Ex Parte Andreasson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 18, 2014

12167761 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 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.
12/167,761 07/03/2008 Markus Mans Folke Andreasson 9342-439/PS08 0063US1 6104
54414 7590 11/19/2014
MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P.A.
P.O. BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
EXAMINER
AMIN, JWALANT B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2618
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/19/2014 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 MARKUS MANS FOLKE ANDREASSON
____________________

Appeal 2012-007285
Application 12/167,761
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals 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.
Appeal 2012-007285
Application 12/167,761

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to “electronic devices, methods, and
computer program products for providing geographical presence
information.” (Spec. ¶ 1.) Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of operating an electronic device, comprising:
determining an approximate geographic location of the
electronic device;
generating a geographic map tile that encompasses the
approximate geographic location on the electronic device;
determining a zoom level for the geographic map tile;
determining horizontal and vertical coordinates for the
geographic map tile based on the zoom level and the
approximate geographic location of the electronic device; and
sending the horizontal and vertical coordinates and zoom
level to another device as a geographic presence indicator for
the electronic device.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Annavaram et al., Hangout: A Privacy Preserving
Location Based Social Networking Service (2008) (“Murali”), Lewis, II (US
2009/0319616 Al; Dec. 24, 2009) (“Lewis”), and Rasmussen (US 7,599,790
B2; Oct. 6, 2009).
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Murali, Lewis, Rasmussen, and Roberts (US 2009/0100018 A1; Apr.
16, 2009).

Appeal 2012-007285
Application 12/167,761

3
ISSUE
Does the combination of Murali, Lewis, and Rasmussen teach or
suggest “determining an approximate geographic location of the electronic
device” and “generating a geographic map tile that encompasses the
approximate geographic location on the electronic device” as recited in
claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites “determining an approximate geographic location of
the electronic device” and “generating a geographic map tile that
encompasses the approximate geographic location on the electronic device.”
(App. Br. 8 (emphasis added).) Claims 12 and 18 recite similar limitations.
(See id. at 9, 10.) The Examiner found the combined teachings of Murali
and Rasmussen suggested these limitations. (See Ans. 4–6, 9–11.)
Appellant contends this finding is erroneous. Although Appellant
initially argued both Murali and Rasmussen failed to teach or suggest
“generating geographic map tiles locally on [a] computing device,” (App.
Br. 5–6), Appellant later acknowledged the “servers in the Murali and
Rasmussen references . . . generate map tiles locally,” (Reply Br. 2). But
Appellant asserts both Murali and Rasmussen describe “a client device
receiving map tiles that are generated at a server” and argues the disclosed
servers “do not determine their own approximate geographic location as
recited” in claim 1. (Id.) Accordingly, in Appellant’s view, “the combined
teachings of the cited references fail to disclose or suggest an electronic
device that [both] determines its own approximate geographic location and
generates a geographic map tile itself that encompasses its own approximate
geographic location.” (Id.)
Appeal 2012-007285
Application 12/167,761

4
We disagree. The Examiner did not find the servers described by
Murali and Rasmussen alone suggested the disputed limitations. Rather, the
Examiner found Murali’s client device “determin[ed] an approximate
geographic location of the electronic device,” (Ans. 4), Rasmussen’s tile
maker “generat[ed] a geographic map tile,” (id. at 5–6, 9), and that it would
have been obvious to one of skill in the art to combine these teachings to
arrive at the disputed limitations, (id. at 5–6, 11). Appellant’s arguments
regarding Murali’s and Rasmussen’s servers do not address whether, as
found by the Examiner, the steps performed by Rasmussen’s servers can be
combined with the steps performed by Murali’s client device. Because
Appellant has failed to provide persuasive evidence or argument that the
Examiner’s findings regarding the combination of the cited art are
erroneous, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the rejection
of claims 2–9 and 11–20, as Appellant argues the remaining independent
claims (claims 12 and 18) together with claim 1 and contends the dependent
claims are patentable based on their dependency from the independent
claims. (See App. Br. 5–6.)

DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 1–20.
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

lv