Ex Parte Myers et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 28, 2018

14083817 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/083,817 11/19/2013
1009 7590 08/30/2018
KING & SCHICKLI, PLLC
800 CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 200
LEXINGTON, KY 40503
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Frank Myers
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.
1789-004 8701
EXAMINER
FIBBI, CHRISTOPHER J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2018 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):
uspto@iplawl.net
laura@iplawl.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FRANK MYERS and BOB STAMPER
Appeal2017-011180
Application 14/083,817
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, IRVINE. BRANCH, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 4--11, 13-16, and 18-20, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to "providing information about an emergency
situation to emergency personnel." Spec. Abstract
Appeal2017-011180
Application 14/083,817
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations at
issue emphasized:
1. A method for providing information about an emergency
situation in an educational setting to emergency personnel,
compnsmg:
prompting a user to select one of a plurality of selectable
icons corresponding to a plurality of emergency situations on a
database application for a communications device;
automatically collecting a user's information and
determining GPS location of the user in the database application;
classifying the user in one of a plurality of categories
wherein each of the plurality of categories has different access
settings;
configuring a plurality of emergency contacts
corresponding to each of the plurality of emergency situations;
sending data corresponding to the selected one of the
plurality of emergency situations from the first mobile
communications device to a server;
processing the data from the first mobile communications
device by the server; and
transmitting the processed data to at least one of the
plurality of emergency contacts corresponding to the selected
one of the plurality of emergency situations.
References and Rejections
Claims 1, 4--6, 8-11, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over the combination of Zingher (US 2002/0170954 Al;
published Nov. 21, 2002) and Leipzig (US 2013/0065569 Al; published
Mar. 14, 2013). Final Act. 3-13.
2
Appeal2017-011180
Application 14/083,817
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Zingher, Leipzig, and Schuman (US 8,598,995 B2;
issued Dec. 3, 2013). Final Act. 13-14.
Claims 13-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Zingher and Schuman. Final Act. 14--19.
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Zingher, Leipzig, and Leemet
(US 8,412,154 Bl; issued Apr.2.2013). Final Act. 19-21.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 4-11, and 18-20
Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, "prompting a user to select one of a
plurality of selectable icons."
The Examiner finds Zingher discloses "prompting a user to select one
of a plurality of selectable icons." Final Act. 3--4 ( citing Zingher ,r,r 23, 42).
Appellants argue that Zingher "simply mentions buttons with generic
legends such as 'police' or 'fire'," and "is silent regarding prompting a user
to perform any action, and fails to discuss displaying selectable icons
corresponding to a plurality of emergency situations." Br. 11 ( citing Zingher
,r 42).
We are not persuaded of error. The Examiner finds that "prompting a
user," broadly construed, means "presenting to a user." Ans. 2. Appellants
fail to show the Examiner's interpretation is inconsistent with the
Specification or otherwise unreasonable. Accordingly, we agree with the
Examiner that, an ordinarily skilled artisan, such as a software developer,
"would recognize that the user is presented with selectable input keys on a
mobile device that correspond to different emergencies which allow the user
3
Appeal2017-011180
Application 14/083,817
to identify the type of distress encountered," i.e., prompts the user to select
an icon such as the fire button. Id. at 3.
Appellants also argue error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1
because the Examiner's reasoning for combining the references is
"unsupported" and "does not qualify as an articulated reason with a
rational underpinning for combining the references and it does not
establish a prima facie case of obviousness because it would not lead a
skilled artisan to combine the references and arrive at the claimed
invention." Br. 12 (referring to Final Act. 8). We are not persuaded of error
based on this argument for the reasons stated by the Examiner, which
Appellants do not address. Ans. 3-6.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim
1 and of claims 4--11, and 18-20, argued therewith. Br. 10-13.
Claim 13 and the remaining claims
Appellants argue the rejection of claim 13 on the basis that Schuman
is non-analogous art and that the Examiner provides no reasoning for
combining the references. Br. 13-14. We are unpersuaded of error for the
reasons stated by the Examiner, which Appellants do not address. Ans. 6-8.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 13 and the
rejections of the remaining claims, which Appellants do not argue separately
with particularity.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1, 4--11, 13-16, and 18-20.
4
Appeal2017-011180
Application 14/083,817
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5