Ex Parte McKiou et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 18, 2014

11317144 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2014)

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.
11/317,144 12/23/2005 Kevin W. McKiou McKIOU 3-3 3230
50525 7590 02/18/2014
DUFT BORNSEN & FETTIG, LLP
1526 SPRUCE STREET
SUITE 302
BOULDER, CO 80302
EXAMINER
GONZALEZ, AMANCIO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2642
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/18/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KEVIN W. MCKIOU and ARUN SANKISA
____________

Appeal 2011-009051
Application 11/317,144
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-009051
Application 11/317,144

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to providing location-based services to
mobile subscribers of a wireless network (Spec. 1:10-14). Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of operating a wireless network to
provide a location-based service to a mobile subscriber
requesting the location-based service, the method comprising:

receiving location information for the mobile subscribers
of the wireless network from at least one network node of the
wireless network;

determining a location of a point of interest;

defining a geographic area around the point of interest;

processing the location information to identify other
mobile subscribers that are located in the geographic area; and

transmitting the location information for the other mobile
subscribers identified to be in the geographic area to the mobile
device of the requesting mobile subscriber for display of the
location information to the requesting mobile subscriber.

Appeal 2011-009051
Application 11/317,144

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Katoh US 2003/0008670 A1 Jan. 9, 2003
Taschereau

Sun

Dravida

Mullen
US 2004/0076279 A1

US 2006/0160544 A1

US 2007/0010261 A1

US 2008/0287112 A1
Apr. 22, 2004

July 20, 2006

Jan. 11, 2007
(filed Sept. 30, 2005)

Nov. 20, 2008
(cont. of apps. filed
May 20, 2004 and Mar.
25, 2003)

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11, 12, 14-17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dravida, Mullen, and Taschereau.
Claims 3, 4, 9, 10, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dravida, Mullen, Taschereau, and Sun.
Claims 13 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dravida, Mullen, Taschereau, and Katoh.

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend “the cited art does not teach ‘determining a
location of a point of interest,’ ‘defining a geographic area around the point
of interest,’ and ‘processing the location information to identify other mobile
subscribers that are located within the geographic area’ as recited in claim 1”
(Br. 7). Specifically, Appellants argue Mullen fails to teach these limitations
Appeal 2011-009051
Application 11/317,144

4
because “Mullen identifies the location of a target user that is specified by
the requesting subscriber,” in contrast to the method of claim 1 which
“processes location information to identify other mobile subscribers that are
located within the geographic area around the point of interest” (Br. 9).
Appellants further argue that the combination of Taschereau with Mullen
does not teach this feature. Appellants assert “Tascherueau [sic] describes a
system that provides targeted information or advertising to a mobile user.
For example, a mobile user may speak their street address or other location
information into his/her mobile device, and the network is able to provide
location-specific information to the mobile user, such as the name of a low
cost gas station in the area.” (Br. 9). Accordingly, Appellants argue,
combining Taschereau with Mullen would merely allow a requesting
subscriber to identify the location of a particular other mobile subscriber and
then also to receive an advertisement based on the requesting subscriber’s
location (Br. 10). We disagree with Appellants.
We conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified
Mullen in view of Taschereau such that a mobile user could be identified not
just as being within a certain geographic area, but within a geographic area
around a point of interest. “Common sense teaches . . . that familiar items
may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a
person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents
together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 420 (2007). In this case, Mullen discloses identifying another mobile
subscriber as being within a particular designated geographic area, for
example: “Phil may give Jen, a resident of Pittsburgh, city access so that
when Phil travels into Pittsburgh, Jen will be alerted of Phil’s presence.
Appeal 2011-009051
Application 11/317,144

5
Such an alert may take the form of, for example, a display on Jen’s cell
phone that communicates to Jen ‘Phil is in Pittsburgh.’” (See Mullen,
¶ [0008]). Additionally, Mullen discloses that the location of multiple other
users can be displayed on a map on a user’s mobile device (see Mullen,
¶ [0059]). Taschereau discloses providing location-based services to a
requesting subscriber including identifying businesses—e.g. “restaurants,
movie theatres, gas stations, landmarks, etc.”—within an area around the
requesting subscriber’s location (see Taschereau, ¶¶ [0092]-[0093], [0100]).
Thus, where Mullen discloses the location-based service of identifying other
mobile users in a certain geographic area, and where Taschereau discloses
providing location-based services based on a geographic area around a
requesting subscriber’s location—i.e., around “a location of a point of
interest,” as recited in claim 1—one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized the advantage of providing Mullen’s location-based service of
identifying other mobile users within a geographic area defined around a
requesting user’s location. In other words, it would have been obvious to
modify Mullen such that a requesting mobile user would be notified that
other mobile users are within a certain geographic extent around a point of
interest.
Appellants’ argument (Br. 8-9) that Mullen teaches identifying a
particular mobile user as being in a certain geographic area, and not
identifying other mobile users within a geographic area defined around a
point of interest, is not persuasive. The fact that Mullen’s requesting user
may be awaiting information for a specific other user does not detract from
the operability of Mullen’s system to determine that other users are within a
geographic area. Moreover, based on “the inferences and creative steps that
Appeal 2011-009051
Application 11/317,144

6
a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ,” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, it
would have been obvious to modify Mullen’s geographic area in view of
Taschereau such that the geographic area would be defined as a certain
geographic extent around the requesting user’s location. Thus, we agree
with the Examiner’s conclusion that the claim 1 limitations “determining a
location of a point of interest; defining a geographic area around the point of
interest; processing the location information to identify other mobile
subscribers that are located in the geographic area” would have been obvious
over Dravida, Mullen, and Taschereau.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2-20 not specifically argued separately.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 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)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

kis