D2L CorporationDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 29, 202014030189 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2020) 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. 14/030,189 09/18/2013 Brian CEPURAN K8001239US 7096 34236 7590 05/29/2020 GOWLING WLG (CANADA) LLP 50 QUEEN STREET NORTH, STE. 1020 P.O. BOX 2248 KITCHENER, ONTARIO N2H6M2 CANADA EXAMINER SOWA, TIMOTHY JOHN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2448 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/29/2020 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): JEFF.WONG@GOWLINGWLG.COM VAL.COTTRILL@GOWLINGWLG.COM Waterloo.IP@gowlingwlg.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte BRIAN CEPURAN ____________ Appeal 2019-001982 Application 14/030,189 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and JASON V. MORGAN, 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 1–18. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as D2L Corporation. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-001982 Application 14/030,189 2 The present invention relates generally to providing information about various locations based on user study area and user location. See Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method for providing location aware educational information, the method comprising: obtaining a user location related to a user, wherein the user location corresponds to a future location of the user, and wherein the user location is obtained based at least in part on a calendar of the user; receiving user study data related to the user based at least in part on an area of study associated with an enrollment of the user in relation to a learning management system; determining location aware educational information based on the user location and the user study data, wherein the location aware educational information corresponds to information that is associated with a study area related to the user location that matches the area of study associated with the enrollment of the user; and providing, to a user interface of the client device, a notification associated with the location aware educational information. Appellant appeals the following rejections: R1. Claims 1–5, 7–13, and 15–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Beykpour (US 2011/0082808, Apr. 7, 2011) Final Act. 4–10.; and R2. Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beykpour and Supanc (US 8,753,200 B1, June 17, 2014) Final Act. 10–12. 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). Appeal 2019-001982 Application 14/030,189 3 ANALYSIS Rejection under § 102(b) Claims 1–4, 7–13, and 15–17 Appellant contends that “Beykpour fails to disclose or render obvious ‘receiving user study data related to the user based at least in part on an area of study associated with an enrollment of the user in relation to a learning management system.’” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant also contends that “Beykpour appears to relate to a system for providing a location of an event or searched data. Beykpour does not disclose ‘determining location aware educational information based on the user location and the user study data.’” Appeal Br. 11. In other words, Appellant’s aforementioned contention appears to emphasize that Beykpour fails to provide location aware educational information based on the user location. We disagree with Appellant. The Examiner finds that Beykpour discloses “a user’s location is obtained from a user’s mobile device” and “a user’s location is correlated to notify a user of location-related educational information including other students who are involved with the same educational matters at a common given location, as scheduled on their respective academic calendars.” Final Act. 4 (citing Beykpour ¶¶ 53, 66, 83, 85, 87); see also Ans. 4 (citing Beykpour ¶¶ 85–88); and Ans. 5 (citing Beykpour ¶¶ 77, 83, 87, 88). We agree with the Examiner. For example, Beykpour discloses “the system 100 is configured to access and provide client-specific courses data that includes target data types, such as a department code (e.g., undergraduate), subject code . . . course number . . . location name . . . enrollment capacity, and current Appeal 2019-001982 Application 14/030,189 4 enrolled total.” Beykpour ¶ 77. Beykpour further discloses “the user is provided with user-specific options, which include a geolocation based option (e.g., location of the user on a map) . . . a profile option (e.g., view class grades)” (Beykpour ¶ 83), “a user of the system 100 can locate other students . . . registered with the system 100 who are enrolled in the same or related courses as the user” (Beykpour ¶ 87), and “the user-specific options presented to the user allow the user to connect and interact with a learning management system.” Beykpour ¶ 88. Additionally, Beykpour discloses “events data extracted from the client-specific content data store 130 . . . such as selected target data types . . . having categories (e.g., academic calendar dates . . . ) for selected items.” Beykpour ¶ 66. In other words, Beykpour discloses determining the location of the user (either by geolocation or by using academic calendar dates) and identifying study data (e.g., course number, grades, and enrollment status) related to the user. As a result, we find unavailing Appellant’s aforementioned contention that “Beykpour does not disclose ‘determining location aware educational information based on the user location and the user study data,’” given the disclosures noted supra. Specifically, Appellant fails to persuasively distinguish such disclosures of Beykpour from the argued limitations. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Appellant’s arguments regarding the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 9 relies on the same arguments as for claim 1, and Appellant does not argue separate patentability for the dependent claims, except as noted below. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–4, 7–13, and 15–17. Appeal 2019-001982 Application 14/030,189 5 Claim 5 Claim 5 requires, inter alia, selecting location aware educational information based on user requirements. Claim 5. Appellant contends that in Beykpour “[t]he purported notification of a user of other students involved in the same educational matters is different from ‘selecting location aware educational information based on user requirements.’” Appeal Br. 12. We disagree with Appellant. Here, Appellant’s Specification states that “the user requirements may include user needs based on user study data relating to user weaknesses.” Spec. ¶ 12. As such, we broadly but reasonably construe the claim term “user requirements” as denoting any study needs of the user based on the study data. Consistent with Appellant’s Specification, the Examiner finds that Beykpour “discloses the fulfillment of user requirements by notifying a user of other students involved in the same educational matters at a common location. For example, a student who desires to study with geographically nearby classmates.” Ans. 7 (citing Beykpour ¶ 87). Specifically, Beykpour discloses “a user of the system 100 who desires to review a homework assignment or study for an examination for a class with her nearby friends in the class can use the system 100 to locate her friends.” Beykpour ¶ 87. We agree with the Examiner that Beykpour’s aforementioned disclosure is consistent with Appellant’s disclosed exemplary “user requirements,” which relate to study needs. Appellant fails to persuasively distinguish Beykpour’s disclosure of studying with friends from Appellant’s claimed “user requirements.” Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5. Appeal 2019-001982 Application 14/030,189 6 Claim 18 Claim 18 recites, inter alia, “the location aware education information comprises information that serves as an educational resource for the study area.” Claim 18. Appellant cites paragraphs 77, 83, 87, and 88 of Beykpour and argues that “Beykpour fail to disclose or render obvious” the features of claim 18 (see Appeal Br. 14), without providing any meaningful analysis that explains why the Examiner erred. Specifically, Appellant merely makes general allegations that Beykpour does not teach the language for claim 18. However, Appellant is reminded that a general allegation that claim 18 defines a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of claim 18 patentably distinguishes it from Beykpour does not constitute a persuasive response. A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We note that arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. We highlight that Beykpour discloses “a user of the system 100 who desires to review a homework assignment or study for an examination . . . can use the system 100 to locate her friends” (¶ 87), and “a user of the system 100 having a student role and searching for a tutor can locate users having a teaching assistant role in the desired subject area.” Beykpour ¶ 88. We find that the claimed “educational resource for the study area” reads on Beykpour’s aforementioned disclosure. Therefore, Appellant’s arguments regarding claim 18 are unpersuasive. Appeal 2019-001982 Application 14/030,189 7 Rejection under § 103(a) Claims 6 and 14 Because Appellant has not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 1 above (see Appeal Br. 14), claims 6 and 14 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)( iv). CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5, 7–13, and 15–18 as being anticipated by Beykpour is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 14 as being unpatentable over Beykpour and Supanc is affirmed. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–5, 7–13, 15–18 102 Beykpour 1–5, 7– 13, 15–18 6, 14 103 Beykpour, Supanc 6, 14 Overall Outcome 1–18 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