synchronized to
the first user.
The Examiner finds, inter alia, paragraphs 26, 54, and 78 of Shen
disclose the "identifying" and "recording" limitations recited in claim 1. See
Final Act. 5.
Appellant argues Shen fails to disclose these limitations. App. Br.
11-21. In particular, relying on a disclosure in paragraph 34 of Shen,
Appellant argues that paragraph 78 of Shen discloses uploading status
vectors containing location data for each member of a squad, and that
paragraph 54 of Shen discloses tracking the locations of each member of a
squad. Id. at 14--17; Reply Br. 3. Thus, Appellant concludes, Shen fails to
disclose "identifying one or more second users that have been location-
synchronized to [a] first user in response to receiving a location update for
the first user" as recited in claim 1. App Br. 1 7. Appellant further argues
that paragraph 26 of Shen discloses using the squad's status vector to predict
both the location of the squad, and the location of individual squad members
(users). Id. at 17-18. Appellant therefore argues "there is no location
reported in the squad update ... as a current location of the squad member
and a current location of any other squad member." App. Br. 20; see also
Reply Br. 3. We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments.
Even assuming Appellant is correct that Shen discloses receiving and
recording the location of each squad member, Shen also discloses receiving
and recording the location of the squad as a whole. In particular, Shen
3
Appeal2014-007029
Application 13/027,756
discloses that each squad periodically updates its status vector, including the
squad's location and velocity, "with a single update message .... [that]
aggregates the status vector of each squad member." Id. i-f 78. The squad's
updated status vector is transmitted to the data server by a squad coordinator
(e.g., a first user). Id. i-f 65. The updated status vector includes "the position
and velocity of [the squad's] centroid," and is used "to represent the mobility
pattern of the squad," and to "record the recent history of squad mobility."
Id. i-f 79. The updated status vector is determined by "mathematically
combining location data of at least some of the clients of the squad, and
reporting combined location data for the squad to the service." Id. at claim
1 1.
Shen further discloses "comput[ing] the current location of the
user/squad" from the previously reported location of the squad, the squad
velocity, and the time elapsed since the last squad update. Id. i-f 26. Thus,
even if each squad member's location is associated with an individually
recorded location as Appellant contends, each squad member's location is
also associated with the squad's recorded location (e.g., squad member A's
location is a concession stand, squad member B's location is the press box,
and the location of both squad members A and B is Yankee Stadium, the
recorded location of the squad).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Shen discloses the
limitations in claim 1, and sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Appellant does not separately argue for the patentability of claims 2--4, 8-
12, and 16-26. See App. Br. 11-12 and 21-22. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner's rejections of these claims for the same reasons as claim 1.
4
Appeal2014-007029
Application 13/027,756
Claims 5 and 6
Issue 2: Whether Shen discloses receiving a request from a user
or a first user to location-synchronize the user to the first user
The Examiner finds paragraphs 46 and 58 of Shen disclose receiving
the synchronization request from the user as recited in claim 5. Final Act. 6.
The Examiner finds paragraphs 46 and 49 of Shen disclose receiving the
synchronization request from the first user as recited in claim 6. Id.
As to claim 5, Appellant does not address the Examiner's findings
regarding paragraph 46 of Shen. Instead, Appellant argues the Examiner
erred because paragraph 5 8 of Shen discloses selecting a device to obtain
mashup data rather than receiving a request from the device to location-
synchronize the device to a first user. App. Br. 22-23. As to claim 6,
Appellant argues the Examiner erred because paragraph 46 of Shen discloses
"collaboration ... with respect to resources," and "[n]o request to location-
synchronize a select user to the first user could be found or suggested in
Shen." App. Br. 24. We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments.
In paragraph 46, Shen discloses that a client device "may accept or
decline collaboration requests within [a] squad." Shen describes decisions to
accept or decline collaboration requests as decisions to join or leave a squad.
See, e.g., Shen i-f 67 ("With respect to micro-mobility ... each client makes
local sharing decisions according to its own knowledge on its direct
neighbors."); see also id. i-f 66 (describing micro-mobility as joining or
leaving a squad over time). Thus, when a request to share information is
extended by a user to a squad member, it is a request by the user to join the
squad and to thereafter have the user's location associated with the squad's
location, as discussed supra. When the request to share information is
5
Appeal2014-007029
Application 13/027,756
extended by a squad coordinator (first user) to a non-squad member (user), it
is a request by the first user to have the user join the squad and to thereafter
have the user's location associated with the squad's location, as discussed
supra.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner's findings that paragraph 46
of Shen discloses receiving a request from a user or a first user (depending
on who makes the invitation to share) to location-synchronize the user to the
first user as recited in claims 5 and 6. 1 We, therefore, sustain the
Examiner's rejections of claims 5 and 6.
Claim 7
Issue 3: Whether Shen discloses programmatically location-
synchronizing a user to a first user.
The Examiner finds paragraphs 49 and 58 of Shen disclose
programmatically location-synchronizing the user to the first user as recited
in claim 7. Final Act. 6-7. Appellants argue "[ n Jo teaching or suggestion
could be found in Shen that discloses or renders obvious the feature[] of
programmatically determining that a user is to be location-synchronized to
the first user." App. Br. 25. We are persuaded by Appellant's arguments.
As discussed supra, Shen discloses the concept of micro-mobility,
whereby a user can decide to join or leave a squad by accepting or rejecting
an invitation to share information with the squad. Shen i-fi-1 46, 66, 67. Shen
also discloses a user can join a squad when given a list of the user's social
neighbors together with their squad IDs and locations. Id. i155. However,
Shen fails to disclose the user can be programmatically joined to the squad
1 We also note Shen's explicit disclosure that the user initially elects to join
a squad. See, e.g., Shen i-fi-14, 55,
6
Appeal2014-007029
Application 13/027,756
as recited in claim 7. Paragraph 49 of Shen discloses using the GPS
timestamp of squad members to coordinate when the members wake up to
share information with one another. Id. i-f 49. Paragraph 58 of Shen
discloses selecting a squad leader from among the members of the squad
based on the backoff values of the squad members. Id. i-f 58.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 7.
Claim 13
Issue 4: Whether the combination of Shen and Hoffman teaches
or suggests receiving a request from a user to de-synchronize the
user from a first user.
The Examiner finds claim 15 of Hoffman teaches or suggests
"receiving, from a requesting user, a request to de-synchronize the
requesting user from the first user" as recited in claim 13. Final Act. 10.
Appellant argues "in terms of claim 15 of Hoffman, the first user is the one
that requests to block the second user from being a transient friend of the
first user." App. Br. 27. Thus, Appellant argues, "Hoffman or the
combination of Shen and Hoffman does not disclose or render obvious at
least the features of claim[] 13." Id. We are persuaded by Appellant's
argument.
Claim 15 of Hoffman depends from and includes all the limitations of
claim 1, and therefore requires "identifying, for a first user, a second user
that is associated with a location within a proximate area of the first user as a
transient friend of the first user," and "adding the second user as a transient
friend of the first user." Hoffman, claim 1. Claim 15 of Hoffman further
requires "receiving a request to block the second user from being a transient
friend of the first user," and in response to the request, "removing the second
7
Appeal2014-007029
Application 13/027,756
user as a transient friend of the first user." Id., claim 15. Thus, claim 15 of
Hoffman discloses both programmatically adding a second user to the social
network of the first user based on proximity, and removing the second user
from the social network of the first user based upon a request received from
the first user. Claim 15 of Hoffman fails to disclose removing the second
user from the social network of the first user based upon a request received
from the second user.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 13.
Claims 14 and 15
Issue 5: Whether the combination of Shen and Hoffman teaches
or suggests receiving a request, either programmatically or from
a first user, to de-synchronize a user from the first user.
The Examiner finds Hoffman teaches or suggests "receiving, from the
first user, a request to de-synchronize a select user from the first user," as
recited in claim 14. Final Act. 10 (citing Hoffman, claim 15). The
Examiner further finds Hoffman teaches or suggests "programmatically
determining that a user is to be de-synchronized from the first user," as
recited in claim 15. Id. at 11 (citing Hoffman i-fi-1 6, 44).
Regarding claim 14, Appellant admits that claim 15 of Hoffman
teaches that "the first user is the one that requests to block the second user
from being a transient friend of the first user." App. Br. 27. We are
therefore not persuaded by Appellants argument that the combination of
Shen and Hoffman does not disclose or render obvious the features of claim
14, which requires "receiving, from the first user, a request to de-
synchronize a select [second] user from the first user," as taught by
Hoffman. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 14.
8
Appeal2014-007029
Application 13/027,756
Regarding claim 15, Appellant argues "[ n Jo synchronization or de-
synchronization is taught in paragraph 6" of Hoffman, and that
programmatically adding or removing friends from a social network "has
nothing to do with location synchronization or de-synchronization." App.
Br. 28. We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments.
"Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references." In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986). Rather, "[t]he test for obviousness is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art." In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The Examiner
finds Shen, not Hoffman, teaches or suggests location-synchronizing a user
to a first user (e.g., a squad coordinator) in a roaming social network of the
first user (e.g., a sharing squad). Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds
Hoffman teaches or suggests that the user can be programmatically removed
from the first user's roaming social network. Id. at 11. We agree.
Shen teaches sharing squads can be formed among users that "are
socially connected, [and] are within geographic proximity" of one another.
Shen i-f 45. Hoffman teaches that "[i]f a transient friend is no longer within
the proximate area of the first user, the transient friend is removed as a
transient friend of the first user." Hoffman i-f 6. Accordingly, we agree with
the Examiner that the combination of Shen and Hoffman teaches or suggests
"programmatically determining that a user is to be de-synchronized from the
first user," as recited in claim 15 (e.g., when the user is no longer in
geographic proximity of the squad), and sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 15.
9
Appeal2014-007029
Application 13/027,756
New Grounds of Rejection
Claim 7
Claim 7 depends from claim 1, and includes all the limitations of
claim 1. We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings that
Shen teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed supra. See also Final
Act. 5; Shen i-fi-154, 55, 65, 78, 79. Shen teaches mobile users can form a
sharing squad when they are socially connected and geographically
proximate to one another. Shen i1 45. Hoffman teaches a mobile user can be
programmatically added to a first user's mobile network based on proximity.
Hoffman, Abstract, i-fi-133--40, Figs. 1, 3A, 3B. Shen teaches recording a
user's membership in a sharing squad when the user is added to the sharing
squad, and associating the user's location with the sharing squad's location.
Shen i-fi-154, 65, 78, 79. Thus, the combination of Shen and Hoffman teaches
or suggests the limitations in claim 7:
programmatically determining that a user is to be
location-synchronized [added to a squad] to the first user [squad
coordinator]; and
recording the user as being location-synchronized to the
first user [as a squad member];
wherein identifying the one or more second users that
have been location-synchronized to the first user comprises
identifying the user as one of the one or more second users that
have been location-synchronized to the first user.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of Appellant's invention to combine the teachings of Hoffman and
Shen to programmatically add a user (as taught by Hoffman) to a roaming
location sharing squad (as taught by Shen), because doing so would have
10
Appeal2014-007029
Application 13/027,756
involved no more than combining familiar elements according to known
methods to achieve a predictable result. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Accordingly, we reject claim 7 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the combination of Shen and Hoffman, and designate the
rejection a new grounds of rejection.
Claim 13
Claim 13 depends from claim 1, and includes all the limitations of
claim 1. We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings that
Shen teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed supra. See also Final
Act. 5; Shen i-fi-154, 55, 65, 78, 79. Shen teaches mobile users can form a
sharing squad when they are socially connected and geographically
proximate to one another. Id i145. Shen teaches that each "client may
accept or decline collaboration requests within the squad." Id. i146. Shen
further teaches that users may JOm or leave a squad over time, based on
"each client mak[ing] local sharing decisions according to its own
knowledge [of] its direct neighbors." Id. i-fi-166----67. In view of these
teachings, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of Appellant's invention to "receiv[e], from a requesting user
[squad member], a request to de-synchronize the requesting user from the
first user [squad coordinator];" and to "de-synchronize the requesting user
from the first user such that the requesting user is no longer location-
synchronized to the first user [e.g., no longer associated with the squad
location]," as recited in claim 13. When a Shen client declines a
collaboration request with a squad member, the client is effectively
requesting to leave or be de-synchronized from the squad, and once de-
11
Appeal2014-007029
Application 13/027,756
synchronized, the client no longer shares the squad's status vector, including
the squad's location. Shen i-fi-145, 65-67, 78-79.
Accordingly, we reject claim 13 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Shen, and designate the rejection a new grounds of rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-6, 8-12, and 14--26 are
affirmed.
The Examiner's rejections of claims 7 and 13 are reversed.
Pursuant to our authority under 3 7 C.F .R. § 41. 50(b ), claim 7 is
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of
Shen and Hoffman
Pursuant to our authority under 3 7 C.F .R. § 41. 50(b ), claim 13 is
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shen.
Section 4 l .50(b) provides that "[a] new ground of rejection pursuant
to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review." Rather,
WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION,
Appellant must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the
new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the newly
rejected claims:
( 1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of
the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims
so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the
examiner, in which event the prosecution will be remanded
to the examiner ....
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard
under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record.
12
Appeal2014-007029
Application 13/027,756
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-IN-PART
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
13