Ex Parte Horvitz et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 29, 2019

14533901 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/533,901 11/05/2014
146114 7590 01/31/2019
Fountainhead Law Group P.C.
Non-Export
900 LAFAYETTE STREET
SUITE 301
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Eric Horvitz
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.
317615-US-CNT(l69-8101US) 8818
EXAMINER
WOLDEMARIAM, NEGA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2433
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2019 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):
docketing@fountainheadlaw.com
rbaumann@fountainheadlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC HORVITZ, RUSTON JOHN DAVID PANABAKER,
WILLIAM JEFFERSON WESTERINEN, ALEXANDER FRANK, and
JOHANNES KLEIN
Appeal2018-000009 1
Application 14/533,901
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, NABEEL U. KHAN, and SHARON PENICK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20. App. Br. 2. Claims 7 and 14 have been
canceled. Claims App'x. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Microsoft Technology
Licensing, LLC. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-000009
Application 14/533,901
Introduction
According to Appellants, the claimed subject matter is directed to a
method and system for tracking, according to a zone policy, the
movement of a managed entity (110), including a person/thing (112),
equipped with a mobile tracking device (114). Spec. ,r 4, Fig. 1. In
particular, upon downloading from a zone policy database (150)
connected to a zone policy server (140), the zone policy defining the
physical boundaries of a mobile zone ( e.g., bus, vehicle), within which
the managed entity is to be restricted, the managed entity's movement
within a mobile zone is tracked to ensure that it remains confined within
the established physical boundaries. Id. ,r 43.
Representative Claim
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent. Independent claim 1 is
illustrative, and is reproduced below with limitation at issue italicized:
A method performed on a computing device that includes
at least one processor and memory, the method comprising:
monitoring, by the computing device that is coupled via a network to
a mobile device, a managed entity according to a zone policy downloaded
from a zone policy data store, where an entity and the mobile device are
together considered the managed entity, and where the zone policy includes
a zone definition of a mobile zone and an entity definition of the managed
entity, and where the zone definition includes a description of physical
boundaries of the mobile zone.
Reisman et al.
(hereinafter "Reisman")
Prior Art Relied upon
US 2004/0174264 Al
Copley et al. US 2005/0068169 Al
(hereinafter "Copley")
2
Sept. 9, 2004
Mar. 31, 2005
Appeal2018-000009
Application 14/533,901
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1---6, 8-13, and 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination Reisman and Copley. Final Act.
3-7.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants' arguments as they are presented in the
Appeal Brief,2 pages 5-20, and the Reply Brief, pages 2-14. We have
reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants' arguments. We
are unpersuaded by Appellants' contentions. We adopt as our own the
findings and reasons set forth in the Final Action and the Examiner's
Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. See Final Act. 2-8; Ans.
2-7. However, we highlight and address specific arguments and findings for
emphasis as follows.
Appellants argue that Examiner unreasonably and broadly interpreted
the claimed features inconsistently with the Specification. App. Br. 11.
Consequently, Appellants submit that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Reisman and Copley teaches or suggests "the zone policy
includes a zone definition of a mobile zone and an entity definition of the
2 Rather than reiterate all the arguments of Appellants and all of the
Examiner's findings/conclusions, we refer to the Final Action from which
the appeal is taken (mailed January 20, 2017) ("Final Act."), the Appeal
Brief (filed June 1, 2017) ("App. Br."), the Answer (mailed August 4, 2017)
("Ans."), and the Reply Brief (filed September 29, 2017) ("Reply Br.") for
the respective details. Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above
rejections and the issues raised by Appellants. Arguments not made are
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(1)(iv)(2017).
3
Appeal2018-000009
Application 14/533,901
managed entity, and where the zone definition includes a description of
physical boundaries of the mobile zone," as recited in independent claim 1.
Id. at 12-15. In particular, Appellants argue because Reisman's RF
reception range area is inconsistent with a vehicle, a package, or other thing,
or a subzone of such a thing, it does not teach the claimed "mobile zone"
consistently with the Specification. Id. at 12 (citing Spec. ,r 43). Further,
Appellants argue that because the perimeter of the disclosed RF reception
range does not describe "the physical borders of the zone", it does not teach
the claimed "physical boundaries of the mobile zone" consistent with the
Specification. Id. ( citing Spec. ,r,r 26, 43). Additionally, Appellants argue
that although Figure 3 in Reisman depicts an example of a zone policy
("Bobby at school"), it does notteach the zone policy recited in the claim.
Id. at 13 (citing Reisman ,r,r 26, 36). Appellants assert that the disclosed
zone policy includes five rules regarding a school zone, and the rules may
have associated with them entities, sensors, rule event objects and/or zones.
Id. at 13-14 (citing Reisman ,r,r 26, 28, 36-39). According to Appellants,
although the Specification indicates that the claimed zone policy may be
defined as a school zone, the Examiner erred in finding Figure 3 of Reisman
to be a school. Id. at 14. Moreover, Appellants submit that even if the
disclosed rules depicted in Figure 3 of Reisman represented a zone policy, it
would still fall short of teaching the specific characteristics of the zone
policy. Id.
These arguments are not persuasive. At the outset, we note,
Appellants' Specification indicates that a "zone definition" includes
information to describe a location (e.g., road, trail, home school, office,
etc.). Spec. ,r 26. Likewise, the Specification states that a "zone" may, in
4
Appeal2018-000009
Application 14/533,901
part, be defined in terms of a perimeter ("radius around a location center
point"), an area, a volume, etc. Id. Therefore, consistent with Appellants'
Specification, the disputed limitations emphasized above require that the
zone policy include (1) the location of a mobile object ( e.g., a vehicle), (2)
the physical boundaries thereof, and (3) the location of a managed entity
(e.g., an object/person equipped with location sensor). Spec. ,r,r 26-40.
Further, we note Appellants' arguments with respect to Figure 3 are
improperly directed to portions of Reisman not particularly relied upon by
the Examiner. Instead, the Examiner relies upon Figures 4 and 5 of Reisman
as disclosing location and time constriction rules (i.e. zone policy),
downloaded via a wireless network from a zone policy data store to Location
and Transmission Devices (L TDs ), which subsequently compare the
downloaded rules with location and time stamps in users' devices. Final
Act. 4 ( citing Reisman ,r 5). According to the Examiner, the disclosed
policy therefore allows the monitoring of a mobile zone ( e.g., train) based on
rules defining the location of the mobile zone, its physical boundaries, and
the relationship between the mobile zone and a managed entity. Id. The
Examiner reiterates Reisman's disclosure of a rule-defining event (zone
policy), stored in the memory of Local Monitoring Devices (LMDs) to
preclude a person wearing an RF transmission tag (managed entity) from
entering an RF reception range teaches the disputed limitations. Id. at 2
(citing Reisman ,r,r 35, 39); Ans. 6. According to the Examiner, because the
LMDs are mobile objects, which can be placed in cars, trees, houses,
vehicles, trains, etc., they teach the claimed mobile zones, and the location
thereof. Final Act. 3 ( citing Reisman ,r,r 21, 24, 41 ); Ans. 6. Further, the
Examiner finds that because Reisman's preset rules also identify a managed
5
Appeal2018-000009
Application 14/533,901
entity, and notify the office if the managed entity is detected in a restricted
area, Reisman teaches a policy zone that defines the location of a mobile
zone, the boundaries thereof, a managed entity, and a relationship between
the managed entity and the mobile zone. Id. Because Appellants have not
particularly addressed these specific Examiner's findings, we find no
reversible errors therein.
Even under Appellants' alleged mapping by the Examiner of
Reisman's RF reception range area to the mobile zone and the physical
boundaries thereof, we find that the definitions provided in Appellants'
Specification would also comport with such a mapping. As noted above,
because a zone may be defined as a perimeter (e.g., "a radius around a
location center point"), the disclosed RF reception range area teaches a
radius around location of an LDM, thereby teaching a zone definition of a
mobile zone, as well as the borders thereof. Consequently, on the record
before us, the Examiner has established by a preponderance of the evidence
that the combination of Reisman and Copley renders claim 1 unpatentable.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2---6, 8-13, and 15-20, because
Appellants have either not presented separate patentability arguments or
have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously
discussed for patentability of claim 1 above, those claims fall therewith. See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2017).
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims
1---6, 8-13, and 15-20.
6
Appeal2018-000009
Application 14/533,901
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
7