Ex Parte RatnakarDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 14, 201812046358 (P.T.A.B. May. 14, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/046,358 03/11/2008 105518 7590 05/16/2018 JDM Patent Law PLLC 6801 Kenilworth Ave, Suite 120 Riverdale Park, MD 20737 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Nitesh Ratnakar 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. RATN0005 1006 EXAMINER GEBRESENBET, DINKU W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2164 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/16/2018 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): jma@jdmpatentlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NITESH RATNAKAR Appeal 2017-011754 Application 12/046,358 Technology Center 2100 Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 21-38, which are all the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellant identifies the inventor, Nitesh Ratnakar, as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2017-011754 Application 12/046,358 Introduction Appellant describes the invention, titled "Location Based Personal Organizer," as relating to personal organizers and contact lists for communication devices, such as mobile phones. Spec. 1, Title. Appellant explains there is a need for personal organizers that enable reminding users of tasks as a function of location, because "many tasks are location critical as opposed to time critical. For example [a] user may want to be reminded to purchase milk when [the] user is in a grocery store, irrespective of the time." Spec. 1. Appellant describes one inventive aspect as "to auto fill information into data fields of [a] contact list entry ... in response to information provided in a unique identifier data field of [the] contact list entry." Spec. 2. Method claim 21 is illustrative, reproduced here with two disputed steps emphasized in italics: 21. A method for providing location-based notifications using a communicable mobile device equipped with an on-board GPS device and a server having access to a geo-code database, the geo-code database storing contact information linked to geographical locations such that each set of GPS coordinates corresponding to a geographical location is mapped to a set of contact information corresponding to the geographical location, the mobile device communicatively coupled to the server, the mobile device storing a contact list including one or more geo-based contact entries each containing a set of contact fields including a GPS coordinate field storing a set of GPS coordinate values corresponding to a geographical location, the method comprising: the mobile device, in setting up a contact entry in the contact list, receiving at least a value for at least a first contact field of the contact entry from a first input means of the mobile device; 2 Appeal 2017-011754 Application 12/046,358 the mobile device sending to the [server] the first contact field and the inputted value for the first contact field; the mobile device receiving from the server respective values for at least a subset of the remaining contact fields of the contact entry retrieved from the geo-code database, such that upon the receiving from the server, the set of GPS coordinate values for the GPS coordinate field of the contact entry and a value for at least one other contact field of the contact entry are stored in the contact entry; the mobile device receiving description of a task linked to the contact entry from a second input means of the mobile device; the mobile device displaying the task description so as to notify of potential execution of the task when a set of contemporaneous GPS coordinates of the mobile device corresponding to the contemporaneous geographical location of the mobile device, as captured by the on-board GPS device, correspond to the stored set of GPS coordinate values for the GPS coordinate field of the contact entry. App. Br. 25-26 (Claims App'x). Rejections & References Claims 21-24, 26-30, 32-36, and 38 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Blass et al. (US 2006/0058948 Al; Mar. 16, 2006) and Myllymaki (US 2002/0102988 Al; Aug. 1, 2002). Final Act. 3-24. Claims 25, 31, and 37 stand rejected under§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Blass, Myllymaki, and Yardeni et al. (US 2007/0271367 Al; Nov. 22, 2007). Final Act. 24--26. ANALYSIS Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding Blass and Myllymaki, alone or in combination, teach or suggest the two disputed steps identified 3 Appeal 2017-011754 Application 12/046,358 supra in the Introduction. App. Br. 12-15; Reply Br. 4--7. Specifically, Appellant contends that, regardless whether Blass may "disclose the end objective of the claimed method," "Blass does not disclose or suggest using a geo-code database as claimed and a server (having access to the geo-code database) to supply the values of GPS coordinates of any location ( searched for by the user through user-entered inputs)." App. Br. 12. On the record before us, we agree the Examiner errs. Claim 21 recites a method that includes recitations directed to setting up a contact entry by first obtaining a value for a contact entry field using a mobile device and then sending that value to a server. The server provides back "respective values for at least a subset of the remaining contact fields of the contact entry retrieved from [a] geo-code database," resulting in the mobile device storing in the contact entry both "[a] set of GPS coordinate values" and "a value for at least one other contact field" obtained from the server. We agree with Appellant that the cited disclosure from Blass does not teach or suggest such a contact entry set-up method as claimed. Blass "relates to location-based memos, journals, navigation systems, [and] time-based calendars" (i-f 3) and discloses location-based reminder and task management embodiments (Title, ,r 11 (Summary)). The cited location- based task disclosure of Blass teaches either direct input of the task information or downloading the task information from another device. See Blass ,r 26; see also ,r 69 ( disclosing that tasks and task location information can be stored remotely and shared). The Examiner finds the foregoing disclosure of Blass teaches "the mobile device sending to the [server] the first contact field and the inputted value for the first contact field," as recited. Final Act. 4--5 (also citing the 4 Appeal 2017-011754 Application 12/046,358 general statement that "[ t Jo send and receive information to and from the mobile device, various configurations are possible" (i-f 97)). The Examiner also finds that the foregoing disclosure, along with a specific embodiment that "allows users to place moving targets ... on their task list" (i-f 74), teaches the server sending values for additional contact fields for the entry "such that upon receiving from the server, the set of GPS coordinate values for the GPS coordinate field of the contract entry and a value for at least one other contact field of the contract entry are stored in the contact entry." Final Act. 5 ( citing Blass ,r,r 69, 7 4, Fig. 9). Because the rejection does not articulate how the cited disclosure of Blass teaches the sequenced approach for setting up a contact entry by first obtaining a value for a contact entry from the mobile device, then sending that value to a server, and then having the server provide "at least a subset of the remaining contact fields of the contact entry," as recited by claim 21, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner errs. See Final Act. 3-8 (generally paraphrasing Blass ,r,r 3, 11, 14, 26, 28, 69, 74, and 97 as mapped to claim limitations). Implementations of the cited teachings of Blass for setting up a location-based task either by directly inputting the task parameters on the mobile device or else by downloading a previously created task from a remote device do not require the particular bifurcated approach of setting up a contact entry as recited by the disputed steps of claim 21. The Examiner does not reasonably explain how Blass' s embodiment that "allows users to place moving targets ([i.e.,] talk to someone when in vicinity) on their task list," so that "one or both devices can be alerted if the other is within the threshold distance metric" (i-f 74) supports the finding that Blass teaches or suggests a server sending values for additional contact fields for the entry 5 Appeal 2017-011754 Application 12/046,358 "such that upon the receiving from the server, the set of GPS coordinate values for the GPS coordinate field of the contract entry and a value for at least one other contact field of the contract entry are stored in the contact entry," as claim 21 recites. See Final Act. 5. Although the Examiner responds to Appellant's arguments that "Blass in view of Myllymaki discloses each of the claimed limitations recited" (Ans. 3), the Examiner cites solely to Blass to teach or suggest sending "the inputted value for the first contact field" to the server and receiving back "at least a subset of the remaining contact fields of the contact entry" from the server. See Final Act. 3-8; Ans. 3-7. While we agree with the Examiner's finding that Myllymaki "teach[ es] a geo-code database schema having location information linked to contact information such as address and telephone numbers" (Ans. 6 (emphasis removed)), the Examiner does not explain how this finding addresses the deficiency of Blass vis-a-vis the requirements to set up a contact entry according to the recited sequence. The rejection's articulated motivation to combine Myllymaki with Blass, viz, "to provide the ability to sort information based upon geo-spatial location to suit a user's needs when using wireless-based components" (Final Act. 8 (citing Myllymaki ,r 5)), does not explain why having access to Myllymaki's database to sort location-based task information would have motivated an ordinarily skilled artisan to modify the task-setup approach of Blass to implement the sequenced requirements of the disputed steps of claim 21. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 21. 6 Appeal 2017-011754 Application 12/046,358 DECISION For the above reasons, we reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 21-38. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation