Ex Parte Chao et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 15, 201411323850 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 15, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte YI-CHUNG CHAO, ROBERT RENNARD, and HAIPING JIN ____________________ Appeal 2011-009237 Application 11/323,850 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-009237 Application 11/323,850 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). STATEMENT OF THE DECISION We AFFIRM.1 THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention “relates generally to hybrid systems, and more particularly, to a system for a location based services and navigation system wherein a client and a server communicate to carry out the location based service and navigation tasks” (Spec., para. [0001]). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. An intelligent location based services and navigation hybrid method with a client having location based service capability and a server comprising: setting a condition for updates of relevant information including updates for a no server access region on an estimated travel path by the server or the client, or a combination thereof; selecting the relevant information for the updates by the server or the client, or a combination thereof; transmitting the relevant information from the server or the client; receiving the updates of the relevant information by the server or the client; and selecting an operational mode by the client. 1 Our decision will refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed December 2, 2010) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed February 16, 2011). Appeal 2011-009237 Application 11/323,850 3 THE REJECTION The following rejection is before us for review: Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mahonen (US 2006/0089152 A1, pub. Apr. 27, 2006) and Reich (US 2007/0143017 A1, pub. Jun. 21, 2007). ANALYSIS Independent claims 1, 6, and 11 Appellants argue claims 1, 6, and 11 as a group (Br. 10-14). We select claim 1 as representative. The remaining claims stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because neither Mahonen nor Reich, alone or in combination, discloses or suggests “setting a condition for updates of relevant information including updates for a no server access region on an estimated travel path by the server or the client, or a combination thereof,” as recited in claim 1 (Br. 10-12). Instead, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ argument, as set forth at pages 30-32 of the Answer. Mahonen discloses a methodology for location-based synchronization of content in mobile terminals, e.g., wireless devices, mobile phones, etc., such the content of the mobile terminal is dependent on its current position/location (Mahonen, Abstract). Mahonen describes in paragraph [0063], cited by Examiner, that the mobile terminal 10 (in Figure 1a) changes its location from a first location at the start of a predetermined time interval to a second location at the end of the time Appeal 2011-009237 Application 11/323,850 4 interval. If the distance between the first and the second locations exceeds a predefined distance during the predetermined time interval, i.e., if the location of the mobile terminal changes by more than a predefined distance during the predetermined time period, the terminal initiates a synchronization session with a server that updates application content of the mobile terminal. We agree with the Examiner that determining that the distance between the first and second locations exceeds a predefined distance during the predetermined time interval constitutes “setting a condition for updates of relevant information,” and that the application content constitutes “relevant information” (Ans. 30). We also are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellants’ argument that the combination of Mahonen and Reich fails to disclose or suggest “selecting the relevant information for the updates by the server or the client, or a combination thereof,” as recited in claim 1 (Br. 12-13). Mahonen discloses that when the condition for updates is met, i.e., when the location of the mobile terminal changes by more than a predefined distance during the predetermined time period, the mobile terminal sends a signal to the server requesting application content for the mobile terminal specific to its location at the end of the predetermined time period (see, e.g., Mahonen, para. [0069]). We agree with the Examiner that requesting application content specific to the location of the mobile terminal constitutes “selecting relevant information for the updates by the server or the client, or a combination thereof” (Ans. 34). Appellants’ argument that neither Mahonen nor Reich discloses or suggests “selecting an operational mode by the client,” as recited in claim 1 Appeal 2011-009237 Application 11/323,850 5 (Br. 13-14), also fails for the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer at pages 36-38. The Examiner acknowledges that Mahonen does not specifically teach this feature and cites paragraphs [0012], [0048], and [0055] of Reich to cure the deficiency of Mahonen. Reich discloses a GPS equipped device, and can predict when new navigation data is needed and acquire navigation bundles in response to these predictions (Reich, Abstract). Reich describes in paragraphs [0012] and [0048], cited by the Examiner, that a predictive algorithm is configured to retrieve data far enough in advance to ensure that a lack of wireless connectivity over some geographical regions within which the device is to be used is not problematic; the predictive algorithm uses navigation information, including roadway connections, to predict the grid zone that the vehicle will enter so that an appropriate navigation bundle can be obtained. Reich describes that the GPS device can function in a stand-alone mode without requiring a network connection to a remote server once provided with a navigation data set for a region and when the GPS device moves from one geographical region to another, a temporary network connection can be made to a remote server so that new geographical navigation bundles can be obtained (Reich, para. [0055]). We agree with the Examiner that this functionality constitutes “selecting an operational mode by the client” (Ans. 37). In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 11, which stand or fall with claim 1. Appeal 2011-009237 Application 11/323,850 6 Dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-20 Each of claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-20 depends from one of independent claims 1, 6, and 11. Appellants do not present any arguments for the separate patentability of these dependent claims except to assert that the claims are allowable based on their dependence on independent claims 1, 6, or 11 (Br. 17). We are not persuaded, for the reasons outlined above, that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 6, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. 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 tkl Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation