Ex Parte Chao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 15, 2014

11323850 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 15, 2014)

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