Ex Parte VemulapalliDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 21, 201813746734 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/746,734 01/22/2013 34082 7590 08/23/2018 ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C. CAPITAL SQUARE 400 LOCUST, SUITE 200 DES MOINES, IA 50309-2350 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Ravi Vemulapalli 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. P07627USO 6723 EXAMINER SANDERS, JUSTIN B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2422 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/23/2018 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): kconrad@zarleylaw.com crasmussen@zarleylaw.com emarty@zarleylaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RA VI VEMULAP ALLI Appeal2018-001317 Application 13/7 46,734 Technology Center 2400 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, SHARON PENICK, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2018-001317 Application 13/7 64,734 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's invention is directed to providing "a tracking system that estimates a time of arrival of a participant at a check point." (Spec. 1 :21- 23.) Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A tracking system, comprises: a website connected over an electronic network to an electronic device having an operating system, memory, and software; a plurality of participants having an identification chip with identification information and associated participant information that is entered into and stored in the electronic device through the electronic network; a listing of the plurality of participants displayed on the website, wherein the listing is searchable; and wherein the website displays the position of a selected participant on a course which is updated in real time when a spectator selects the selected participant, the website displays the selected participant's estimated time of arrival to a check point. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-8, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) based upon the teachings of Hansen (US (US 2013/0342699 Al; pub. Dec. 26, 2013), Rosen et al. (US 2013/0231760 Al; pub. Sept. 5, 2013, hereinafter "Rosen"), and Hobler (US 2011/0250939 Al; pub. Oct. 13, 2011). The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) based upon the teachings of Hansen, Rosen, Hobler, and Monari et al. (US 2014/0013361 Al; pub. Jan. 9, 2014, hereinafter "Monari"). 2 Appeal 2018-001317 Application 13/7 64,734 ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Hansen teaches all the limitations of claim 1 except for two. (Final Act. 2-3.) For claim 1 's limitation "wherein the website displays the position of a selected participant on a course which is updated in real time, the website displays the selected participant's estimated time of arrival to a check point," the Examiner relies on Rosen. (Id. at 3.) The Examiner then finds Hansen and Rosen do not teach "wherein the listing is searchable and a spectator selects a participant," relying on Hobler for this limitation. (Id. at 4.) Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Rosen teaches or suggests the "the selected participant's estimated time of arrival to a check point." (App. Br. 2.) That is, Appellant contends, Rosen teaches "elapsed time reports for individual participants at the checkpoint rather than an estimated time to [the] checkpoint for a particular participant." (Id. at 3 (citing Rosen's ,r 31).) We agree with Appellant. The Examiner has cited numerous paragraphs of Rosen as teaching this limitation. Rosen does teach displaying a participant's start time, lap count, checkpoint event times, and time to complete a lap or segment of the event. (Ans. 10-12; see e.g., Rosen ,r,r 31, 51, 68, 73, 74.) Particularly, Rosen's paragraph 74 states "[p ]articipants ... may thereby benefit by being synchronized with official event timekeeping, specifically official current lap, official timing credits, updated knowledge of time left to complete lap including credits from previous laps or route segments, and definitive knowledge of event status versus other participants." (Emphasis added). That is, Rosen teaches displaying how much remaining time a participant has to get to a particular checkpoint. However, nowhere does Rosen teach 3 Appeal 2018-001317 Application 13/7 64,734 or suggest displaying the selected participant's estimated time of arrival to a checkpoint as claimed. Therefore, as Rosen does not teach the claim limitation for which it was cited, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, dependent claims 2-8, 10, and 11 rejected by the Examiner on the same basis, and claims 12 and 13, which rely on the additionally cited Monari reference not cited for curing the deficiency noted. We note Appellant raises additional contentions of error but we do not reach them as our resolution of this contention is dispositive of the appealed rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8 and 10-13 is reversed. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation