LOCATOR IP, L.P.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 16, 2020

14073418 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2020)

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.
14/073,418 11/06/2013 Steven A. ROOT 134602.00215 4585
27557 7590 10/16/2020
BLANK ROME LLP
1825 Eye Street NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20006-5403
EXAMINER
BOYCE, ANDRE D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/16/2020 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):
WashingtonDocketing@blankrome.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte STEVEN A. ROOT
and MICHAEL R. ROOT
__________________

Appeal 2020-003329
Application 14/073,418
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision
of the Examiner to reject claims 14–20 and 22–30.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Location IP, L.P. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 1–8 and 21 are cancelled. Claims 9–13 are withdrawn. See Appeal
Br. 3 (Status of Claims), 18–20 (Claims Appendix); Non-Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2020-003329
Application 14/073,418

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 14 and 26 are independent. Claim 14 is reproduced below.
14. A method of outputting weather or environmental
condition information to a user, the method comprising:
storing user profiles associated with users in a user
profile database, the user profiles including a user identifier
code for identifying a communicator device associated with the
user;
receiving, by a weather analysis unit, weather or
environmental condition information from weather and
environmental sensors;
receiving real-time data indicative of the spatial locations
of the communicator devices;
storing the real-time data indicative of the spatial
locations of the communicator devices in a communicator
location database;
determining whether at least one communicator device is
located in close proximity to the location of one or more of the
weather and environmental sensors; and
outputting the weather or environmental condition
information received from the one or more weather and
environmental sensors in close proximity to the at least one
communicator device to a communication network for
transmittal to the at least one communicator device in response
to a determination that the at least one communicator device is
in close proximity to the one or more weather and
environmental sensors.
REJECTIONS
Claims 14 and 22–30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Torres Sabate (US 6,861,959 B1, iss. Mar. 1, 2005), Kelly
(US 6,498,987 B1, iss. Dec. 24, 2002), Bar (US 6,456,852 B2, iss. Sept. 24,
2002), and Terui (US 7,084,757 B2, iss. Aug. 1, 2006).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Torres Sabate, Kelly, Bar, Terui, and further in view of Official Notice.
Appeal 2020-003329
Application 14/073,418

3
Claims 16–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Torres Sabate, Kelly, Bar, Terui, and Truesdell (US 5,229,975, iss. July
20, 1993).
ANALYSIS
Claims 14 and 22–30
Rejected Over Torres Sabate, Kelly, Bar, and Terui
Regarding claim 14, the Examiner relies on Torres Sabate to teach a
method of outputting weather or environmental conditions by receiving
weather or environmental data and outputting weather or environmental
warnings and messages. Non-Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner relies on Kelly
to teach storing user profiles with a code to identify a communicator device
of a user and transmitting weather and environmental data to the device in
the user profile. Id. at 4–5. The Examiner relies on Bar to teach real-time
location and identifier data of users and communicator devices. Id. at 6.
The Examiner relies on Terui to teach transmission of safety information by
searching a constant space to determine if a desired party is within range for
possible data transmission and, after validating a device, transmitting safety
and other data to portable terminal 1 within range (i.e., close proximity) of
safety provision equipment 2 as claimed. Id. at 7–8; see Ans. 4–5.
Appellant argues that Torres Sabate does not teach outputting weather
or environmental conditions received from a sensor for transmission to a
communicator device in response to a determination that the communicator
device is in close proximity to the sensor as claimed because the transmitter
continuously transmits radio beacon signals containing hazardous condition
information. Appeal Br. 9–10. Resolution of this argument requires a claim
construction of this limitation.
Appeal 2020-003329
Application 14/073,418

4
The plain language of claim 14 states that weather or environmental
condition information received from one or more sensors is transmitted to a
communicator device “in response to a determination that the at least one
communicator device is in close proximity to the one or more weather and
environmental sensors.” Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.). No other details are
recited for how data is provided “in response to” a determination. Claim 22,
which depends from claim 14, states that this step comprises “determining a
unique spatial range of each of the one or more weather or environmental
sensors; and determining whether the at least one communicator device is
within the unique spatial range of the one or more environmental sensors.”
Id. at 20. Claim 14 does not recite these features, however.
Appellant’s Specification describes this process as follows:
when sensor data is collected by sensors 48a positioned on
moving vehicles along roadways or railways, the weather
analysis unit 12b can transmit such weather information to
communicator devices 11b located in close proximity to where
the sensor data is being collected. Thus, assuming that a
Federal Express truck is located 5 miles from a subscriber, the
information collected from the sensor on the Federal Express
truck can be transmitted to the subscriber.
Spec. ¶ 75; see Appeal Br. 5 (Summary of Claimed Subject Matter) (citing
paragraph 75 as the description of this limitation). Consistent with the claim
language interpreted in light of the Specification, we interpret this limitation
to encompass transmission of weather/environmental condition information
to devices in close proximity to a sensor detecting that information. See
MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 474 F.3d 1323, 1333 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (“A claim interpretation that excludes a preferred embodiment from
the scope of the claim is rarely, if ever, correct.”) (citation omitted).
Appeal 2020-003329
Application 14/073,418

5
Torres Sabate teaches a similar arrangement where a radio transmitter
(Figure 2c) transmits weather/environmental condition data detected by a
sensor on the transmitter to communicator devices in close proximity to the
transmitter and its sensor. See Torres Sabate, 7:1–8:42; 4:48–5:67. The data
apprises users with mobile receivers (Figure 2b) in close proximity to the
transmitter and sensor of weather and environmental conditions in that area.
Id. Users in close proximity to the transmitter/sensor can be warned of fog,
snow, rain, wind, and similar conditions. Id. at 7:1–39. The transmitter also
warns users in close proximity to trucks with hazardous materials and other
environmental conditions. Id. at 4:49–5:26; 7:1–39. Torres Sabate senses
weather and environmental conditions in an area and warns users in close
proximity to that area where sensors detected the conditions. Id.; Ans. 4.
Even if we interpret this limitation to require transmission to occur in
response to an affirmative determination that a communicator device is in
close proximity to the sensor, Terui teaches this feature as the Examiner
correctly finds. Non-Final Act. 7. Indeed, Appellant acknowledges that
Terui transmits safety information to communicator devices (e.g., portable
terminal 3) if the portable terminal 3 is determined to be within range of the
safety information provision equipment 2. Appeal Br. 11 (“Terui further
states that the safety information provision equipment 2 outputs safety
information (and the position of safety information provision equipment 2)
to a second portable terminal 3 if the second portable terminal 3 is within
range of the safety information provision equipment 2.”). Appellant argues
that the transmission does not occur in response to a determination that one
portable terminal 1 is in close proximity to another portable terminal 3. Id.
This argument mischaracterizes the Examiner’s rejection. Non-Final Act. 8.
Appeal 2020-003329
Application 14/073,418

6
We agree with the Examiner that Terui transmits safety information
from safety provision equipment 2 to portable terminals 1, 3 determined to
be in close proximity so that transmission is possible. Non-Final Act. 7. In
particular, safety information provision equipment 2 searches a constant area
to determine if a communicator device (portable terminal 1, 3) is in range so
data transmission is possible and transmits safety information in response to
determining portable terminal 1/3 is in close proximity. Terui, 2:35–5:30;
see Ans. 4–5. Appellant acknowledges this teaching. See Appeal Br. 11–12.
The Examiner does not treat either portable terminal 1, 3 as a sensor
or data transmission as occurring in response to a determination that portable
terminal 1 is in close proximity to portable terminal 3 as Appellant argues.
Id.; Non-Final Act. 7–8; Ans. 4–5. The Examiner relies on Terui to teach
safety information provision equipment 2 that receives safety information
for an area of concern and transmits that data in response to a determination
that a communicator device (portable terminal 1, 3) is in close proximity to
equipment 2 after being validated. Non-Final Act. 7–8; Ans. 4–5.
As discussed above, Torres Sabate transmits weather/environmental
information from a transmitter and sensor to portable receivers of users in
close proximity to the transmitter/sensor. Torres Sabate, 4:49–5:26; 7:1–39.
Terui teaches a protocol for such a fixed transmitter and sensor to transmit
weather/environmental data to a communicator device in close proximity to
the transmitter after validating the device. Terui, 2:35–5:30. Terui searches
an area of concern to determine whether portable terminal 1, 3 is in range for
transmission from equipment 2 and after determining that portable terminal
1, 3 is in close proximity, performs validation and transmits the data. See id.
As modified, Torres Sabate provides this same capability. Non-Final Act. 8.
Appeal 2020-003329
Application 14/073,418

7
Because Torres Sabate configures a fixed transmitter with sensors, the
transmission of weather/environmental condition data in response to a user
portable device being in close proximity to the fixed transmitter places the
communicator device in close proximity to the sensor(s) and the transmitter.
Torres Sabate uses this transmission protocol to warn users who are in close
proximity of hazardous weather/environmental conditions detected in that
area by a sensor(s) in the same area. Torres Sabate, 4:48–7:39, Figs. 2b, 2c.
Appellant’s Specification also describes notifying users who enter an
“area of concern” of weather conditions detected in that area. Spec. ¶¶ 54,
55. Sensors can be located on structures with their own power source such
as a billboard, gas pump, cell phone tower, or sign along a road. Spec. ¶ 72.
The Examiner reasonably determines that Terui’s teachings would
improve Torres Sabate similarly by determining if a portable receiver of a
user is in close proximity to a sensor such that the user is notified of weather
or environmental conditions detected by the sensor in that area of concern.
See Non-Final Act. 8; see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
417 (2007) (use of known technique in similar devices for similar benefits is
obvious unless its application is beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art).
Moreover, like Torres Sabate, Terui detects weather conditions in an area of
concern and notifies users in that region of dangerous conditions to include
dangerous weather conditions. Terui, 2:36–6:3, 6:61–7:64.
Appellant’s arguments that Kelly, Bar, and Truesdell fail to teach this
feature (Appeal Br. 12–13) do not address the Examiner’s reliance on Torres
Sabate and Terui to teach this limitation as discussed above.
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of
claim 14.
Appeal 2020-003329
Application 14/073,418

8
Independent Claim 26
Claim 26 recites a similar method to claim 14 except that claim 26
recites “receiving environmental condition information from environmental
sensors” and outputting the information to a communicator device in
response to a determination that the communicator device is in close
proximity to the environmental sensor(s), as opposed to “weather and
environmental sensors” in claim 14. The Examiner cites the same teachings
of Torres Sabate, Kelly, Bar, and Terui as for claim 14 to include teachings
of environmental condition sensors. Non-Final Act. 8–9; Ans. 5–6.
Appellant argues that only location-specific weather condition data is
available from prior art systems such as those described in Kelly and Torres
Sabate and location-specific environmental condition information is more
difficult to find as prior art systems do not exist to output such data. Appeal
Br. 14. Appellant argues that Torres Sabate does not teach environmental
condition information received from an environmental sensor for transmittal
to a communicator device in response to a determination that the device is in
close proximity to the environmental sensor. Id. at 15.
We agree with the Examiner that Torres Sabate senses environmental
conditions as claimed. The Specification indicates that sensors can be any
type used to forecast and transmit weather or environmental conditions.
Spec. ¶ 70. Sensors sample air temperature, humidity, precipitation, solar
radiation, wind speed and direction, and soil temperature, moisture, and/or
chemical constituents. Id. Torres Sabate senses environmental conditions
such as road conditions, repair work, accidents, low visibility, and hazardous
materials. Torres Sabate, 4:49–5:26, 7:1–8:42. Torres Sabate transmits the
conditions to portable receivers in close proximity to the transmitter. See id.
Appeal 2020-003329
Application 14/073,418

9
Like, Torres Sabate, Terui detects and transmits environmental safety
and danger information. Terui, 5:6–6:3, 6:61–7:24. Terui transmits weather
and environmental safety conditions and warnings to portable devices that
are in close proximity to an area of danger to warn users of the dangerous
conditions in the area. Id. at 2:36–7:24. Terui limits transmissions to user
devices in close proximity to the dangers and most likely to be impacted by
those dangerous conditions to reduce unnecessary alerts and excessive data
traffic. Id. at 5:6–62, 6:61–7:64. As a result, environmental condition data
can be provided only to communicator devices of users in close proximity to
a detected region of danger. See id. at 6:61–7:58. Both references provide
environmental condition data under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 26.
Claims 22–25 and 27–30
Claims 22 and 27 depend, respectively, from claims 14 and 26 and
recite that the step of determining whether a communicator device is in close
proximity to the location of a sensor comprises “determining a unique spatial
range of each of the one or more weather or environmental sensors; and
determining whether the at least one communicator device is within the
unique spatial range of the one or more weather or environmental sensors.”
Appeal Br. 20, 21 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Terui teaches this
feature as data transmission and reception circuit 201 of safety information
provision equipment 2 searches a constant area of space for the presence of a
portable terminal 1 and if portable terminal 1 is within a range at which data
transmission is possible, commences data transmission to portable terminal 1
by notifying portable terminal 1 that portable terminal 1 is within the range
in which transmission is possible. Non-Final Act. 9–10; Ans. 6–7.
Appeal 2020-003329
Application 14/073,418

10
Appellant argues that claims 22 and 27 require “determining whether
one of the communicator devices is located in close proximity to” a sensor
and “determining whether the at least one communicator device is within the
unique spatial range” of the sensor, but Terui determines whether a portable
terminal 1, 3 is within the transmission range of safety information provision
equipment 2 and requests data transmission if it is within range. Appeal Br.
16. Appellant argues that determining whether a terminal is in transmission
range of a transmitter is not the same as determining whether a device is
within range of the effective range of a weather or environmental sensor. Id.
Appellant asserts that neither portable terminals 1, 3 nor safety information
provision equipment 2 is a weather or environmental sensor as claimed and
the Examiner has not addressed how Terui teaches a unique spatial range of
safety information provision equipment 2 is determined based on a type of
weather or environmental information monitored. Id.
The Specification indicates that sensor 48b of sensor network 48a may
have a unique spatial range such as a five or twenty mile radius. Spec. ¶ 69.
The spatial range can be selected based on the sensor type and purpose. Id.
The spatial range of sensor 48b used to detect soil moisture may be 375 feet.
Id. The spatial range of sensor 48b used to determine soil temperature may
be 2,000 feet. Id.
The Examiner has not explained how determining whether a portable
terminal 1 is within the transmission range of safety information provision
equipment 2, i.e., “[i]f portable terminal 1 is within the range in which data
transmission is possible with safety information provision equipment 2,”
(Terui, 3:48–50) teaches or suggests determining a spatial range of a sensor
and whether a communicator device is within that unique spatial range.
Appeal 2020-003329
Application 14/073,418

11
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 22 and 27. Nor
do we sustain the rejection of claims 23–25 or 28–30, which depend from
claims 22 and 27 respectively.3
Claim 15
Rejected Over Torres Sabate, Kelly, Bar, Terui, and Official Notice
Appellant does not present arguments for the rejection of claim 15,
which depends directly from claim 14. See Appeal Br. 8–17. Thus, we
summarily sustain this rejection.
Claims 16–20
Rejected Over Torres Sabate, Kelly, Bar, Terui, and Truesdell
Appellant does not present arguments for the rejection of claims 16–
20, which depend directly from claim 14. See Appeal Br. 8–17. Thus, we
summarily sustain this rejection.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
14, 22–30 103(a) Torres Sabate,
Kelly, Bar, Terui
14, 26 22–25, 27–
30
15 103(a) Torres Sabate,
Kelly, Bar, Terui,
Official Notice
15
16–20 103(a) Torres Sabate,
Kelly, Bar, Terui,
Truesdell
16–20
Overall
Outcome
14–20, 26 22–25, 27–
30

3 The Examiner cites the same teachings of Terui for claims 23–25 and 28–
30 as the Examiner cites for claims 22 and 27. See Non-Final Act. 10–12.
Appeal 2020-003329
Application 14/073,418

12
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART