Ex Parte Struble

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 6, 2010

09894213 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 6, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P Alexandria, 0 Box 1450 Virginia 22313- 1450
www uspto gov
22879 7590 08/10/2010
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
APPLICATION NO.
EXAMINER
Intellectual Property Administration ALVAREZ, RAQUEL
091894,213 06/27/2001 Christian L. Strnble 10010610-1 4820
FILING DATE
3404 E. armo on^ Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528
I ARTUNIT I PAPERNUMBER I
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Please find below andlor attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
NOTIFICATION DATE
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
CONFIRMATION NO.
DELIVERY MODE
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
08/10/2010 ELECTRONIC
JERRY .SHORMA @ HP.COM
ipa.mail@hp.com
laura.m.clark@ hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
Ex parte CHRISTIAN L. STRUBLE
Appeal 2009-008620
Application 09/894,2 13
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and
BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL'
1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. 5 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. 5 41.52, begins to run from the "MAIL DATE"
(paper delivery mode) or the "NOTIFICATION DATE" (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-008620
Application 09/894,2 13
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Christian L. Struble (Appellant) seeks our review under 35
U.S.C. 5 134 (2002) of the final rejection of claims 1, 6-9, 16, and 19-30.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 5 6(b) (2002).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.^
THE INVENTION
The invention is "a system and method that controls the display of
advertisements in relation to time and weather information." Specification
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method for controlling the presentation of
advertisements, the method being practiced by a local
computing device having a processing device and a
memory, the method comprising:
receiving local weather condition information
from a sensing unit that is separate from the
computing device;
determining which advertisements are
appropriate for presentation using the local computing
device and based upon the received weather condition
information; and
facilitating presentation of appropriate
advertisements on a local display unit.
2 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App.
Br.," filed Feb. 10, 2005) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Nov. 18,
2008), and the Examiner's Answer ("Answer," mailed Oct. 7, 2008).
Appeal 2009-008620
Application 09/894,2 13
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability :
Thibadeau U.S. 5,565,909 Oct. 15, 1996
Helferich U.S. 6,636,733 B1 Oct. 21, 2003
The Examiner took official notice that "it is old and well known in gas
stations and the like to have advertisements display on a fuel pump in order
to induce the customers to make purchases while pumping gas." Answer 4-
5.
The following rejection is before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 6-9, 16, and 19-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Thibadeau and Helferich.
ISSUES
The issue is whether claim claims 1, 6-9, 16, and 19-30 are properly
rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Thibadeau and
Helferich. The major issues are whether the prior art teaches receiving local
weather condition information from a sensing unit that is separate from the
local computing device.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are
supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Znc. v.
Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general
evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Office).
Appeal 2009-008620
Application 09/894,2 13
1. Thidabeau describes a digital barometer that is used to determine the
altitude of a particular user terminal box in order to set the terminal
box to filter messages based on a three dimension geographic location
of the box. Col. 3,ll. 13-61.
2. Thidabeau states:
For vehicles, a portable geographic reporting unit, such as a
Global Positioning System (GPS) unit can be supplemented
with an altitude sensing unit to encode elevation data. This
position sensing means is coupled to the set-top unit to
provide the necessary location information.
Col. 20,ll. 36-41.
3. Helferich describes that an email server 16 receives local temperature
information from a sensor on a mobile phone 10. Col. 9, l . 66 - 10,l.
ANALYSIS
The Appellant argues that Thibadeau does not describe receiving
weather information from a sensing unit that is separate from the claimed
local computing device. App. Br. 10-12 and Reply Br. 2-5. The Examiner
responds that Thidabeau teaches a barometer in column 3, lines 13-61.
Answer 6.
However, in column 3, lines 13-61, Thidabeau describes a digital
barometer that is used to determine the altitude of a particular user terminal
box in order to set the terminal box to filter messages based on a three
dimension geographic location of the box. FF 1. This passage does not
describe whether the barometer is separate or not from the terminal box.
However. Thidabeau does state:
Appeal 2009-008620
Application 09/894,2 13
For vehicles, a portable geographic reporting unit, such as a
Global Positioning System (GPS) unit can be supplemented
with an altitude sensing unit to encode elevation data. This
position sensing means is coupled to the set-top unit to provide
the necessary location information.
FF 2. Though not explicitly stated, the Examiner seems to consider the
terminal (i.e. set-top box) of Thidabeau to be the claimed local computing
device. Answer 4-5. However, Thidabeau does not teach a barometer being
separate from the terminal box. Further, we note that Helferich does not
teach a sensing unit that is separate from a local computing device. The
Examiner does not rely upon Helferich to teach a sensing unit that is
separate from a local computing device and provides no other explanation of
how this limitation is taught. We note that Helferich does teach a
temperature sensing unit which is mounted to a mobile phone and not
separate from the mobile phone. FF 3. Helferich also teaches an email
server that uses the temperature information to send an email message that
included a temperature appropriate advertisement, but is silent as to whether
the email server is local or not. FF 3.
Accordingly, we find that the Appellant has overcome the rejection of
claim 1, and dependent claims 6-9, 20, 21, and 24, dependent thereon, under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Thibadeau and Helferich.
Independent claim 16 recites a similar limitation, and the Examiner
rejected claim 16 using the same rationale. Answer 4-5. Accordingly, for
the same reasons, we find that the Appellant has overcome the rejection of
claim 16, and dependent claims 19, 22, 23, and 25, dependent thereon, under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Thibadeau and Helferich.
Independent claims 26 and 29 recite receiving local weather forecast
information with the local computing device that is collected by and
Appeal 2009-008620
Application 09/894,2 13
transmitted from a remote server via a network. The Examiner rejected
these claims using the same rationale as used to reject claim 1. Answer 4-5.
Accordingly, for the same reasons, we find that the Appellant has overcome
the rejection of claims 26 and 29, and dependent claims 27, 28, and 30
dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Thibadeau and Helferich.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 6-9, 16, and 19-30 is
reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. 5 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
5 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2007).
REVERSED
mev
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS CO 80528