Ex Parte Eros et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2015

11332250 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111332,250 01117/2006
63617 7590 12/22/2015
PERRY+ CURRIER INC (BlackBerry)
1300 YONGE STREET
SUITE 500
TORONTO, ON M4T-1X3
CANADA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Steve K. Eros
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
Pl069USOO 2639
EXAMINER
CHEN, SHELLEY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/22/2015 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):
docketing@pckip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVE K. EROS and NICHOLAS BLOMMESTEIJN
Appeal2013-009154
Application 11/332,250 1
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Steve K. Eros and Nicholas Blommesteijn (Appellants) seek our
review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's Final rejection of claims 1-
6, 13, 15-19, and 23-34. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2002).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE. 2
1 The Appellants identify Research In Motion Limited as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2013-009154
Application 11/332,250
THE INVENTION
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method for indicating, on a display of a first portable
electronic device, a location of a second portable electronic
device, said method comprising:
determining global location coordinates of said first
portable electronic device;
receiving global location coordinates of said second
portable electronic device, said first portable electronic device
being authorized in an authorization process to receive location
information of said second portable electronic device;
determining a relative direction from said first portable
electronic device to said second portable electronic device;
providing a visual identifier superimposed on a map that
is provided on said display to represent said relative direction
from said first portable electronic device to said second portable
electronic device,
wherein receiving of the global location coordinates of
said second portable electronic device occurs continuously and
without repeated requests from the first portable electronic
device such that said visual identifier is updated continuously
every time there is a change in said global location coordinates
of said first portable electronic device or said second portable
electronic device.
2 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App.
Br.," filed Apr. 5, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed July 2, 2013),
and the Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Nov. 6, 2012)
and Answer ("Ans.," mailed May 2, 2013).
2
Appeal2013-009154
Application 11/332,250
THE REJECTIONS 3
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Maruyama
Duncan
Park
US 2003/0195695 Al
US 2004/0087314 Al
US 2004/0121784 Al
The following rejections are before us for review:
Oct. 16, 2003
May 6, 2004
June 24, 2004
1. Claims 1---6, 13, 15-19, and 23-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maruyama and Duncan.
2. Claims 1---6, 13, 15-19, and 23-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maruyama and Park.
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1---6, 13, 15-19, and 23-34
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maruyama and
Duncan?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-6, 13, 15-19, and 23-34
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maruyama and Park?
3 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1-6, 13, 15-19, and 23-34
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maruyama and Mullen
(US 2004/0203923 Al, pub. Oct. 14, 2004). Ans. 3.
3
Appeal2013-009154
Application 11/332,250
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1-6, 13, 15-19, and 23-34 under 35 USC§ 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Maruyama and Duncan
Independent claims 1 and 13 recite "receiving of the global location
coordinates of said second portable electronic device occurs continuously
and without repeated requests from the first portable electronic device." The
Examiner's position is that Maruyama teaches this limitation, citing element
202 in Figure 7 and paragraphs 40-41. Final Act. 18. According to the
Examiner, Maruyama's "first device lOb continuously receives, although
second device 1 Oa may or may not continuously transmit location of second
device." Id.
The Appellants dispute the Examiner's finding that Maruyama teaches
this limitation. See App. Br. 11-12; see also Reply Br. 6-8. In particular,
the Appellants argue that "in order for the first device 1 Ob to continuously
receive a location; the second device 1 Oa must continuously transmit its
location, which does not occur in Maruyama." App. Br. 12 (emphasis
omitted).
The Examiner responds that "device 1 Ob continuously receives any
information transmitted by device lOa." Ans. 4. In this regard, the
Examiner provides an example involving an FM radio transmission and
states that "an FM radio receiver would continuously receive (static) even if
the selected radio station is not currently broadcasting." Id.
In reply, Appellants argue:
The actual receipt of coordinates is not equivalent to simply
being in a state where coordinates can be received, if they
happen to be transmitted by another party. Maruyama's walker
1 Ob clearly does not actually receive continuous location
4
Appeal2013-009154
Application 11/332,250
updates from the walker 1 Oa .... Maruyama states, at paragraph
[0041 ], that the location of the walker 1 Oa is received at step
202 and loaded at step 104. Both steps 202 and 104, as seen in
Figure 7, occur outside the loop of steps 105 to 111, and
Maruyama makes no mention of the walker 1 Ob being ready to
receive further location updates from the walker 1 Oa within that
loop.
Reply Br. 7.
We have reviewed the cited portions of Maruyama and agree with the
Appellants that the relied upon evidence is inadequate to support the
Examiner's finding that Maruyama discloses this claim limitation.
At the outset, we note that this claim limitation does not recite
receiving information continuously, but rather specifically recites receiving
the global location coordinates of the second portable electronic device
continuously. Although the Maruyama device receives location information
at step 202 (Figure 7), the Examiner has not shown that it does so
continuously and without repeated requests as required by claim 1. To the
contrary, the Maruyama device appears to only send/receive location
information when the "run" command is manually entered by a user. See
Maruyama, Figs. 6-7, i-f 41 ("If the walker 1 Ob selects Run in step 105, the
system executes the processings in steps 106 to 111, then displays the
partner's present place on the screen of the portable terminal of the walker
1 Ob in step 105. ") (emphasis omitted). Thus, the preponderance of the
evidence does not support the finding that Maruyama discloses "receiving of
the global location coordinates of said second portable electronic device
occurs continuously and without repeated requests from the first portable
electronic device," and the Examiner does not rely on Duncan in any way
that would cure this deficiency.
5
Appeal2013-009154
Application 11/332,250
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1
and 13. We do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-6, 15-19, and
23- 34 for the same reasons.
The rejection of claims 1-6, 13, 15-19, and 23-34 under 35 USC§ 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Maruyama and Park
This rejection is based on the same deficient finding that Maruyama
teaches the claim limitation reciting "receiving of the global location
coordinates of said second portable electronic device occurs continuously[]
[and] without repeated requests from the first portable electronic device"
(see Final Act. 25 (emphasis omitted)), and the Examiner does not rely on
Park in any way that would cure this deficiency. Accordingly, we do not
sustain this rejection of claims 1---6, 13, 15-19, and 23-34.
CONCLUSIONS
The rejection of claims 1---6, 13, 15-19, and 23-34 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maruyama and Duncan is not sustained.
The rejection of claims 1---6, 13, 15-19, and 23-34 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Maruyama and Park is not sustained.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-6, 13, 15-19, and 23-
34 is reversed.
REVERSED
rvb
6