Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 28, 20212020002077 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/089,537 04/02/2016 David Michael Gray 359004.01 8057 143198 7590 10/28/2021 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (MS) 790 N WATER ST SUITE 2500 MILWAUKEE, WI 53202 EXAMINER SCHNELL, RICHARD L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2416 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/28/2021 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): mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DAVID MICHAEL GRAY, HUBERT VAN HOOF, NICHOLAS WREM, DAVID J. BRENNAN, and BRENT GILBERT ____________ Appeal 2020-002077 Application 15/089,537 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3 and 5–20. Claim 4 is canceled. See Claims App. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-002077 Application 15/089,537 2 The present invention relates generally to generating and broadcasting a dynamic identifier. See Spec. Abstr. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is representative: 1. A computer implemented method for broadcasting an identifier, the method comprising: obtaining a first value as a current dynamic identifier corresponding to a computer user; broadcasting the current dynamic identifier as an identity of the computer user; and in response to each detection of a triggering event: dynamically obtaining a subsequent value for the current dynamic identifier corresponding to the computer user; and broadcasting the current dynamic identifier as the identity of the computer user; wherein the first value and each subsequent value are distinct values, and wherein the trigging event comprises a detected change in a current geo-location of the computer user above a predetermined threshold. REFERENCES The references relied upon by the Examiner are: Name Reference Date Willner US 2002/0196275 A1 Dec. 26, 2002 Yiu US 2003/0181205 A1 Sept. 25, 2003 Paretti US 2010/0077484 A1 Mar. 25, 2010 Hunter US 2013/0297422 A1 Nov. 7, 2013 Kim US 2014/0162601 A1 June 12, 2014 Lehmann US 2014/0189804 A1 July 3, 2014 Lundqvist US 2016/0205548 A1 July 14, 2016 Ding ’362 US 2016/0316362 A1 Oct. 27, 2016 Ding ’298 WO 2015/101298 A1 Sept. 7, 2015 Appeal 2020-002077 Application 15/089,537 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ding ’362 (in lieu of Ding ’298) and Lehmann. Final Act. 3–7. Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ding ’362 (in lieu of Ding ’298), Lehmann, and Willner. Final Act. 7–8. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ding ’362 (in lieu of Ding ’298), Lehmann, and Hunter. Final Act. 8–9. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ding ’362 (in lieu of Ding ’298), Lehmann, and Paretti. Final Act. 9–10. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ding ’362 (in lieu of Ding ’298), Lehmann, and Lundqvist. Final Act. 10. Claims 9, 10, 13–15, 17, and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ding ’362 (in lieu of Ding ’298), Lehmann, and Kim. Final Act. 10–17. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ding ’362 (in lieu of Ding ’298), Lehmann, Kim, and Lundqvist. Final Act. 17–18. Claims 19 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ding ’362 (in lieu of Ding ’298), Lehmann, Kim, and Yiu. Final Act. 18–20. Appeal 2020-002077 Application 15/089,537 4 We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). ANALYSIS Appellant contends that “neither Ding nor Lehmann teach or suggest obtaining and broadcasting a new dynamic identifier in response to a triggering event . . . a detected change in a current geo-location of the computer user.” Appeal Br. 9. Specifically, Appellant contends that “Lehmann makes no mention whatsoever of providing a client with any type of identifier for broadcasting purposes or dynamically changing this identifier under any circumstances, let alone based on a change in geo-location of the client.” Id. at 8. Appellant emphasizes that in Lehmann “changes in a user’s geo-location only determine whether a user can access portal content and does not impact any type of identifier broadcast by the user’s device.” Id. We point out that the Examiner relies upon Ding ’362, not Lehmann, to teach obtaining and broadcasting a new dynamic identifier in response to a triggering event. See Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner merely finds Lehmann teaches detecting a change in a current geo-location above a threshold. Id. at 4. For example, Ding ’362 discloses “[t]he positioning entity is configured to complete positioning and detect whether a moving track intersection event occurs” (¶ 172) and then “the entity on the network side generates a next temporary MAC address . . . and sends the next temporary MAC address to APs including the AP 1.” Ding ’362 ¶ 174. Ding ’362 Appeal 2020-002077 Application 15/089,537 5 further discloses “the identifier update notification message is used to notify the AP that an identifier of the wireless terminal is changed” and “may send an identifier update notification message to multiple APs on a network using a multicast or broadcast message.” Ding ’362 ¶ 187. In other words, Ding ’362 teaches broadcasting the current dynamic identifier and a detected change in a current geo-location of the computer user. As highlighted by the Examiner, Appellant fails to rebut these specific findings. See Ans. 4. Therefore, Appellant’s argument against Lehmann separately from Ding ’362 does not persuasively rebut the combination made by the Examiner. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually, where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425–26 (CCPA 1981). Appellant further contends that “Claim 1 requires determining an amount of change in a user’s location . . . not simply whether the user’s current location is within a predetermined geographical threshold as taught in Lehmann.” Appeal Br. 8. We disagree with Appellant’s narrow interpretation of claim 1. For example, claim 1 merely recites, inter alia, “a detected change in a current geo-location . . . above a predetermined threshold” (see claim 1), not determining a specific amount of change, as argued by Appellant. Claim 1 does not require determining an amount of change, but rather more broadly detecting a change beyond some threshold amount. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Lehmann teaches “when the current location of a user/device is above a geolocation threshold . . . [because] outside of a threshold is interpreted as above the threshold.” Appeal 2020-002077 Application 15/089,537 6 Ans. 4. For example, Lehmann discloses “in response to determining that the received specific geo-location is outside the required geo-location threshold, sending a notification.” Lehmann ¶ 11. Thus, Lehmann teaches that it is known to do something, e.g., send a notification, in response to detecting a change in a current geo-location above/beyond a predetermined threshold. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ding ’362 in view of Lehmann, likewise with the rejections of claims 2, 3, and 5–20, which are not argued separately with particularity. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–3 and 5–20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are affirmed. Appeal 2020-002077 Application 15/089,537 7 In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 12, 16 103 Ding ’362, Ding ’298, Lehmann 1, 2, 12, 16 3, 6 103 Ding ’362, Ding ’298, Lehmann, Willner 3, 6 5 103 Ding ’362, Ding ’298, Lehmann, Hunter 5 7 103 Ding ’362, Ding ’298, Lehmann, Paretti 7 8 103 Ding ’362, Ding ’298, Lehmann, Lundqvist 8 9, 10, 13–15, 17, 18 103 Ding ’362, Ding ’298, Lehmann, Kim 9, 10, 13–15, 17, 18 11 103 Ding ’362, Ding ’298, Lehmann, Kim, Lundqvist 11 19, 20 103 Ding ’362, Ding ’298, Lehmann, Kim, Yiu 19, 20 Overall Outcome 1–3, 5–20 No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation