Ex Parte Follmann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 24, 2016

12241639 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/241,639 09/30/2008
11764 7590
Ditthavong & Steiner, P,C,
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
06/28/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Andreas Pollmann
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.
P3061USOO 7420
EXAMINER
OFORI-AWUAH,MAAME
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3629
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2016 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):
docket@dcpatent.com
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREAS POLLMANN, STEP AN KELLNER, FELIX
PETERSEN, KLAUS HARTL, SEAN TREADWAY, TILMANN SINGER,
and JEANNY WANG
Appeal2014-002970
Application 12/241,639
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER Administrative Patent Judges.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1-7, 9-19, 21-30, and 32-35, which are all the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-002970
Application 12/241,639
THE INVENTION
The Appellants' claimed invention is directed to mobile
communications and providing activity coordination services (Spec.,
para. 1 ). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter
on appeal.
1. A method comprising:
causing, at least in part by a processor, to maintain data
regarding one or more previous activities of a user and one or
more contacts invited to the previous activities;
comparing an activity type associated with a new activity
with activity types associated with the user's previous activities
to determine one or more previous activities having an
associated activity type similar to the activity type associated
with the new activity, wherein the new activity comprises an
associated location;
determining one or more suggested contacts to invite to
the new activity based at least in part upon contacts invited to
the determined one or more previous activities having an
associated activity type similar to the activity type associated
with the new activity; and
determining a time zone for the new activity including:
storing a plurality of shapes in a memory, wherein
each shape corresponds to an overlay of a non-
overlapping section of a surface of Earth, the section
comprising a time zone;
determining a shape including the location
associated with the new activity; and
determining based at least in part upon the
determined shape the time zone for the new activity.
2
Appeal2014-002970
Application 12/241,639
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 2, 10-14, 22, 24, 25, 33, and 35 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sorvari (US 2006/0035632 Al, pub.
Feb. 16, 2006), Pabla (US 7,679,518 Bl, iss. Mar. 16, 2010), and Curran
(US 2007/0185752, pub. Aug. 9, 2007). 1
2. Claims 3, 9, 15, 21, 26, 36, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Sorvari, Pabla, and Mehta (US 2010/0004997
Al, pub. Jan. 7, 2010).
3. Claims 4---6, 16-18, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Sorvari, Pabla, and Curran.
4. Claim 7, 19, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sorvari, Pabla, Curran, and Bonev (US 2009/0152349 Al,
pub. June 18, 2009).
5. Claims 11, 23, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sorvari, Pabla, and Hogan (US 2006/0293959 Al, pub.
Dec. 28, 2006).
1 This rejection is listed in the Answer as page 2 as only including Sorvari
and Pabla. However, page 9 of the Answer indicates that this rejection also
includes the Curran reference (Ans. 9, lines 6-7). See also the Answer at
pages 9 and 10. This rejection as listed at page 2 is therefore considered to
have a typographical error in not listing the Curran reference.
3
Appeal2014-002970
Application 12/241,639
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence. 2
ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because
the cited prior art does not disclose the claim limitation for:
storing a plurality of shapes in a memory, wherein each
shape corresponds to an overlay of a non-overlapping section
of a surface of Earth, the section comprising a time zone;
determining a shape including the location associated
with the new activity; and
determining based at least in part upon the determined
shape the time zone for the new activity.
(App. Br. 7-10 (emphasis added)).
In contrast; the Examiner has determined that the cited claim
limitation is shown by Curran at paras. 31 and 43 (Ans. 9, 10).
We agree with the Appellant. Here the argued claim limitation
reqmres:
storing a plurality of shapes ... wherein each shape corresponds
to ... a surface of Earth ... comprising a time zone ... [and]
determining a shape including the location associated with the
new activity ... based at least in part upon the determined
shape the time zone for the new activity.
2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
4
Appeal2014-002970
Application 12/241,639
Here, the above cited claim limitation is not specifically disclosed in citation
to Curran at paras. 31 and 43. For instance, while Curran at para. 31 does
disclose the use of confirming time zones, it is not specifically disclosed that
this is done by storing a plurality of shapes, determining a shape, or
determining based . .. upon the determined shape as claimed. For these
reasons the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims is not sustained.
The remaining claims contain a similar limitation and the rejection of these
claims is not sustained for the same reasons given above.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejections section above.
DECISION
The Examiner;s rejection of claims 1-7, 9-19, 21--'30, and 32--'35 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5