Kirk J. Krauss

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 18, 2019

13798314 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/798,314 03/13/2013 Kirk J. Krauss SVL920130010US1/
IBMP091
8314
63056 7590 09/18/2019
MOLLBORN PATENTS, INC.
2840 COLBY DRIVE
BOULDER, CO 80305
EXAMINER
ALKAFAWI, EMAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2865
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/18/2019 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):
MOLLBORN@MOLLBORN.COM
admin@mollborn.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KIRK J. KRAUSS
Appeal 2019-000280
Application 13/798,314
Technology Center 2800
BEFORE LINDA M. GAUDETTE, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1, 2

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification
filed March 13, 2013, as amended (“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated
September 21, 2017 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed April 18, 2018
(“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer dated August 9, 2018 (“Ans.”); and
Reply Brief filed October 9, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
2 The present application is the parent of Application 14/491,426, currently
on appeal. See Appeal 2019-000271.
Appeal 2019-000280
Application 13/798,314

2
The Appellant3 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 12–18 and 20–25.4
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to “techniques for motion processing, which can
compare sets of spatial regions (e.g., STBs [(SpaceTimeBoxes)])
accumulated over time, to identify life arcs (i.e., paths through space
traversed by entities) and outliers to the life arcs (i.e., entities that follow
alternate paths).” Spec. ¶ 13. Claim 12, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
12. A computer program product for processing motion paths
for physical entities, the computer program product comprising
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having
program code embodied therewith, the program code
executable by a processor to perform a method comprising:
connecting a plurality of physical computing nodes to
each other and to a database management system through a
computer network, and configuring the computing nodes to
process data received in inbound messages from one or more
data sources, the inbound messages containing a plurality of
representations of positions of the physical entity;
for each physical entity among a plurality of physical
entities, receiving at the plurality of computing nodes inbound
messages from a data source among the one or more data
sources;
processing by the plurality of computing nodes the
inbound messages to determine a motion path for one or more

3 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to the “Applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). The Appellant, International Business Machines
Corporation Inc., is also the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
4 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2019-000280
Application 13/798,314

3
of the physical entities, wherein inbound messages pertaining
to a same physical entity among the plurality of physical
entities are processed by a same computing node among the
plurality of computing nodes, and wherein processing further
includes:
providing data to and receiving data from the database
management system, and providing data to and receiving data
from other computing nodes among the plurality of computing
nodes; and
in response to detecting by one or more of the
computing nodes that a number of physical entities among the
plurality of physical entities traverse a similar motion path,
generating by one or more of the computing nodes a path record
representing the motion path traversed by the number of
physical entities.
Appeal Br. 25–26 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relied on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Flickner et al.
Altman et al.
Newcombe et al.
US 2003/0107649 A1
US 2008/0070593 A1
US 2012/0195471 A1
June 12, 2003
Mar. 20, 2008
Aug. 2, 2012

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 12–18 and 20–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
2. Claims 12, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-
AIA), second paragraph, or 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
3. Claims 12, 14, 15, 17, 21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Altman.
4. Claims 13, 16, 18, 22, and 25, are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Altman in view of Flickner.
Appeal 2019-000280
Application 13/798,314

4
5. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Altman in view of Newcombe and Flickner.
OPINION
1. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Examiner rejected claims 12–18 and 20–25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as directed to patent ineligible subject matter. See Final Act. 3–6. An
invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme
Court, however, has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit
exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not
patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). In
determining whether a claim falls within an excepted category, we are
guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Alice (see
id. at 217–18), and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012). In accordance with that
framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See
Alice, 573 U.S. at 219.
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (id. at 219–20; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611
(2010)); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95
(1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69
(1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and
chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr,
450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth,
vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 183 n.7 (quoting Corning v.
Appeal 2019-000280
Application 13/798,314

5
Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267–68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson,
409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
If a claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step
of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of
the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient
to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 221. “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include
‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at
77).
In January of this year, the PTO published revised guidance on the
application of Section 101. USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”). Under the
Guidance, we first look to whether a claim recites (1) any judicial
exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical
concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a
fundamental economic practice, or mental processes) (“Guidance Step 2A,
Prong One”), and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception
into a practical application (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h))
(“Guidance Step 2A, Prong Two”). Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial
exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical
application, do we then look to whether the claim (3) adds a specific
limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood,
routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)), or (4) simply
appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known
Appeal 2019-000280
Application 13/798,314

6
to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial
exception (“Guidance Step 2B”).
Judicial Exception – Guidance Step 2A, Prong One
The Appellant argues the claims as a group. See generally Appeal Br.
10–11. Accordingly, we focus our discussion on claim 12,
As indicated above, under Guidance Step 2A, Prong One, we consider
whether claim 12 recites a judicial exception to the statutory categories of
patent-eligible subject matter, including one of the following groupings of
abstract ideas: (1) mathematical concepts, e.g., mathematical relationships,
mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations; (2)
mental processes, e.g., concepts performed in the human mind, including
observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions; and (3) certain methods
of organizing human activity. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
The Examiner determined that the limitations recited in the second,
fourth, and sixth paragraphs of claim 12 (see bolded and italicized language
supra pp. 2–3) are directed to an abstract idea of implementing a set of
instructions in a generic computer. See Final Act. 3–4. As to these
limitations, the Specification discloses that “the system includes one or more
computing nodes (10), which collaborate . . . to process data received in
inbound messages from one or more data sources (102),” e.g., “the
Automatic Identification System (AIS), which is an automatic tracking
system used on oceangoing vessels, and by vessel traffic services (VTS) for
identifying and locating vessels by electronically exchanging data amongst
vessels, AIS base stations, and satellites.” Spec. ¶ 28. “Each node (10) can
be an independent computer or processor.” Id. Each computing node (10)
includes computing device (12) that “may be described in the general
Appeal 2019-000280
Application 13/798,314

7
context of computer system executable instructions, such as program
modules, being executed by a computer system.” Id. ¶ 32. “[P]rogram
modules may include routines, programs, objects, components, logic, data
structures, and so on that perform particular tasks or implement particular
abstract data types.” Id. The Specification discloses a motion processing
application, or “path detector,” that works as follows: “When a qualifying
number of qualifying entities is found to traverse a similar path for the first
time, the path detector produces a path record for those entities.” Id. ¶ 19.
For example, “the qualifying number might be determined based on a
percentage, . . . [e.g.], at least 20% of these entities must traverse a similar
path in order for the path detector to produce a path record.” Id. The
Specification discloses that “STBs [(SpaceTimeBoxes)] can be created by
routines implemented, for example, as a plugin module in the Sensemaking
[(entity analytics)] product, based on an input geospatial region and time
interval, by using a geohash public domain geospatial-quantizing algorithm,
along with a simple time-quantizing algorithm.” Id. ¶ 15.
Based on the above and other description in the Specification, we
determine that claim 12 necessarily involves the use of mathematical
relationships, formulas, or equations. In accordance with the Guidance, we
conclude that claim 12 recites mathematical concepts and, thus, recites an
abstract idea.
Integration into a Practical Application – Guidance Step 2A, Prong Two
According to the Guidance, even if a claim recites any one of the three
groupings of abstract ideas, the claim is still not “directed to” a judicial
exception (abstract idea), and thus is patent eligible, if “the claim as a whole
integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that
Appeal 2019-000280
Application 13/798,314

8
exception.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53. Limitations that are indicative of
“integration into a practical application” include: (1) improvements to the
functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see
MPEP § 2106.05(a)); (2) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a
particular machine (see id. § 2106.05(b); (3) effecting a transformation or
reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see id.
§ 2106.05(c)); and (4) applying or using the judicial exception in some other
meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to
a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is
more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see id.
§ 2106.05(e)). See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55 (“Prong Two”). In
contrast, limitations that are not indicative of “integration into a practical
application” include: (1) adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with
the judicial exception, merely including instructions to implement an
abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform
an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); (2) adding insignificant
extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see id. § 2106.05(g); and
(3) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular
technological environment or field of use (see id. § 2106.05(h)).
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55 (“Prong Two”).
The Appellant argues the claims include limitations that “constitute[]
an improvement in the functioning of [a] computer.” Appeal Br. 11. The
Appellant explains that
[h]aving dedicated physical nodes that each processes data for a
particular physical entity, in combination with allowing the
nodes to communicate over the computer network not only with
each other, but also with the database management system,
Appeal 2019-000280
Application 13/798,314

9
results in improved path detection for the physical entities, as
well as improved detection of outliers to any identified paths,
compared to conventional techniques.
Id.
The Examiner contends the additional limitations recited in the claims
are nothing more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a
computer or insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., “providing data to and
receiving data from” and “generating by one or more of the computing
nodes a path record” involve data collection and data gathering which are
extra solution activities necessitated by the process). Final 4–5. In support of
the rejection under Section 101, the Examiner cites MacroPoint, LLC v.
FourKites, Inc., 2015 WL 6870118 (N.D. Ohio 2015), aff’d mem., 671 F.
App’x 780 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and Wireless Media Innovations, LLC v. Maher
Terminals, LLC, 100 F. Supp. 3d 405 (D.N.J. 2015), aff’d mem., 636 F.
App’x 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Ans. 5.
In MacroPoint, the court determined that claims reciting “a process
for tracking freight, including monitoring, locating, and communicating
regarding the location of the freight” were directed to an abstract idea. 2015
WL 6870118, at *3. In Wireless Media, the court determined that claims
reciting a “process of monitoring and moving shipping containers and
collecting the relevant data as to the location of the shipping containers”
were directed to an abstract idea. 100 F. Supp. 3d at 415 (“It is apparent to
the Court that this claim is limited to general steps and means for
monitoring, recording, sorting, communicating and generating location and
load status information, which could be carried out by human memory, by
hand, or by conventional equipment and general purpose computer and
printer resources.”). By contrast, in SZ DJI Technology Company v. Yuneec
Appeal 2019-000280
Application 13/798,314

10
International Company, 2016 WL 8931302 (C.D. Cal. 2016), the court
determined that claims directed to tracking a target were patentable. The
court explained that “[u]nlike MacroPoint, the claims in this case do not
simply use a computer to accomplish automatic tracking, but instead provide
specific parameters for how to adjust the UAV [(unmanned aerial vehicle)]
and imaging device.” Id., at * 4. Likewise, the court distinguished the claims
at issue from those in Wireless Media by explaining that the claims at issue
“do[] not merely employ a computer for the purpose of collecting location
data, but instead use[] it to adjust the physical components within the
system.” Id.
We agree with the Examiner that the present claims recite nothing
more than software instructions implemented in a generic computer system,
see Final Act. 4, and, like the claims in MacroPoint and Wireless, do not
recite additional limitations that are indicative of “integration into a practical
application.” The Appellant argues that the “claims are not directed to an
abstract idea” and that “[n]ot only do the claims include physical
components, but . . . also describe a specific process that results in an
improvement in the functioning of a computer.” Appeal Br. 11. The
Appellant, however, has not identified claim language that recites the use of
the collected or generated data to adjust any physical components. As
explained by our reviewing court,
claims focused on “collecting information, analyzing it, and
displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” are
directed to an abstract idea. Electric Power [Group, LLC v.
Alstom S.A.], 830 F.3d [1350,] 1353 [(Fed. Cir. 2016)].
“Information as such is an intangible,” hence abstract, and
“collecting information, including when limited to particular
content (which does not change its character as information),
Appeal 2019-000280
Application 13/798,314

11
[i]s within the realm of abstract ideas.” Id. (citing cases). So,
too, is “analyzing information . . . by mathematical algorithms,
without more.” Id. at 1354 (citing cases, including Parker . . .
and . . . Benson . . . ). And “merely presenting the results of
abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information,
without more (such as identifying a particular tool for
presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection
and analysis.” Id. (citing cases). The claims here are directed
[to] abstract ideas under those principles.
SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Accordingly, we determine claim 12 as a whole does not integrate the
judicial exception—mathematical concepts— into a practical application of
that exception.
Inventive Concept – Guidance Step 2B
Under Guidance Step 2B, we determine whether the claim provides an
“inventive concept,” i.e., whether the additional elements beyond the judicial
exception, individually and in combination, amount to “significantly more”
than the judicial exception itself. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. According
to the Guidance, “simply append[ing] well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality,” is indicative that an inventive concept is absent. Id.
The Examiner contends “the essential principle of network
communication[] is to connect/link multiple devices with each other and
servers,” Ans. 4, and “[t]he data being collected from [a] physical
node/server[] is a mere routine data collection implemented by . . . routine
devices,” Final Act. 5. The Examiner contends “the limitations of ‘physical
computing nodes’, ‘database management system’, ‘computing network’,
and ‘processor’ are no more than general purpose machine/tools or device
cited at [a] high level of generality.” Id. at 4; see also Ans. 4 (“[S]uch
Appeal 2019-000280
Application 13/798,314

12
limitations are indeed not only . . . routine and conventional, rather these
devices are essential.”).
The Appellant argues that
the physical computing nodes interact with each other, the
database management system, and one or more data sources,
and they distribute and process messages regarding physical
entities between themselves in a very specific way. While the
physical nodes conceivably could be implemented using
generic computing components, the way in which the nodes
interact is highly specific to the particular application at hand
and is not merely “routine and generic devices cited at [a] high
level of generality.”
Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 1 (“[H]aving dedicated physical nodes
that each processes data for a particular physical entity, in combination with
allowing the nodes to communicate over the computer network not only with
each other, but also with the database management system, results in
improved path detection for the physical entities, as well as improved
detection of outliers to any identified paths, compared to conventional
techniques. Having better detection abilities also constitutes an improvement
in the functioning of the computer.”)
The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. We agree with the
Examiner’s analysis of the claim language and determination that the claims
fail to recite additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the
judicial exception itself. Moreover, the Appellant admits that the nodes
could be implemented using well-understood, routine, conventional devices.
See Appeal Br. 11 supra; cited and quoted Specification disclosure supra pp.
6–7.
In conclusion, we agree with the Examiner that claims 12–18 and 20–
25 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Appeal 2019-000280
Application 13/798,314

13
2. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, indefiniteness
The Examiner determined claims 125, 20, and 21 are indefinite due to
insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the plurality of computing
nodes” (claims 12, 20, 21). Final Act. 6–7. The Appellant contends that one
of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “the plurality of computing
nodes” refers to the prior recitation of “a plurality of physical computing
nodes” in each of claims 12, 20, and 21. See Appeal Br. 12.
A claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 when it contains words or
phrases whose meaning is unclear. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1309
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Indefiniteness, as a subset of claim construction, is a
question of law . . . .”). “[T]he lack of an antecedent basis does not render a
claim indefinite as long as the claim ‘apprises one of ordinary skill in the art
of its scope and, therefore, serves the notice function required by [§ 112
¶ 2].’” In re Downing, 754 F. App’x 988, 996 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in
original) (citing MPEP § 2173.05(e)).
The second paragraph of each of claims 12 and 20 recites “connecting
a plurality of physical computing nodes to each other . . . , and configuring
the computing nodes to process data received in inbound messages from one
or more data sources.” Appeal Br. 25, 28 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis
added). The third paragraph of each of claims 12 and 20 recites “receiving at
the plurality of computing nodes inbound messages from a data source
among the one or more data sources.” Id. (emphasis added). Similarly, the
third paragraph of claim 21 recites “a plurality of physical computing nodes,

5 The Final Office Action inadvertantly identifies claim 1, rather than claim
12, as subject to this ground of rejection. See Final Act. 6; Ans. 5 (correctly
listing claims 12, 20, and 21 as subject to this ground of rejection).
Appeal 2019-000280
Application 13/798,314

14
the computing nodes being connected to each other . . . , and being
configured to process data received in inbound messages from one or more
data sources,” and the fourth paragraph of claim 21 recites “receiving at the
plurality of computing nodes inbound messages from a data source among
the one or more data sources.” Id. at 29. In our view, one of ordinary skill in
the art would understand from the recitation of “the computing nodes”
following the recitation of the “plurality of physical computing nodes” in the
same paragraph in each of claims 12, 20, and 21 that “computing nodes” and
“physical computing nodes” are one and the same. This interpretation is
consistent with the original Specification, which does not use the term
“physical computing nodes,” but uses the terms “computing nodes” and
“nodes” interchangeably in referring to reference numeral (10). See, e.g.,
Spec. ¶ 28, Fig. 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection claims 12, 20, and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, or 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
3. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
The Examiner rejected claims 12, 14, 15, 17, 21, 23, and 24 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Altman. See Final Act. 7–17. The
Appellant argues in support of patentability of claim 12. See Appeal Br. 12–
16. In addition, the Appellant presents separate arguments in support of
patentability of the following claims or claim groupings: (1) claims 14 and
23, and (2) claim 17. See id. at 18–19. Although the Appellant includes a
separate heading for dependent claims 15 and 24, see id. at 18, as noted by
the Examiner, see Ans. 18–19, the Appellant’s arguments are directed to
limitations in claim 12.
Appeal 2019-000280
Application 13/798,314

15
We have considered the arguments advanced by the Appellant in the
Appeal and Reply Briefs, but are not persuaded of reversible error in the
Examiner’s finding of anticipation, see Final Act. 7–17, for the reasons
explained in the Answer, see Ans. 5–21. We add the following for emphasis
and to address the arguments made in the Appellant’s Reply Brief.
Claim 12 recites “in response to detecting by one or more of the
computing nodes that a number of physical entities among the plurality of
physical entities traverse a similar motion path, generating by one or more of
the computing nodes a path record representing the motion path traversed by
the number of physical entities.” Appeal Br. 26 (Claims Appendix). Claim
21 includes a similar recitation. See id. at 29. The Examiner found that this
limitation is described in Altman paragraphs 48, 102, and 103. Final Act. 11.
The Appellant agrees that Altman paragraph 103 describes an embodiment
in which a server computer can be configured to store all previous locations
of the user in a location log, but argues that Altman fails to disclose “using
such a log to create or process motion paths or a path record representing a
common motion path for multiple physical entities and/or to detect outliers
to such a motion path, as is described in the Appellant[’s] claims.” Reply Br.
2.
The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because it is not
commensurate in scope with claims 12, 14, 15, 17, 21, 23, and 24. As to the
Appellant’s contention that Altman fails to disclose using the location log to
detect outliers, Reply Br. 2, we note that limitations relating to detection of
outliers are not recited in the claims subject to this ground of rejection. The
Specification defines an “outlier” as “an entity that traverses a path that is
different from most other similar entities (e.g., entities that are all of a given
Appeal 2019-000280
Application 13/798,314

16
type and/or observed from a given data source, and so on).” Spec. ¶ 38
(emphasis added). The claims rejected as anticipated by Altman require
detection of physical entities that traverse a similar motion path. See, e.g.,
Appeal Br. 26 (Claims Appendix – claims 12 and 21).
As to the Appellant’s argument that Altman fails to disclose using the
location log to create “a path record representing a common motion path for
multiple physical entities,” Reply Br. 2, we note that none of the claims
subject to the rejection under Section 102(b) recite multiple physical entities.
Rather, the last paragraphs of claims 12 and 21 recite “in response to
detecting that a number of physical entities among the plurality of physical
entities traverse a similar motion path, generating a path record.” Appeal Br.
29 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added); see id. at 26. The broadest
reasonable construction of “a number of physical entities” includes one
physical entity. Thus, in addition to the facts and reasons relied on by the
Examiner in finding Altman discloses the argued limitation, Ans. 14–16, we
find the last paragraphs of claims 12 and 21 read on Altman’s disclosure of
tailoring the polling of an individual user’s location based on general travel
or commute patterns—i.e., a similar motion path travelled by a physical
entity—and storing current and previous locations of that user in a location
log, see Altman ¶¶ 102–103. See Spec. ¶ 38 (“[A] path exists when motion
data associated with a set of entities matches, or more particularly when a
series of positional data observations associated with a set of entities is
observed to encompass correlating sets of spatial regions.”).
The Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Altman
describes a communication network of the type recited in the claims. Reply
Br. 2. The Appellant contends Altman’s nodes are configured to process
Appeal 2019-000280
Application 13/798,314

17
inbound messages from the physical entities (users) rather than inbound
messages from data sources as required by the claims. Id.
The Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because they fail to
identify error in the Examiner’s findings. The Examiner found that the
claimed “physical computing nodes” read on Altman’s mobile
communication devices, such as cell phones, and the claimed “computer
network” through which the nodes (cell phones) are connected reads on
Altman’s wireless communication network, such as mobile network 111.
Final Act. 8 (citing Altman, at [57], ¶¶ 36–37, Figs. 1A–B); see Altman ¶ 36
(“The mobile network 111 supporting the mobile devices 102 are coupled to
the server computer through an intermediate server computer, such as cell
server 116.”), ¶ 37 (“[E]ach user of a mobile device may also operate or
access the location-based social network manager process 112 through a
client computer 106, or any device that can access the Internet.”). These
findings are consistent with the Specification’s disclosure that (1) a
computing node comprises a computing device, which may be a handheld
device, Spec. ¶ 31, (2) program code on the computer readable medium may
be transmitted using any appropriate medium, including wireless, id. ¶ 24,
and (3) “the remote computer may be connected to the user’s computer
through any type of network, . . . or the connection may be made to an
external computer (for example, through the Internet using an Internet
Service Provider),” id.
As to the limitation “processing by the plurality of computing nodes
the inbound messages [from a data source] to determine a motion path for
one or more of the physical entities,” Appeal Br. 25 (Claims Appendix), see
also id. at 29, the Specification discloses that “a data source is usually a
Appeal 2019-000280
Application 13/798,314

18
database table, query or extract from a system of record,” Spec. ¶ 29, and “a
computing node” comprises “a computing device,” which may be a
handheld device, id. ¶ 31. The Appellant has not explained sufficiently why
the disclosure in Altman relied upon by the Examiner fails to meet the
argued limitation.
For example, Altman discloses that “[t]he location-based social
network manager process 112 includes components that display the location
information for device 160 to other user devices 102 based on lists of friends
whom user [of device] 160 has specified as authorized to view such location
information.” Altman ¶ 44. “[L]ocation-aware device 160 represents a
mobile phone or similar mobile device that incorporates the location sharing
feature provided by the location-based social network manager process 112.
This allows the location of device 160 to be displayed on its own display
170 as well as on the display of other user devices 102, and/or server
computers 104.” Id. ¶ 43. “Location information for the device is determined
by position determination unit 166, such as a Global Positioning System
(GPS) method, or similar location determination process implemented
within the device 160.” Id. “[E]ach mobile communication device runs local
client versions of the map generator and database manager components. . . .
As the user [of device 160] moves, the position of his location on the
displayed map is updated in real-time or near real-time.” Id. ¶ 48 (emphasis
added). “Not only can location information be displayed on a map, but
specific information can be displayed in a list format on the . . . mobile
device of the user.” Id. ¶ 55. “For each listed friend, various items of
associated information can be displayed, such as the name, location . . . , and
any associated message or status information. The status information is
Appeal 2019-000280
Application 13/798,314

19
programmed into the profile portion of the user database 124 for each friend
and is pulled from that database.” Id. (emphasis added). In other words,
Altman discloses that the users (physical entities) receive at their respective
mobile devices 160, 102 (nodes) location information (an inbound message)
for the user of device 160 (one of the physical entities) from a position-
determination unit (data source) within device 160, and each mobile device
160, 102 (node) processes the information to determine movement of the
user of device 160 (one of the physical entities) and generate a map showing
the path (motion path) of user of device 160.
In conclusion, for the reasons stated above and in the Final Office
Action and the Answer, we sustain the rejection of claims 12, 14, 15, 17, 21,
23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Altman.
4. & 5. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner rejected claims 13, 16, 18, 22, and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Altman in view of Flickner, and claim 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Altman in view of
Newcombe and Flickner. See Final Act. 17–29. We have considered the
arguments advanced by the Appellant in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, but
are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness for the reasons explained in the Answer. See Ans. 21–29.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above as to the anticipation
rejection of independent claims 12 and 21, in the Final Office Action, and in
the Answer, we sustain the rejections of claims 13, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Appeal 2019-000280
Application 13/798,314

20
ORDER
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
12–18, 20–
25
§ 101 12–18, 20–25
12, 20, and
21
§ 112, indefiniteness 12, 20, and
21
12, 14, 15,
17, 21, 23,
and 24
§ 102(b) - Altman 12, 14, 15, 17, 21,
23, and 24

13, 16, 18,
22, and 25
§ 103(a) – Altman and
Flickner
13, 16, 18, 22, and
25

20 § 103(a) – Altman,
Newcombe, and Flickner
20
Outcome 12–18, 20–25

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED