Ex Parte Chou

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2014

11404808 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHUN-PU CHOU
____________

Appeal 2011-012987
Application 11/404,808
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing
was held February 20, 2014.
We reverse.

Appeal 2011-012987
Application 11/404,808

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed “to a method for reading
current position data from a remote portable electronic device through a
signal switching network” (Spec. ¶ [0001]).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A method for reading current position data from a plurality of
portable electronic devices through a signal switching network
system, the plurality of portable electronic devices being divided into
a plurality of groups, each portable electronic device having a group
identification according to the group to which it belongs, the signal
switching network system comprising a server and a signal
transmission network, the method comprising the steps of:

(a) a plurality of remote portable electronic devices obtaining at
least a current position data thereof;

(b) each remote portable electronic device sending the current
position data through a signal transmission interface and the
signal transmission network of the signal switching network
system to a position database of the server;

(c) a requesting portable electronic device logging into the server
through the signal transmission network of the signal switching
network system; and

(d) the requesting portable electronic device reading the current
position data of a specific remote portable electronic device
from the position database of the server when the requesting
portable electronic device and the specific remote portable
electronic device have the same group identification, wherein
each portable electronic device can read the current position
data of each other portable electronic device in the same group.

Appeal 2012-012987
Application 11/404,808

3
REFERENCE and REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Casey (US 7,259,668 B2, filed July 12, 2005).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Casey teaches all the limitations of Appellant’s
claimed invention (Ans. 4-8). Particularly, the Examiner cites to Casey’s
column 6, lines 45-47 for disclosing a group ID corresponds to both a
particular user ID and password of a mobile unit (Ans. 4). We find no such
teaching in the cited section of Casey. Casey merely states a database
“includes an authentication database, which may include user id and
password information” (col. 6, ll. 46-47) (emphasis added). Additionally, the
Examiner finds “[s]ince family (group members) are the only ones permitted
to have Universal access to a related mobile device location (col. 15, lines
15-20), such family members would have had to have had [sic] some type of
ID or password that authenticated their ability to access restricted
information” (Ans. 4) (emphasis omitted). Again, we find no such teaching
in the cited portion of Casey. Rather this portion merely states “[a]ccording
to different embodiments, there are a number of different ‘access levels,’
which correlate series of preferences,” an access level could be a
“Universal” level granted to a family member and allowing access to all
data. Thus, this portion of Casey merely teaches a level of access granted by
a user.
Appellant contends, with respect to independent claims 1 and 11, the
Examiner is incorrect in finding, among other things, Casey teaches “access
to current position data according to membership in a group as defined by a
Appeal 2012-012987
Application 11/404,808

4
group identification, or transmitting to each portable electronic device the
current position data of all other portable electronic devices having the same
group identification,” as claimed (emphasis added) (App. Br. 4). Rather,
Appellant asserts, Casey teaches a method where “individual user
preferences determine access to current position data” (id.). Additionally,
Appellant contends, Casey teaches a device relying on user profiles (the user
of a device) and not the preferences of a group (App. Br. 8). Thus, in Casey,
a user sets preferences determining which other users (singly or as a group)
have access to that user’s information (id.). We agree.
We also agree with Appellant that the “group” identified in Casey
relates to “preferences set in an individual user’s profile” (App. Br. 11). That
is, a “user may establish location based information access preferences for a
single other user or for a group of other users” (id.). Particularly, Casey does
not teach each portable electronic device can read current position data of
each other portable electronic device in the same group based on a group ID
because each user in Casey has its own ID (id.). Thus, contrary to the
Examiner’s assertions, Casey does not inherently (or otherwise) teach a
group identification number as claimed (App. Br, 11; Reply Br. 5-6).
Therefore, because Casey does not disclose every limitation of
Appellant’s claimed invention, Casey does not anticipate claims 1 and 11, or
claims 2-10 and 12-21, dependent therefrom.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
is reversed.

Appeal 2012-012987
Application 11/404,808

5
REVERSED

mls