Ex Parte Rahnama

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2016

14153527 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2016)

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.
14/153,527 01/13/2014 Hossein Rahnama 102130.0001US8 8145
24392 7590
FISH & TS ANG LLP
ROBERT D. FISH
2603 Main Street
Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92614-6232
11/30/2016 EXAMINER
HUANG, MIRANDA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2016 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):
rfish @ fishiplaw. com
patents @ fishiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HOSSEIN RAHNAMA1
Appeal 2016-001500
Application 14/153,527
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, SHARON FENICK, and PHILLIP A.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—16, which are all of the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant’s Brief (“App. Br.”) identifies the real party in interest as
Flybits, Inc.
Appeal 2016-001500
Application 14/153,527
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to zone-oriented applications, systems and
methods. “A zone can be considered a virtual object having extent and
overlaid on aspects of the real-world where the zone provides access to one
or more context-based services.” Spec. 140. Claim 1, is the sole
independent claim and is reproduced below with the disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. A zone management system comprising:
a database storing a plurality of zone objects each
representing a zone capable of being instantiated; and
a zone management server coupled with the database and
an electronic device, and configured to:
obtain a first zone object associated with a first zone,
wherein the first zone comprises context criteria that depends on
a first set of attribute boundary conditions including a geo­
location dimension and a plurality of non-location dimensions in
a multi-dimensional attribute space;
identify a set of dimensions that are contextually relevant
to the electronic device from the geo-location dimension and the
plurality of non-location dimensions;
assign a monetary value to the set of contextually relevant
dimensions; and
enable a device to initiate a monetary transaction related
to the first zone based on the monetary value of the set of
contextually relevant dimensions.
App. Br. 18 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Nadler et al. (US 2009/0131080 Al, published May 21, 2009)
(“Nadler”) and Robinson et al. (US 2007/0285280 Al, published Dec. 13,
2007) (“Robinson”).
2
Appeal 2016-001500
Application 14/153,527
ISSUES FOR DECISION
(1) Has the Examiner erred in finding the cited references teach,
suggest, or otherwise render obvious a zone management server configured
to (a) “identify a set of dimensions that are contextually relevant to the
electronic device from the geo-location dimension and the plurality of non­
location dimensions;” and (b) “assign a monetary value to the set of
contextually relevant dimensions,” as recited in claim 1?
(2) Has the Examiner erred in finding Robinson is analogous art?
(3) Has the Examiner erred in finding Nadler and Robinson are
properly combined?
(4) Has the Examiner otherwise failed to support the conclusion of
obviousness with adequate findings?
OPINION
We have reviewed Appellant’s argument and contentions (App. Br. 3—
17) in light of the Examiner’s findings, conclusions, and explanations (Final
Act. 3—6; Ans. 3—9) regarding claim 1. We agree with the Examiner’s
findings, conclusions, and explanations, and we adopt them as our own. The
following discussion is for emphasis.
First Issue
Appellant argues the cited combination of Nadler and Robinson does
not teach two limitations recited in claim 1. The first limitation allegedly
absent from the cited art is the limitation of a zone management server
configured to “identify a set of dimensions that are contextually relevant to
3
Appeal 2016-001500
Application 14/153,527
the electronic device from the geo-location dimension and the plurality of
non-location dimensions.”
In the final Office Action, the Examiner finds paragraph 65 of Nadler
teaches this limitation, explaining the location of the device, i.e., a geo­
location dimension, is identified in Nadler’s system, as well as the services
available in the location to the device, which collectively constitute non­
location dimensions. Final Act. 4. In response, Appellant argues Nadler
does not teach the recited “set of dimensions” because it teaches only
checking a single location-based dimension in order to identify services,
applications, or content. App. Br. 6—7.
We disagree with Appellant, and find persuasive the additional
explanation provided in the Examiner’s Answer, which stands rebutted as no
Reply Brief was filed. Ans. 4—5. The Examiner explains, and we agree,
Nadler provides two specific examples of providing mobile device owners
electronic coupons or promotional material based on their shopping history
via the mobile device when the mobile device is detected entering a
particular shop. Id. (citing Nader || 85, 89). In these examples, the
identified “set of dimensions” is constituted of the location of the device at
the particular shop (a geo-location dimension) and the different attributes in
the shopping profile of the device owner (non-location dimensions) which
are used to select coupons to provide to the mobile device owner. Id.
Appellant also asserts the limitation “assign a monetary value to the
set of contextually relevant dimensions” is absent from the cited references.
The Examiner finds Robinson discloses this limitation. Final Act. 5 (citing
Robinson || 18, 35, Figs. 3, 4, and 7), Ans. 5—6 (citing Robinson 123).
Appellant argues although Robinson is a toll charging service that deals with
4
Appeal 2016-001500
Application 14/153,527
money, it fails to contemplate a zone management server that assigns a
monetary value to a set of dimensions. App. Br. 8. According to Appellant,
individual users are required to manually input additional dimensions in
Robinson’s system, and for that reason, Robinson does not teach the
limitation “assign a monetary value to the set of contextually relevant
dimensions.” Id.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding Robinson discloses this
limitation. As explained by the Examiner, Robinson (| 23) discloses a
payment amount (i.e., a monetary value) is assigned in Robinson’s system
based on the toll location (i.e., a geo-location dimension), the license plate
number, and the begin time and end time of the service (i.e., non-location
dimensions). We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that manually
entered information cannot be considered a “dimension” for two reasons.
App. Br. 8 (“In Robinson, individual users are required to manually input
additional ‘dimensions’.”). First, there is nothing in the language of the
claim excluding manually-entered information from use as a dimension.
Appellant is importing embodiments from the specification into the claims.
Second, even if Appellant is correct the claim cannot cover user-inputted
information, at least one such “dimension,” the time period of the service, is
not entered by a user. See Robinson 123.
Second Issue
Appellant also challenges the reliance on Robinson, arguing it is non-
analogous art to the claimed invention. App. Br. 5, 8—9. Appellant argues
his application is directed to a zone management system, which, according
to Appellant, is fundamentally different from the toll service system taught
by Robinson. App. Br. 5. Appellant contends Robinson is narrowly
5
Appeal 2016-001500
Application 14/153,527
focused, and the only overlap between Robinson and Appellant’s invention
is Robinson’s discussion of money. Id. Appellant further contends
Robinson deals with toll road billing technology, which is far afield from the
zone management concepts of the pending claims. App. Br. 9.
The Examiner finds that Robinson describes a toll service in which a
toll service provider provides service based on toll coverage area, time
stamp, toll location, device location, and transport data. Ans. 3 (citing
Robinson Abstract, H 7, 18). The Examiner finds the service described in
Robinson is analogous to the zone management concepts in to Appellant’s
application, noting Appellant’s assertion at page 6 that a zone’s attribute
space includes dimensions such as geo-location, time, position, orientation,
identity, and motion. The Examiner finds Robinson’s toll zone, which is
based on location, subscription coverage area, cellular user identity, and time
stamps, is in the same field of endeavor and analogous to the zone
management concepts in Appellant’s application. Id.
We agree with the findings of the Examiner and are unpersuaded by
Appellant’s argument. Appellant seeks to narrowly categorize the teachings
of Robinson as a toll-billing technology. We view the subject matter of both
Robinson and Appellant’s claims as being broadly focused on location-based
services using mobile devices such as cellular phones. While Robinson’s
system focuses the location-based service in the area of toll services, it is
location-based service nonetheless.
Third Issue
Appellant challenges the propriety of the combination of Nadler and
Robinson. App. Br. 10-14. We have reviewed and considered Appellant’s
arguments, and are not persuaded of error by the Examiner. We specifically
6
Appeal 2016-001500
Application 14/153,527
address the two main arguments of Appellant regarding the combination:
(1) the Examiner has not adequately explained why a skilled artisan would
have combined Nadler and Robinson (App. Br. 10—11, 14); and
(2) the combination would frustrate the purpose and operation of Nadler.
In asserting the Examiner has not adequately explained the reasons for
the combination, Appellant argues “the Examiner never made an effort to
identity any objective reasons to combine the teachings of the references.”
App. Br. 12. We disagree, and refer Appellant to the first paragraph on page
6 of the final Office Action. There, the Examiner explains that a skilled
artisan would have modified Nadler’s non-monetary values with Robinson’s
monetary values such that mobile users could make payments in associated
zones and zone services. Final Act. 6.
According to the Examiner, “[t]he reason for the combination is [to]
offer convenience for users to enjoy services and make electronic payment
using their mobile device.” Id. Appellant does not address this reasoning in
the Appeal Brief, so it stands unchallenged on this record. We further note
that the Examiner provided additional findings and explanation in the
Answer (Ans. 6—7) which stand unchallenged as no Reply Brief was filed.
Fourth Issue
Appellant also presents various arguments challenging the sufficiency
of the fact-finding undertaken by the Examiner. These arguments focus
mainly on the level of skill in the art and other alleged deficiencies in the
Graham analysis performed by the Examiner. Although the Examiner did
not take a formulaic, Graham-based approach in evaluating the claims in
light of the prior art, the Examiner’s findings were grounded in the Graham
factors. The Examiner provided citations to the pertinent parts of each cited
7
Appeal 2016-001500
Application 14/153,527
reference, and provided explanations as to why those portions were pertinent
to Appellant’s claims. We find that the Examiner determined the level of
skill in the based on the teachings of the references themselves. Okajima v.
Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355, (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific
findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error
‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for
testimony is not shown.’”). We find the Examiner’s findings to be thorough
and the conclusion of obviousness well-supported by those findings.
Accordingly, we do not find Appellant’s arguments regarding the
sufficiency of the fact-finding to be persuasive.
Appellant does not set for any separate arguments for patentability of
the dependent claims. As such, claims 2—16 fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8