Ex Parte Lahtinen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 14, 2014

11869993 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PEKKA LAHTINEN
____________________

Appeal 2011-012178
Application 11/869,993
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-012178
Application 11/869,993
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to enabling access to a dynamic attribute
associated with a service point. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
receiving an indication of a dynamic attribute associated
with a service point having a particular geographic location, the
dynamic attribute being provided from a mobile content source
proximate to the particular geographic location;
indicating an availability of the dynamic attribute to a
user remotely located from the service point; and
enabling the user to access the dynamic attribute in
response to a user selection.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Tischer US 2005/0188399 A1 Aug. 25, 2005

British
Telecommunications

EP 1770956 A1

Apr. 4, 2007
Appeal 2011-012178
Application 11/869,993
3
REJECTIONS1,2
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-4, 6-14, 16-20, and 22-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Tischer. Ans. 4-9.
Claims 5, 15, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tischer and British Telecommunications. Ans. 9-10.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION
Tischer’s portable communications devices 116A-C are at the same
venue proximate to an event located at the service point and therefore fail to
disclose a user remotely located from the service point . App. Br. 5-6.

ISSUE ON APPEAL
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 5-6) the
issue presented on appeal is whether the Examiner erred in finding Tischer
discloses the disputed limitations of claim 1.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s

1 Appellant argues the rejection of independent claims 12, 18, 24, and 25 on
the basis of independent claim 1. Separate patentability is not argued for
dependent 2-11, 13-17, and 19-23. Merely restating with respect to a second
claim an argument, previously presented with respect to a first claim, is not
an argument for separate patentability of the two claims. Therefore, based
on Appellant’s arguments, we will decide the appeal of claims 1-25 based on
claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
2 The rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been withdrawn. Ans.
3.
Appeal 2011-012178
Application 11/869,993
4
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 (Ans. 4-10) and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 10-13) and concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for
emphasis.
Appellant contends Tischer discloses sharing proximity-centric media
content amongst devices at the same venue with each device located at a
common service point, i.e., not located remotely as recited by claim 1. App.
Br. 5-6. That is, Tischer’s portable communication devices 116A-C are
located at, not remotely located from, the service point. Alternatively,
Appellant agrees Tischer describes a mechanism for providing content from
portable communication devices 116A-C located at the service point to
remote communication device 110. However, Appellant argues, because
portable communication devices 116A-C must transmit data directly to
remote communication device 110, this arrangement fails to indicate an
availability of the dynamic attribute to a user remotely located from the
service point and enabling the user to access the dynamic attribute in
response to a user selection. App. Br. 6.
The Examiner responds stating Tischer’s portable communication
devices 116A-C “are connected to the content provider by a network and
access data remotely from it. Devices that are not the providing device are
necessarily located remotely from it because they are not the same device
and access the data through the wireless network.” Ans. 11. The Examiner
further finds “[w]hile these devices may be ‘proximate to the particular
geographic location[,]’[ ] they are not local to the content source because
[they] access the source from a network as opposed to accessing the content
Appeal 2011-012178
Application 11/869,993
5
from a camera or storage that is attached to the device.” Id. The Examiner
further finds Tischer’s remote communication device 110 also discloses the
disputed steps of claim 1 with remote device 110 providing access to the
system using a communications network such as cell tower 106.
We agree with the Examiner. During examination of a patent
application, pending claims are given their broadest reasonable construction
consistent with the specification. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05
(CCPA 1969); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we interpret “a user remotely located from the
service point” to include communication devices 116A-C that are distinct
and separate from one another. In particular, although located at the same
venue, as found by the Examiner (Ans. 11), these devices are connected to
the content provider by a network and access data remotely. Furthermore,
we agree remote device 110 also discloses the disputed user remotely
located from the service point. As found by the Examiner (Ans. 12), Tischer
describes users at a venue can input contact information for a user who is not
at the venue so the remote user will have access to the remote content. The
Examiner also finds “in accordance with paragraphs 0036-39, any user that
has an account with the multi-networking relay system can access available
media content.” Ans. 13. Therefore, these users also are provided with an
indication that a dynamic attribute is available and are provided access to the
attribute in response to a selection of the attribute.
For the reasons supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of independent claim 1 and, for the
same reasons, independent claims 12, 18, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Tischer together with the rejections of
dependent 2-11, 13-17, and 19-23 not separately argued. For the same
Appeal 2011-012178
Application 11/869,993
6
reasons, we sustain the rejections of dependent claims 5, 15, and 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tischer and British Telecommunications, these claims
also not separately argued.

CONCLUSIONS
We find
1. The Examiner did not err in finding Tischer discloses the disputed
limitations of claim 1.
2. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-4, 6-14,16-20, and 22-
25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Tischer.
3. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 5, 15, and 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tischer and British Telecommunications

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-25 is affirmed.
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

tj