Ex Parte HAO

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 16, 2015

12625216 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/625,216 11124/2009
25537 7590 12/18/2015
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jack Jianxiu HAO
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
20090617 9797
EXAMINER
LASTRA, DANIEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/18/2015 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):
patents@verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JACK JIANXIU HAO
Appeal2013-004005 1
Application 12/625,2162
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. PETTING, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final rejection of claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed
Sept. 12, 2012) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Jan. 11, 2013), and the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Nov. 21, 2012) and Final Office Action
("Final Act.," mailed Mar. 6, 2012).
2 Appellant identifies Verizon Communications Inc. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal2013-004005
Application 12/625,216
CLAIMED fNVENTION
Claim 1, reproduced below with added bracketed notations, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method performed by one or more server
devices, the method comprising:
[(a)] collecting, by the one or more server devices,
geographic location and traveling speed data from a plurality of
mobile devices;
[ (b)] identifying, by the one or more server devices, areas
of traffic congestion based on the collected geographic location
and traveling speed data;
[ ( c)] generating, by the one or more server devices, a
plurality of traffic objects associated with the identified areas of
traffic congestion;
[ ( d)] receiving, at the one or more server devices and
from a particular mobile device, a request for traffic objects, the
request including a current geographic location of the particular
mobile device and a destination geographic location to which
the particular mobile device plans to travel;
[ ( e)] determining, by the one or more server devices, a
length of travel based on the current geographic location and
the destination geographic location;
[ ( t)] identifying, by the one or more server devices, a
particular traffic object, of the plurality of traffic objects, based
on the length of travel, the current geographic location and the
destination geographic location; and
[ (g)] providing, by the one or more server devices,
information regarding the particular traffic object to the
particular mobile device to permit the particular mobile device
to generate navigational directions based on the particular
traffic object.
REJECTION
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Busch (US 2008/0248815, pub. Oct. 9, 2008).
2
Appeal2013-004005
Application 12/625,216
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2---8
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Busch does not disclose any of limitations (c),
(d), and (t), as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 11-15. The Examiner
maintains that the rejection is proper, and cites paragraphs 7-12 of Busch as
disclosing the argued limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 2-3; see also Ans.
4--5.
Busch generally relates to "generat[ing] information associated with
geographic locations, targeted content delivery, targeted search results,
navigation systems, mobile conversion tracking, and location based services
on mobile devices." Busch i-f 2. Paragraph 7 of Busch describes targeting
content to consumers, in part, based on location information, such as current
or historical locations and speed. Paragraph 8 describes various ways to
measure effectiveness of a business' content targeting using feedback to the
advertisers. Paragraph 9 describes benefits of sharing location information
with friends, family, and the general public. Paragraph 10 lists various
technologies for improving GPS functionality. Paragraph 11 explains
shortcomings of location information currently reported by mobile devices.
And paragraph 12 describes providing benefit by navigation software that
"takes into account current traffic conditions in providing routes" and
"determine[ s] how many people are taking any given route[,] and
orchestrate[ s] traffic by distributing travelers judiciously across all available
streets to avoid congestion." Busch i-f 12.
3
Appeal2013-004005
Application 12/625,216
Although Busch generally describes navigation software that
considers traffic conditions, we find nothing in the cited portions of Busch
that expressly discloses generating traffic objects associated with the
identified areas of traffic condition (i.e., limitation ( c) of claim 1 ), let alone:
receiving, at the one or more server devices and from a
particular mobile device, a request for traffic objects, the
request including a current geographic location of the particular
mobile device and a destination geographic location to which
the particular mobile device plans to travel; [and]
identifying, by the one or more server devices, a
particular traffic object, of the plurality of traffic objects, based
on the length of travel, the current geographic location and the
destination geographic location[,]
as recited in limitations ( d) and ( f) of claim 1.
To the extent that the Examiner maintains that Busch inherently
discloses the limitations of claim 1, more than speculation is required. In
particular, the Examiner must provide evidence and/or technical reasoning
that makes "clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in
the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by
persons of ordinary skill." Continental Can Co. USA, Inc. v. Monsanto Co.,
948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed.Cir.1991). "Inherency ... may not be established
by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result
from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient." Id. at 1269 (quoting
In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581(CCPA1981)). No such evidence or
technical reasoning is presented here.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) of dependent claims 2-8.
4
Appeal2013-004005
Application 12/625,216
Independent claims 9, 12, and 21 and dependent claims 10, 11, 13-20, 22
and 23
Independent claims 9, 12, and 21 include language substantially
similar to the language of claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of independent claims 9, 12,
and 21, and claims 10, 11, 13-20, 22 and 23, which depend from claims 9,
12, and 21, respectively for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim
1.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
reversed.
REVERSED
rvb
5