13547902 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 15, 2016)

Ex Parte Kuhn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 15, 2016

13547902 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/547,902 07 /12/2012 15093 7590 07119/2016 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton/Qualcomm Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22 1100 Peachtree Street Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Lukas D. Kuhn 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. 112832 (820123) 5452 EXAMINER ANDERSEN, KRISTOPHER E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2158 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/19/2016 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): ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com qcomins t@kilpatricktownsend.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) ~UNITED STATES PATENT AND TR~ADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LUKAS D. KUHN, SIDDHARTH S. TADURI, VIDY A NARAYANAN, and FUMING SHIH Appeal2014-008251 Application 13/547,902 Technology Center 2100 Before DANIEL N. FISHMAN, ADAM J. PYONIN, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-8, 10-18, 20-28, 30-3 8, and 40, which are all pending claims. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 See Claims Appendix, Appeal Brief; Final Act. 2. Appeal2014-008251 Application 13/547,902 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' disclosure is directed "to interpretations of data, and in particular learning algorithms associated with user data." Spec. i-f 2. Claims 1, 11, 21, and 31 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (with emphasis added): 1. A method comprising: receiving a time signal associated with a current time; receiving a first input signal comprising data associated with a user at the current time; determining a first context based on the first input signal and the current time; comparing the first context to a database of contexts associated with the user; and determining a second context based in part on the comparison, wherein the second context is a subset of the first context. References and Re} ections Claims 1, 2, 4--8, 10-12, 14--18, 20-22, 24--28, 30-32, 34--38, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102( e) as being anticipated by Agarwal (US 2012/0053829 Al; Mar. 1, 2012). Final Act. 3---6. Claims 3, 13, 23, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Agarwal and Partridge (US 2012/0130806 Al; May 24, 2012). Final Act. 7. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments. We adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions (see Final 2 Appeal2014-008251 Application 13/547,902 Act. 2-8; Advisory Act. 1-2; Ans. 2---6) as our own, and we add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1, because Agarwal merely "disclose[ s] two contexts: at home and traveling to work, [thus] it does not disclose 'the second context is a subset of the first context' as is required by claim 1." App. Br. 11-12. Appellants further contend the Examiner "ignores how the concept of subsumption is described in the specification" (Reply Br. 2), and, "as used in Appellant's [sic] specification, a context is not a subset of another context simply because some of the retrieved data about one context is related to another context" (Reply Br. 5). We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. During examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, Appellants' Specification describes the claim term "context" as "any information that can be used to characterize the situation of an entity," and that "data about the user is referred to as context." Spec. i-f 19. Further, in the Specification, the sole recitation of the claim term "subset"2 provides that the first context can be "based on" a location signal, whereas the subset, second context, can be "associated with" a location (i.e., the second context need not be the location itself; rather, it may be the 2 Although Appellants contend that, "as used in the specification, a subset is a much narrower relationship than simply an association," Appellants refer to the disclosure of terms such as "subsumption," "subsumes," "sub- contexts," and "sub-locations." Reply Br. 2, 3. We note that none of these terms are recited by claim 1. See In re Self, 671F.2d1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. ). 3 Appeal2014-008251 Application 13/547,902 historical pattern of the user associated with the location). Spec. il 55; see also Final Act. 8. Consistent with the Specification, we find the Examiner has reasonably construed the recited "second context is a subset of the first context," and that "any context of an activity associated with the home would be a subset of a context associated with the home, and driving from home is an activity associated with the user's home." Ans. 3. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the disputed limitations encompass Agarwal' s disclosure of determining first and second contexts based on a user's location and history of commuting to work. Ans. 4 (citing Agarwal i-fi-1 54-- 57, Fig. 3). Further, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the recited "subset" is limited by the Specification's "subsumption" and other similar disclosures. See Reply Br. 2, 3. Even assuming, arguendo, that the Specification's examples further narrowed the claim term, we find such disclosures support the Examiner's determination. In particular, Appellants' Specification describes "a context engine may use subsumption to make other determinations based on other signals" besides location determination, including signals such as "data stored in memory" and based on a "user's speed or location, time of day, entries stored in the user's calendar application, posts to social network, or any other available data." Spec. i1 48. We agree with the Examiner that Agarwal discloses such a "subsumption" determination for a second context, "i.e., [when] the device is located at the user's home[,] Agarwal then discloses that user behavior data associated with the current context is retrieved from a repository; the retrieved user 4 Appeal2014-008251 Application 13/547,902 behavior is that the user habitually travels from home to work." Ans. 5; Agarwal i-fi-154--57; compare Spec. ,-r 25. 3 Therefore, we find reasonable the Examiner's finding that the claimed "second context is a subset" encompasses Agarwal' s context determinations. See Ans. 5. We also agree with the Examiner that Agarwal discloses determining the second context based on the comparison of the first context to a database of contexts, because Agarwal retrieves the user behavior and "device activity information" (i.e., examples of contexts) from a database. See Ans. 6; see also Agarwal Figs. 1 (showing device activity information log 112e ), 2B. Accordingly, we do not find the Examiner erred in finding Agarwal discloses the limitations of independent claim 1, or claims 2-8, 10-18, 20- 28, 30-38, and 40, which are not separately argued with particularity. See App. Br. 13; see also 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 3 Separately, we note Agarwal discloses a system that uses both "a global positioning system (GPS) unit 216 [that] can provide geographic location information to the mobile device context determination unit" and a "location monitor unit 226 [that] can provide information regarding entities (e.g., businesses, parks, festivals, public transportation, etc.) geographically located near the current geographic location." Agarwal i139; see also i-fi-141, 44, 59, 74. This geographic location and the nearby entities are part of the "surrounding physical environment." Agarwal i128. We find Agarwal's information regarding entities near the determined geographic location to be tantamount to the second context, which is a subset of the first context, within the meaning of claim 1. See Spec. i-fi-137-38. 5 Appeal2014-008251 Application 13/547,902 DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8, 10-18, 20-28, 30-38, and 40 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6