Ex Parte Stevens

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 24, 2013

11219242 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

Ex parte GILMAN R. STEVENS
____________

Appeal 2010-008828
Application 11/219,242
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, HUNG H. BUI, and
BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.

PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008828
Application 11/219,242

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1-9 and 11-28. Claim 10 has been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to a method for contacting emergency
services using location-based information. (Spec. ¶0002 and Abstract).

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 22 and 25 are independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
representative of the subject matter on appeal, and recites:
1. A system for contacting emergency services, the system
comprising:
a network connected device, wherein the device is configured
to:
receive a set of data identifying the location of the
device; and
transmit a communications signal which includes
information comprising:
the set of data;
an identifier unique to the device; and
a request to contact emergency services; and
a database which comprises a table of identifiers including the
identifier unique to the device, wherein,
each of at least a subset of identifiers in the table is
associated with one or more of a plurality of network connected
devices and is associated with different geographic region-
specific user information stored in the database; and
the identifier unique to the device in the table is:
Appeal 2010-008828
Application 11/219,242

3
associated with a first subset of user information
for a first geographic region; and
associated with a second subset of user
information for a second geographic region; and
a location comparison server, in communication with the device
and the database, wherein the server is configured to:
receive the communications signal;
determine, based on a location comparison in the
database, that the location of the device is within the first
geographic region and thereby identify the first subset for
transmission to an emergency services provider;
determine, based on the location comparison in the
database, that the location of the device is outside the second
geographic region and thereby exclude the second subset from
transmission to the emergency services provider; and
transmit the request, the location of the device, and the
first subset to an emergency services provider determined by
the location of the device,
wherein the user information comprises at least one of a
home floor plan, a work floor plan, a floor plan associated with
the location of the device, a listing of persons living in the
home, a listing of persons employed at work, a map of a
geographic region for a work location, a map of a geographic
region around a home location, a map of a geographic region
around the location of the device, a listing of medical
conditions, a listing of emergency contacts, or any combination
thereof.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-9 and 11-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
unpatentable over Simms et al. (US Patent No. 5,334,974, filed Aug. 2, 1994
“Simms”), Sundaravel et al. (US 2001/0055393 A1, filed Dec. 27, 2001
Appeal 2010-008828
Application 11/219,242

4
“Sundaravel”) and Wagner (US 2002/0186135 A1, filed Dec. 12, 2002
“Wagner”). (Answer 3).1

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) is in error. (Appeal Br. 8-12).2 Appellant contends
that the Examiner failed to identify the following limitations of Claim 1 in
the cited prior art:
 the storage, in a database, of an association between a device
identifier and different geographic region-specific user information
(Appeal Br. 8-10), and
 determining, based on the location of the device, whether to
include or exclude user information being transmitted to an
emergency service provider (Appeal Br. 10-11).
Additionally Appellant contends that the Examiner failed to identify a
location comparison server configured to establish a two-way
communications link between the emergency services provider and the
device, as generally recited by claim 14. (Appeal Br. 12).
Appellant has not presented separate arguments for independent
claims 22 and 25, but instead argues that claims 22 and 25 contain
limitations similar to those noted above for claim 1. (Appeal Br. 8 -10).

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
March 4, 2010.
2 Throughout this opinion we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief of August 4,
2009.

Appeal 2010-008828
Application 11/219,242

5
Appellant also has not presented separate arguments for claims 2-9, 11-13,
15-21, 23-24 and 26-28. (Appeal Br. 11 -12).

ISSUES
(1) Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited art teaches the
storage, in a database, of an association between a device identifier and
different geographic region-specific user information as recited by claim 1?
(2) Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited art teaches
determining, based on the location of the device, whether to include or
exclude user information being transmitted to an emergency service provider
as recited by claim 1?
(3) Did the Examiner err in identifying the location comparison
server configured to establish a two-way communications link between the
emergency services provider and the device as recited by claim 14?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of the
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellant’s conclusion. We adopt as our own the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. However we highlight and
address specific findings and arguments regarding claims 1 and 14 for
emphasis as follows.

Appeal 2010-008828
Application 11/219,242

6
Independent Claim 1
(1) Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited art teaches the
storage, in a database, of an association between a device identifier and
different geographic region-specific user information, as recited by claim 1?
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the cited prior art
fails to teach the above-referenced limitation. We agree with the Examiner’s
analysis and conclusions regarding storage, in a database, of an association
between a device identifier and different geographic region-specific user
information. (Answer 4, 13 and 14). Also, contrary to Appellant’s assertion
that the prior art teaches “representations of geographic information – not
user information” (Appeal Br. 9), we agree with the Examiner that the
claimed “user information” is met by, for example, the “names of relatives
to contact in an emergency” and “special medical needs” of Simms and the
“at least one of latitude, longitude, direction, parcel, ward, street address,
town, city, zip code” of Sundaravel. (Answer 13 and 14).
Additionally, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the
claim is distinguishable because of the recitation of “different geographic
region-specific” user information. The recitation of “different geographic
region-specific” just describes the user information data and as such is
nonfunctional descriptive material.3

3 The Examiner need not give patentable weight to descriptive material
absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive
material and the substrate. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84 (Fed.
Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and our
decision in Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272 (BPAI 2005) (informative
opinion).
Appeal 2010-008828
Application 11/219,242

7
(2) Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited art teaches
determining, based on the location of the device, whether to include or
exclude user information being transmitted to an emergency service
provider as recited by claim 1?
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the cited prior art
fails to teach this limitation. We agree with the Examiner’s findings that this
limitation is taught by the cited art. (Answer 4-6 and 13-15). For example,
Sundaravel teaches how to locate a user’s device and determine based on a
location comparison whether to include the first subset for transmission or
exclude the second subset from transmission, as called for by claim 1.
(Answer 5).
Additionally, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the
cited prior art “certainly further fails” to suggest whether to “identify or
exclude subsets of user information for transmission to an emergency
services provider.” (Appeal Br. 11, emphasis in original). Appellant’s
Specification supports that this element is met by the above-reference
disclosure.
Appellant’s Specification states, “the request, location of the device,
and subset of user information may be transmitted to an emergency services
provider serving the region in which the device is located.” (Spec. ¶125).
We do not agree with Appellant that the Examiner conceded that this is not
taught by Simms (Appeal Br. 10). Contrary to Appellant’s argument, as
noted by the Examiner, Simms teaches transmitting a request to contact
emergency services. (Answer 4). As disclosed by Simms this request
includes the location of the mobile device, “[t]he dispatch operator may then
zoom in on a particular city, then area, and finally, the street on which the
Appeal 2010-008828
Application 11/219,242

8
mobile entity 20 is proceeding.” (Simms 7:46-49; Answer 4).

Dependent Claim 14
(3) Did the Examiner err in identifying the location comparison server
configured to establish a two-way communications link between the
emergency services provider and the device of claim 14?
Appellant accepts that the Examiner correctly pointed to Simms for
referencing a “two-way link between a device 30 and a central dispatch
station 40.” (Appeal Br. 12). As such, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
argument that “Simms fails to disclose a location comparison server of any
kind.” (Appeal Br. 12). Instead, we agree with the Examiner’s
identification of the location comparison server configured to establish a
two-way communications link between the emergency services provider and
the device of claim 14. (Answer 9 and 15).

Claims 2-9, 11-13 and 15-28
Regarding Appellant’s contentions with respect to the remaining
claims 2-9, 11-13 and 15-28, Appellant does not provide additional
arguments with sufficient specificity so they fall with claims 1 and 14. For
the same reasons noted above, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and
stated conclusions with respect to the remaining claims.

CONCLUSION
Based on the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner did not
err in rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Simms, Sundaravel and Wagner. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C.
Appeal 2010-008828
Application 11/219,242

9
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1 and 14 and of claims 2-9, 11-13 and 15-28
falling therewith.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-28.
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tj