Ex Parte Vemulapalli

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2018

13746734 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018)

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