Ex Parte RahnamaDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 28, 201614153527 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation