Ex Parte Holm et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2016

13479837 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/479,837 05/24/2012
11764 7590
Ditthavong & Steiner, P,C,
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
03/31/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jukka Antero Holm
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.
P3233US01 8658
EXAMINER
GELIN, JEAN ALLAND
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2643
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2016 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 JUKKA ANTERO HOLM, ANTTI ERONEN, and
ARTO JUHANI LEHTINIEMI
Appeal2013-009487
Application 13/479,837
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejections of claims 28, 30-36, 38--44, 46, and 47. Final Act. 1. Claims 1-
27, 29, 37, and 45 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 28, 30-36, 38--44, 46, and 47 are rejected on the ground of
non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as obvious over Holm (US
8,208,941 B2; issued June 26, 2012). Final Act. 2--4.
Claims 28, 32-34, 36, 40--42, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over De Torbal (WO 2006/069594 Al; published July 6,
Appeal2013-009487
Application 13/479,837
2006) and Sekiyama (US 2002/0065604 Al; published May 30, 2002).
Final Act. 4--6.
Claims 30, 31, 35, 38, 39, 43, 46, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over De Torbal, Sekiyama, and Othmer (US
2010/0269059 Al; published Oct. 21, 2010). Final Act. 6-7.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "providing access to a media item in
association with location information." Spec. i-f 1. Claim 28 is illustrative
and reproduced below:
28. A method comprising:
determining location information associated with a mobile device; and
receiving access to one or more media items based, at least in part, on
a determination that the mobile device is remaining on a route, wherein the
route is determined based, at least in part, on one or more points of interest
and the location information, and wherein the access to the one or more
media items is revoked based, at least in part, on a determination that the
mobile device has deviated from the route.
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS-TYPE DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION OF CLAIMS 28, 30-
36, 38--44, 46, AND 47 OVER US 8,208,941
Claims 28, 30-36, 38--44, 46, and 47 are rejected on the ground of
non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as obvious over US
8,208,941. Final Act. 2--4.
2
Appeal2013-009487
Application 13/479,837
Appellants do not present any arguments with respect to this ground
of rejection. See App. Br. 4--10, Reply Br. 2-5.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 28, 30-36,
38--44, 46, and 47.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 28, 32-34, 36, 40--42, AND 44 OVER
DE TORBAL AND SEKIY AMA
The Examiner finds De Torbal and Sekiyama teach all limitations of
claim 28. Final Act. 4--5.
The Examiner finds De Torbal teaches all limitations of claim 28,
except for the recited receiving access to one or more media items based, at
least in part, on a determination that the mobile device is remaining on a
route and wherein the access to the one or more media items is revoked
based, at least in part, on a determination that the mobile device has deviated
from the route. For these teachings, the Examiner relies on Sekiyama's
providing a user with advertising information related to a facility as the user
passes by the facility while moving along a supplied route. Final Act. 5
(citing Sekiyama i-fi-1 31-3 5).
The Examiner reasons "it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to implement the technique of
Sekiyama within the system of De[ ]Torbal in order to determine whether or
not to supply advertisement information to [a] user on the route." Final Act.
5.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
3
Appeal2013-009487
Application 13/479,837
1. "First, Sekiyama discloses that the decision to transmit or not
transmit advertising information is based with respect to proximity to a
facility, not a route." App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 2--4.
11. "Second, Sekiyama only discloses that advertisement
information for a facility is merely transmitted and is displayed, but does not
disclose anywhere if and under what conditions access to the advertisement
information is revoked." App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 3.
111. "[T]he base station of De Torbal et al. cannot reasonably be
considered to correspond to the claimed 'one or more points of interest.'"
App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 4.
We do not see any error in the Examiner's findings and conclusions.
Regarding argument i, Sekiyama reasonably describes the recited
(claim 28) "receiving access to one or more media items based, at least in
part, on a determination that the mobile device is remaining on a route."
Further, regarding argument ii, Sekiyama reasonably describes the recited
(claim 28) "the access to the one or more media items is revoked based, at
least in part, on a determination that the mobile device has deviated from the
route." We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's explanation:
[A]s long as the user of [the] mobile terminal remains on the
route covered by base stations servicing the server 20, the user
of the mobile terminal has access to receive advertisement
information and when the user takes a route that is not covered
by base stations servicing the server, advertisement information
is denied/revoked to the user.
Ans. 4--5; see also Sekiyama i-f 31 ("The user moves along the route based
on the results of route search displayed on the display portion of the mobile
terminal 1 O"); and Sekiyama i-f 31 ("If the user has actually passed near the
facility, the server 20 reads the advertisement information from the
4
Appeal2013-009487
Application 13/479,837
advertisement information server 20d, and transmits it to the mobile terminal
10 of the user"). Put another way, the recited (claim 28) receiving access is
disclosed by Sekiyama's advertising information sent when the user passes
near the facility along the route; the recited (claim 28) revoking access is
disclosed by Sekiyama's advertising information not being sent when the
user does not pass near the facility. This interpretation of the term "revoke"
is neither overly broad nor unreasonable because not sending the advertising
information that otherwise would have been sent is revoking or rescinding
access to that information.
Regarding argument iii, De Torbal reasonably describes the recited
(claim 28) "route is determined based, at least in part, on one or more points
of interest and the location information."
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted).
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's explanation:
"[B]ase stations transmit advertisement[] information for the landmark.
Therefore the base stations are associated with [the] landmark or point of
interest." Ans. 5. To the extent De T orbal' s route adherence system
determines the sequence of base stations after the user selects a predefined
route (see Reply Br. 4), De Torbal's base stations are nonetheless reasonably
described as the recited points of interest because the predefined route
specifies the sequence of base stations. Further, De Torbal's base stations
5
Appeal2013-009487
Application 13/479,837
are reasonably described at the recited points of interest because, when
combined with Sekiyama, De Torbal's base stations send Sekiyama's
advertising information that is sent when the user passes near the facility
along the route.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 28, as well as
claims 32-34, 36, 40-42, and 44, which are not argued separately with
particularity.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 30, 31, 35, 38, 39, 43, 46, AND 47
OVER DE TORBAL, SEKIY AMA, AND 0THMER
The Examiner finds De Torbal, Sekiyama, and Othmer teach all
limitations of claims 30, 31, 35, 38, 39, 43, 46, and 47. Final Act. 6-7.
Appellants do not present separate arguments for these claims. See
App. Br. 9-10, Reply Br. 5.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 30, 31, 35,
38, 39, 43, 46, and 47 for reasons discussed above when addressing claim
28.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 28, 30-36, 38--44, 46, and
4 7 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6