Ex Parte RAINEY et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2019

15455458 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/455,458 03/10/2017
27557 7590 03/01/2019
BLANK ROME LLP
1825 Eye Street NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20006-5403
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
R. LEE RAINEY
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.
ll0106.00417 1057
EXAMINER
GORTAYO, DANGELINO N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2019 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):
W ashingtonDocketing@blankrome.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte R. LEE RAINEY, BILL VINCENT,
CASEY McGEEVER, MICHELLE L. MASSUNG,
and GREGG PAVLIK
Appeal 2019-001753
Application 15/455,458
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 75-77, 80, 98-101, 103-109, and 149. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is the Assignee, Accuweather, Inc. See App.
Br. 2.
Appeal2019-001753
Application 15/455,458
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to a "customizable weather analysis
system and method for outputting weather data associated with user-
specified locations based on user-specified weather inquiries." Spec. ,r 3.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A system, comprising:
a weather information database configured to store
weather data associated with a plurality of geographic locations;
a graphical user interface configured to receive a
plurality of user-specified facility locations and a user-defined
query from a user, the user-defined query including at least one
user-specified weather condition or at least one weather-related
wammg;
a user information database configured to store the user-
specified locations and the user-defined query received from the
user via the graphical user interface; and
an analysis unit configured to simultaneously output
user-specified locations that satisfy the user-defined query via
the graphical user interface in either a list or a map that includes
visual indications of the user-specified locations.
REJECTION and REFERENCES
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 75-77, 80, 98-101, 103-109, and
149 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) based upon the teachings ofNeilley (US
7,751,978 Bl; iss. July 6, 2010) and Ryan (US 7,461,137 B2; iss. Dec. 2,
2008).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Neilley teaches all the claim limitations except
for specifically disclosing a graphical user interface configured to receive a
2
Appeal2019-001753
Application 15/455,458
plurality of user-specified facility locations. Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner,
however, finds Ryan teaches this limitation. Final Act. 5.
Appellants contend the Examiner errs in finding Ryan teaches the
contested limitation. That is, Ryan "does not provide functionality for a user
to define a query (specifying a weather condition or a weather-related
warning) and receive a list or map of the facility locations that satisfy the
user-defined query," as claimed. App. Br. 6. Rather, Appellants contend,
Ryan "describes an interface that allows users to submit a query that
includes an activity and a location, receive weather conditions relevant to
that activity in that location, and plan to participate in that activity in that
location." Id. See also Ryan col. 7, 11. 24--59; col. 13, 1. 52---col. 14, 1. 44.
Appellants further contend Neilley provides a user the ability to specify
multiple regions of interest, but it would not have been obvious to modify
Neilley to provide a "user the ability to specify multiple facility locations" as
claimed. App. Br. 8. We do not agree with Appellants.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings. Ans. 4--8.
Specifically, we agree with the Examiner the rejection is based on the
combination ofNeilley, which teaches "presenting weather condition
information of user-specified geographical regions based on user-entered
parameters," and Ryan, which teaches receiving "a plurality of locations
associated with activities based on a user-entered query for weather
information presentation." Ans. 4--5. That is, Ryan teaches
presenting/displaying a list of resorts (facility locations) along with weather
conditions based on user-specified locations. Ans. 6-7. An ordinarily
skilled artisan would be able to combine Neilley's method of presenting
weather information of user-specified geographical regions based on user-
3
Appeal2019-001753
Application 15/455,458
entered parameters, with Ryan's teachings, resulting in Appellants' claimed
invention. Ans. 7.
Appellants' arguments do not take into account what the collective
teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art and are, therefore, ineffective to rebut the Examiner's prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981) ("The test
for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that
the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.") (Citations
omitted). Appellants' argument against Ryan, separate from Neilley, and
vice versa, does not persuasively rebut the combination made by the
Examiner. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually, where the rejections are based on a combination of references.
In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
We also do not agree with Appellants' assertion "that it would not
have been obvious to combine" Neilley and Ryan. App. Br. 8. The test for
obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
987-88 (Fed. Cir. 2006), In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
and Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent when "the
differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to
a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
matter pertains."
4
Appeal2019-001753
Application 15/455,458
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) (quoting Kahn, 441
F.3d at 988). We agree with the Examiner that Neilley, in view of Ryan,
would specify the locations in Neilley are particular facilities of interest
( e.g., golf courses) making the weather information provided of specific
interest to a user. Ans. 7-8.
On this record, we are not persuaded that the Examiner's reading of
the claims on the cited combination of references is overly broad,
unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification. Thus, in light of the
broad terms recited in the claims and the arguments presented, Appellants
have failed to clearly distinguish their claimed invention over the prior art
relied on by the Examiner: we are not persuaded of Examiner error. We find
the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner's ultimate legal conclusion
of obviousness, and therefore sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1,
75-77, 80, 98-101, 103-109, and 149, argued together.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 75-77, 80, 98-101, 103-
109, and 149 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5