Ex Parte Hymel et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 16, 201713634991 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/634,991 09/14/2012 James Allen Hymel 1400-123PUS 7395 95866 7590 03/20/2017 Fleit Gibbons Gutman Bongini & Bianco P.L. 551 NW 77th street Suite 111 Boca Raton, EL 33487 EXAMINER ALLEN, NICHOLAS E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2154 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/20/2017 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): ptoboc a @ fggbb .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAMES ALLEN HYMEL, JEAN PHILLIPPE BOUCHARD, and JEFFERY ERHARD LINDNER Appeal 2016-006483 Application 13/634,991 Technology Center 2100 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—12, 14—20, and 22—26, i.e., all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as BlackBerry, Ltd. Br. 2. Appeal 2016-006483 Application 13/634,991 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Invention According to the Specification, the invention “relates to the field of communications, and, more particularly, to wireless communications and related methods.” Spec. 11.2 The Specification explains that a “wireless communication system may include a server, and a wireless communications device communicating with the server,” where the server “provide[s] search results to the wireless communications device based upon the search query from the wireless communications device.” Abstract; Spec. 113. The Specification also explains that the “search results may include a search fact associated with the search query,” where the “search fact [is] based upon location data, and a motion value associated with the wireless communications device.” Abstract; Spec. 113. Exemplary Claim Independent claim 1 exemplifies the subject matter of the claims under consideration and reads as follows: 1. A wireless communication system comprising: a server; and at least one wireless communications device configured to communicate with the server, the at least one wireless communications device comprising a processor, and an input device cooperating therewith, and configured to accept a search query; 2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the Specification, filed September 14, 2012; “Final Act.” for the Final Office Action, mailed May 20, 2015; “Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed October 26, 2015; and “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed April 7, 2016. 2 Appeal 2016-006483 Application 13/634,991 the server configured to provide search results to the at least one wireless communications device based upon the search query from the at least one wireless communications device, the search results comprising at least one search fact associated with the search query, generate the at least one search fact based upon location data and a motion value associated with the at least one wireless communications device, and truncate the at least one search fact when the motion value exceeds a threshold value, the truncated at least one search fact having a length less than that of the at least one search fact. Br. 11 (Claims App.). The Prior Art Supporting the Rejection on Appeal As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following prior art: Elgrably US 2004/0068439 A1 Apr. 8,2004 Dumais et al. (“Dumais”) US 2008/0005068 A1 Jan. 3, 2008 The Rejection on Appeal Claims 1, 2, 4—12, 14—20, and 22—26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dumais and Elgrably. Final Act. 2—15; Br. 10. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1, 2, 4—12, 14—20, and 22— 26 in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained below, we disagree with Appellants’ assertions regarding error by the Examiner. We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Final 3 Appeal 2016-006483 Application 13/634,991 Office Action (Final Act. 2—16) and the Answer (3—5). We add the following to address and emphasize specific findings and arguments. The Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4—12, 14—20, and 22—26 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) An Input Device Configured to Accept a Search Query from a User Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 because Elgrably “does not teach ‘an input device cooperating therewith, and configured to accept a search query’ as recited in claim 1.” Br. 6. More specifically, Appellants argue that Elgrably discloses a “portable appliance . . . generating queries in the background” without any user input instead of an input device configured to accept a search query from a user. Id. (citing Elgrably 133). Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because they do not address the rejection. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner does not rely on Elgrably for an input device configured to accept a search query from a user. Final Act. 3; Ans. 3—4. The Examiner relies on Dumais instead of Elgrably. Final Act. 3 (citing Dumais 133); Ans. 3-A (citing Dumais 1132—33). In particular, the Examiner finds Dumais discloses: (1) “computer-based searches” through “which a user can obtain information from sources such as the Internet”; (2) a mobile device, such as a “cell phone . . . [or] on-board computer system for a vehicle, boat, plane, or machine”; and (3) a search query input by a user, such as “a keyword or group of keywords or other alpha-numeric string that identifies a desired search criterion.” Ans. 4—5 (citing Dumais H 32—33, 39); Final Act. 3 (citing Dumais 133). The Examiner reasons that a “[u]ser inputting a search query,” such as an alpha-numeric string, “using a mobile device would 4 Appeal 2016-006483 Application 13/634,991 require an input device,” such as a keyboard, “in order to send a query to the server.” Ans. 5. Appellants did not file a Reply Brief and have not apprised us of error in the Examiner’s findings or reasoning. A Server Configured to Provide a Search Fact Associated with the Search Query Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because: [Njeither Elgrably nor Dumais teach, suggest or disclose a “server configured to provide search results to the at least one wireless communications device based upon the search query from the at least one wireless communications device, the search results comprising at least one search fact associated with the search query” as recited in claim 1. Br. 9. In particular, Appellants contend that “Elgrably does not teach a server receiving a search query from an input device and responding to the search query with search results” including a “search fact associated with the search query.” Br. 7. According to Appellants, the server in Elgrably (1) “pre-delivers advertising content to a wireless device” for later display based on the device’s geographic location and (2) “does not send search results based upon the search query received from the wireless communications device.” Br. 8. Appellants’ contentions do not persuade us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds Dumais discloses: (1) a server communicating with a mobile device, such as a “cell phone . . . [or] on-board computer system for a vehicle, boat, plane, or machine”; and (2) sending a user’s search query from the mobile device to the server. Final Act. 2—3 (citing Dumais ^fl[ 26, 33); Ans. 4—5 (citing Dumais ^fl[ 32—33, 39); see Dumais ]Hf 26, 32—33, 39. 5 Appeal 2016-006483 Application 13/634,991 In addition, the Examiner determines that a “search fact associated with the search query” covers “advertising content” according to Elgrably. Final Act. 3^4 (citing Elgrably 216—217); Ans. 5—6 (citing Elgrably 215—217). “[DJuring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Inventors can act as their own lexicographers if they clearly set forth a definition of a claim term or phrase other than its plain and ordinary meaning. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 677 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, Appellants do not contend that the Specification sets forth a definition for “search fact associated with the search query.” Br. 4—9. Instead, the Specification indicates that a search fact may include untruncated data at lower vehicle speeds, e.g., the name, address, and telephone number for a shop selling a searched-for product, and truncated data at higher vehicle speeds, e.g., the shop’s name and telephone number. See Spec. ^fl[ 27—28, Figs. 3A—3E. The name, address, or telephone number for a shop selling a searched-for product corresponds to advertising content. Further, the Examiner finds Elgrably discloses that (1) “the displayed advertising content can include details that require [a user’s] sustained attention in order to be seen in full” at lower vehicle speeds and (2) “the displayed [advertising] content will no longer include such details” at higher vehicle speeds. Ans. 5—6; Final Act. 3^4. Elgrably also discloses that a mobile device may “download different advertising content in real time . . . .” Elgrably 1165; see Dumais ^flf 32—33, 35, 39 (indicating that search results can be conveyed without delay). The Examiner reasons that “Elgrably uses velocity with queries” to modify search results “depending 6 Appeal 2016-006483 Application 13/634,991 on the current speed of the user.” Ans. 6. The Examiner’s reasoning comports with Elgrably’s disclosure that a mobile device may download different advertising content in real time. See Elgrably 1165; see also Dumais 32—33, 35,39. Thus, the combination of disclosures in Dumais and Elgrably, taken as a whole, teaches or suggests a server configured according to claim 1. Appellants did not file a Reply Brief and have not apprised us of error in the Examiner’s findings or reasoning. Summary for Independent Claim 1 For the reasons discussed above, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 for obviousness based on Dumais and Elgrably. Hence, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Independent Claims 12 and 19 and Dependent Claims 2,4—11,14—18,20 and 22-26 Appellants do not make any separate patentability arguments for independent claims 12 and 19 or for dependent claims 2, 4—11, 14—18, 20, and 22—26. Br. 9-10. Because Appellants do not argue the claims separately, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4—12, 14—20, and 22—26 for the same reasons as claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4—12, 14—20, and 22—26. 7 Appeal 2016-006483 Application 13/634,991 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation