Ex Parte Boldyrev et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 31, 201713601614 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2017) 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. 13/601,614 08/31/2012 Sergey Boldyrev P6435US00 1606 11764 7590 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. 44 Canal Center Plaza Suite 322 Alexandria, VA 22314 EXAMINER RUBIN, BLAKE J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2457 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/04/2017 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): docket@dcpatent.com Nokia. IPR @ nokia. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SERGEY BOLDYREV, DEBMALYA BISWAS, JUHA KALEVI LAURILA, and LAURI AARNO OLAVI TARKKALAL Appeal 2016-0056791 Application 13/601,614 Technology Center 2400 Before JASON V. MORGAN, NABEEL U. KHAN, and KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—9 and 11—19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nokia Technologies OY. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2016-005679 Application 13/601,614 ANALYSIS We have considered Appellants’ arguments in light of the Examiner’s findings and responses. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Further, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, as set forth in the Final Action and Answer. The following is provided for emphasis. The Examiner rejects claims 1—9 and 11—19, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), as anticipated by Curtis (US 8,620,532 B2; Dec. 31, 2013). See Final Act. (Mar. 27, 2015). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015) (representative claims). 1. A method comprising facilitating a processing of and/or processing (1) data and/or (2) information and/or (3) at least one signal, the (1) data and/or (2) information and/or (3) at least one signal based, at least in part, on the following: location data reported by at least one user, at least one device associated with the at least one user, or a combination thereof; and a processing of personal detail information associated with the at least one user, the at least one device, or a combination thereof on the at least one device based, at least in part, on one or more privacy policies to cause, at least in part, a validation of the location data. Appellants argue, via the Appeal Brief, Curtis does not disclose a “processing of personal detail information” (claim 1) on a user’s device. App. Br. 12. Appellants further argue, via the Reply Brief, Curtis does not disclose such a processing that causes “validation of location data” on the user’s device. Reply Br. 1—3. In support, Appellants cite the Specification’s description of these features at paragraph 25. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 2. 2 Appeal 2016-005679 Application 13/601,614 Appellants’ argument fails to address Curtis in light of the Examiner’s claim construction, which is well explained by the Answer’s “response to argument” section. See Ans. 6—8; see also Final Act. 7—8. Appellants do not address persuasively in the record before us whether Curtis’ user device anticipates the processing and validation as claimed by: (i) updating the device’s location via a received GPS signal/data and anonymizing the location data (claim 1 ’s “processing of personal detail information ... on the . . . device based . . . on . . . privacy policies . . .”); and (ii) reporting of the anonymized location data to synch the corresponding data stored by a mapping application server (claim l’s “. . . a validation of the location data”). See Ans. 6—8; see also Final Act. 3 (citing Curtis’ map updating, at col. 4,11. 10-21, for claim 1 ’s validating). Appellants instead contend that Curtis does not perform the claimed validation (synching) on the user’s device. App. Br. 11 (citing Spec. 125); see also Reply Br. 2. This argument is unresponsive to the Examiner’s finding that validation on a user device is described by the Specification but not claimed. See Ans. 6—8. The claim only recites “processing ... on the at least one device ... to cause, at least in part, a validation” (emphasis added). Appellants do not persuasively distinguish the claimed causing a validation from the provisioning of data to allow for patterns of movement to be detected that indicate new roads that should be added to a map, as disclosed by Curtis. See Final Act. 3 (citing Curtis col. 4,11. 10-21); see also Ans. 8 (citing Curtis col. 6,11. 22—28). Appellants further contend that Curtis’ synching of location data on the server is not processing of personal information on a user device. App. Br. 12. Appellants’ argument is not responsive to the Examiner’s finding that Curtis’ updating and anonymizing of the location data at the user device 3 Appeal 2016-005679 Application 13/601,614 (supra)—not Curtis’ synching of the anonymized location data at the server—anticipates claim 1 ’s processing at the device. Appellants further summarize cited prior art disclosures and then allege, without meaningfully addressing claim 1 ’s scope, the disclosures do “not amount to disclosing or suggesting ‘a processing of personal detail information . . in the manner claimed.” App. Br. 12—13 (two occurrences), 15—19 (six occurrences); Reply Br. 2—3 (two occurrences). Appellants’ allegations, without more, do not address the Examiner’s application of Curtis discussed above. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of representative claim 1 and claims 2—9 and 11—19 falling therewith. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—9 and 11—19. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation