Ex Parte Papakipos et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 17, 2016

13417013 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/417,013 03/09/2012
91230 7590 03/21/2016
Baker Botts L.L.P.
2001 Ross Avenue. 6th Floor
Dallas, TX 75201
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Matthew Nicholas Papakipos
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.
079894.0225 1573
EXAMINER
OBAYANJU, OMONIYI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/21/2016 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):
ptomaill@bakerbotts.com
ptomail2@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW NICHOLAS PAPAKIPOS,
LEV POPOV, and IAIN ANDREW RUSSELL PROCTOR
Appeal2014-005163
Application 13/417,013
Technology Center 2600
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to
graphical positioning-capable devices. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is
exemplary:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, at a mobile device, a location of a place
socially connected to a user associated with the mobile device,
Appeal2014-005163
Application 13/417,013
the place and the user socially connected through an online
social network with which the user and the place are associated;
determining, by one or more processors of a geographic-
positioning component of the mobile device, on a periodic
basis, a current location of the mobile device;
determining, by the processors of the geographic-
positioning component, whether the current location is within a
geographic region defined at least in part by the location of the
place; and
if the current location is within the geographic region,
then transmitting, by the processors of the geographic-
positioning component, a message to one or more other
processors of the mobile device, the message causing one or
more of the other processors to transition from a sleep state to
an active state.
Chatterjee
Valko et al
Geva et al.
References and Rejections
US 2011/0142016 Al
US 2012/0287031 Al
US 2012/0317615 Al
June 16, 2011
Nov. 15; 2012
Dec. 13, 2012
Claims 1, 2, 4--10, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chatterjee and Valko.
Claims 3, 11, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chatterjee, Valko, and Geva.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments,
and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants' conclusion that the
Examiner erred in finding Chatterjee teaches "receiving, at a mobile device,
2
Appeal2014-005163
Application 13/417,013
a location of a place socially connected to a user associated with the mobile
device, the place and the user socially connected through an online social
network with which the user and the place are associated," as recited in
independent claim 1 (emphasis added). 1
The Examiner cites Chatterjee's Figure 1, paragraphs 1, 26, 35, and
44 for that claim limitation. See Ans. 2--4; Final Act. 4. Chatterjee states:
[0001] This disclosure relates generally to social networking.
[0026] Server 112 can send notifications to mobile devices 104,
106, and 108, alerting Adam, Baker and Carol that a liked-
minded person (e.g., person with common interests or common
experiences) is close by. The notification can include the
location information submitted by mobile devices 104, 106, and
108. Mobile device 104, 106, and 108 can use the location
information to help Adam, Baker, and Carol to find each other.
For example ....
[0035] In some implementations, determining (206) that the
second mobile device is located within a social networking
distance of the first mobile device can include determining that
the first and second mobile devices are at the same venue. A
venue can be a place that covers a geographic area. "Hapuna
Beach" "de Young Museum" or "Mauna Kea" can be some
' '
exemplary venues. Venues can be associated with geographic
coordinates using various techniques (e.g., using data from the
Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and
Referencing (TIGER) system of the U.S. Census Bureau). The
first and second mobile devices can be within the social
networking distance if the first and second mobile devices are
both at, for example, the Hapuna Beach of Hawaii Island.
[0044] In some implementations, the geographical location can
be automatically sent to server 112 when mobile device 104
1 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments.
3
Appeal2014-005163
Application 13/417,013
remains at a geographic location for a certain period of time.
Mobile device 104 can send a cancellation signal after mobile
device leaves the geographic location. For example ....
Chatterjee i-fi-f l, 26, 35, 44.
The cited Chatterjee portions do not discuss "the place and the user
socially connected through an online social network with which the user and
the place are associated," as required by claim 1 (emphasis added). Absent
sufficient explanation from the Examiner, we do not see how the cited
Chatterjee portions teach the italicized claim limitation. As applied by the
Examiner, the teachings of Valko do not remedy the deficiency associated
with the teachings of Chatterjee. See Ans. 2-5; Final Act. 5.
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence to support
the rejection, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1 and corresponding dependent claims 2-8 for similar
reasons.
Independent claims 9 and 17 recite claim limitations that are
substantively the same as the disputed claim limitation of claim 1. See
claims 9, 1 7. Therefore, for similar reasons discussed above with respect to
claim 1, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 9
and 17, and corresponding dependent claims 10-16 and 18-20.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
4