Ex Parte Daley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 23, 2013

11839396 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ROBERT C. DALEY, EUGENE WANG,
and SUNIL MAROLIA
____________________

Appeal 2011-004608
Application 11/839,396
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JASON V. MORGAN, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

Per Curiam.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-004608
Application 11/839,396

2
STATEMENT OF CASE1
The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20, the only claims pending in the
application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

The Appellants’ invention relates to the personalization of mobile
devices, and, more specifically to a friends or contacts finder service for a
mobile device in a network. Specification ¶ 0019.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added]:
1. A method for interfacing to a mobile terminal, the method
comprising:
[1] receiving a request from the mobile terminal to find one
or more additional specified mobile terminals, based on a
contact list provided by the mobile terminal, that are within a
specified range of the mobile terminal;
[2] determining whether said one or more additional
specified mobile terminals are within said specified range of the
mobile terminal;
[3] communicating information and displaying location
regarding said one or more additional specified mobile
terminals that are within said specified range to the mobile
terminal, based on whether the one or more additional mobile

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Aug. 31, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Dec. 22,
2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Nov. 2, 2010), and Final
Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed May 25, 2010).
Appeal 2011-004608
Application 11/839,396

3
terminals associated with the contact list are currently granting
location tracking;
[4] concurrently displaying, to the mobile terminal,
advertisements of user tailored interest associated with stores
within the specified range; and
[5] allowing a common message to be sent to each of one or
more additional mobile terminals associated with contact list
that are within said specified range and that are granting
location tracking.

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
De Vries U.S. 6,968,179 B1 Nov. 22, 2005
Wilson U.S. 2004/0192299 A1 Sep. 30, 2004

REJECTION
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wilson and De Vries.

ISSUE
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3-11,
and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wilson and De
Vries turns on whether the combination of Wilson and De Vries teaches or
suggest limitations [3] and [5] of independent claim 1 and as similarly
recited in independent claim 11.

Appeal 2011-004608
Application 11/839,396

4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of the
Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with the Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. Specifically, we agree
and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in the Answer at pages
10-13.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wilson and De Vries.

DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows.
 The rejection of claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wilson and De Vries is sustained.

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) (2010).

AFFIRMED
msc