Ex Parte Rosenstock et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2016

13229617 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/229,617 09/09/2011 Jesse Matthew Rosenstock GGL-841 9958
100462 7590 03/30/2016
Dority & Manning P.A. and Google Inc.
Post Office Box 1449
Greenville, SC 29602
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, KIM T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JESSE MATTHEW ROSENSTOCK and
JUSSI PETRI MYLLYMAKI
____________

Appeal 2014-003752
Application 13/229,617
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.

WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1–20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is GOOGLE INC. (Br.
3.)
Appeal 2014-003752
Application 13/229,617

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ disclosed invention “generally relates to location based
services and, in particular, to the location of points of interest (POI).” (Spec.
¶ 1.) Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A method for identifying a geometric footprint of a point
of interest (POI) listing in a database, the method comprising:
receiving a location sharing event from a mobile device,
the location sharing event comprising an event location
coordinate and a POI identifier;
identifying the POI listing in the database based on the
POI identifier, the POI listing comprising a POI location
coordinate;
comparing the event location coordinate to the POI
location coordinate to determine if the event location coordinate
is within a predetermined distance of the POI location
coordinate; and
calculating a geometric footprint of the POI listing based
on the event location coordinate if the event location coordinate
is within the predetermined distance of the POI location
coordinate.

Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Chawla (US 2012/0009900 A1; published. Jan. 12, 2012;
claiming priority to Aug. 14, 2007). (See Final Act. 4–9.)
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs (“Br.”
filed Sept. 6, 2013) and the Specification (“Spec.” filed Sept. 9, 2011) for
the positions of Appellants and the Final Office Action (“Final Act.” mailed
Apr. 8, 2013) and Answer (“Ans.” mailed Nov. 21, 2013) for the reasoning,
findings, and conclusions of the Examiner.

Appeal 2014-003752
Application 13/229,617

3
ISSUE
The dispositive issue presented by Appellants’ contentions is as
follows: Does Chawla disclose “calculating a geometric footprint of [a] POI
listing based on [an] event location coordinate,” as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Chawla discloses “calculating a geometric
footprint of [a] POI listing based on [an] event location coordinate,” as
recited in claim 1. (Final Act. 5 (citing Chawla ¶ 42, Fig. 5b).) Appellants
contend, inter alia, “FIG. 5b, paragraph [0042], and the rest of Chawla fail
to disclose ‘calculating a geometric footprint of the POI listing based on the
event location coordinate.’” (Br. 11 (brackets in original).) We agree with
Appellants.
We construe “calculating a geometric footprint of the POI listing”
broadly, to encompass any method using a computer to determine the area
occupied by the POI listing. Chawla’s Figure 5b discloses that a POI listing
may include a characterization of the geometry of the POI, i.e., a
characterization of the POI’s footprint, such as a “point” or a polygon.
(Chawla Fig. 5b (item 528).) Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that
Chawla’s “Geometry” field (Chawla Fig. 5b (item 528)), in conjunction with
Chawla’s disclosure that “additional information may be stored or requested
from the geo database to determine location status at that location” (Chawla
¶ 42), discloses “calculating a geometric footprint of a POI.” (See Ans. 4–
5.) The “calculat[ion of] a geometric footprint of a POI” disclosed by
Chawla is based on the information in Chawla’s “Geometry” field (Chawla
Fig. 5b (item 528)) and “Location Coordinates” field (id. (item 528)), i.e.,
Appeal 2014-003752
Application 13/229,617

4
the recited POI location coordinate, and unspecified “additional information
[that] may be stored or requested from the geo database.” (Chawla ¶ 42.)
However, although user location, i.e., the recited “event location
coordinate,” may be used to trigger the “calculat[ion of] a geometric
footprint of a POI” (id.), and although the calculation is used to determine
“location status at that location” (id.) such as a relationship between the POI
and the user location, we find no disclosure in the cited passages of Chawla
that the calculation of the POI footprint is based on the user location, i.e.,
“based on the event location coordinate,” as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner has not established that “each and every element as set
forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a
single prior art reference,” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal.,
814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987), “arranged as in the claim under review,”
In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Accordingly, we will not
sustain the rejection for anticipation by Chawla of claim 1; independent
claims 9 and 17, which recite substantially the same limitations as discussed
supra and were rejected on substantially the same bases as claim 1 (see Final
Act. 6, 8); and claims, 2–8, 10–16, and 18–20, which variously depend from,
and incorporate the limitations of, claims 1, 9, and 17.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–20 is reversed.

REVERSED