Ex Parte Steenstra et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2016

10931309 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
10/931,309 08/31/2004
23696 7590 07/05/2016
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jack Steenstra
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.
040813 8451
EXAMINER
VANDERHORST, MARIA VICTORIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3688
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2016 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JACK STEENSTRA, ALEXANDER GANTMAN,
KIRK STEVEN TAYLOR, and LIREN CHEN
Appeal2013-006479
Application 10/931,309
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the decision
rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 7-12, and 15-39. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
Appellants' "invention relates generally to communication, and more
specifically to a system and method for performing location determination
and providing location information, and providing advertising on a wireless
terminal." Spec. i-f 2.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as "QUALCOMM
Incorporated." Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2013-006479
Application 10/931,309
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A method of providing advertising on a wireless
terminal, comprising:
[a] activating a feature from a wireless terminal;
[b] registering from the wireless terminal with a
location based service associated with the feature;
[ c] creating a profile of a user of the feature, wherein
creating the profile of a user of the feature includes creating a
desired profile that specifies at least one desired characteristic of
a candidate;
[ d] registering, by the wireless terminal, to a group
event that is available to users of wireless terminals that are
registered to the location based service;
[ e] presenting advertising of a product or service based
on the registration of the wireless terminal to the group event and
based on a geographic location of the wireless terminal or the
group event; and
[f] associating an activity map with the feature,
wherein presenting advertising based on geographic location of
the wireless terminal is based on the wireless terminal being
represented on the associated activity map, wherein the activity
map displays at least one of a set of historical statistics of
locations of other active users, or at least one candidate that
matches the profile.
Appeal Br. 30, Claims App. (bracketed matter added).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-12, 15-33, 35-37, and 39 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jokinen2 and Degnbol. 3
Claims 34 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jokinen, Degnbol, and Postrel. 4
2 Jokinen et al., US 7,343,317 B2, issued March 11, 2008.
3 Degnbol et al., WO 00/22860, published April 20, 2000.
4 Postrel, US 2003/0216960 Al, published November 20, 2003.
2
Appeal2013-006479
Application 10/931,309
ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that the
combination of references renders obvious claims 1, 2, 4, 7-12, and 15-39.
Appeal Br. 11-27. Upon consideration of Appellants' assertions, we agree
with the Examiner's findings, rationale, and response to arguments, set forth
on pages 3-36 of the Examiner's Answer, as fully responsive to Appellants'
assertions. Accordingly, we adopt them as our own. We add the following
for emphasis only.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Degnbol, on
which the Examiner relies, does not disclose or suggest "registering, by the
wireless terminal, to a group event that is available to users of wireless
terminals that are registered to the location based service" (limitation [ d]).
Appeal Br. 13.
Degnbol relates to a method and system for transmitting data between
wireless communication units (e.g., mobile telephones). Degnbol, Abstract.
Degnbol users can be automatically alerted of another user's profile interests
within a specified proximity and allow those users to act upon this
information by contacting that user. Degnbol 3:1-33; see also Ans. 7.
According to Degnbol, user interests can be static or dynamic, and dynamic
interests, as set fmih in Degnbol, are by nature situational and represent user
needs and interests of a temporary nature, typically expiring within minutes,
hours or days~' (such as "specific social events in the vicinity - e.g. parties,
spmiing events, competitions, dining, musical events, etc.''). Degnbol
16:26----35. A wireless user can create and store a dynamic interest in a
personal profile by setting an expiry time during submission of interest data.
3
Appeal2013-006479
Application 10/931,309
ld. at 16:27----28. Thus, Degnbol's users can be alerted when a user's
submitted interest data matches their interest and proximity criteria. id. at
16:18-2L
Appellants argue "[t]he only 'event' to which the user registers in
Degnbol is to receive a user location alert, and the interests specified by the
user (e.g., such as an interest in attending social events, musicals, etc.) only
registers the user to the location alert, not a specific event under the umbrella
of any particular specified interest." Reply Br. 4. We disagree.
During prosecution, the PTO gives claims their "broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification." In re Hyatt, 211F.3d1367,
1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In support of the claimed subject matter recited in
limitation [d], Appellants direct us to an embodiment describing an interest
group feature. Appeal Br. 4 (citing Spec. 10: 10-32). The Specification
provides:
In an embodiment, the interest group can be spontaneous and can
be setup online. For example, on a Saturday morning, Alex wants
to play pick-up basketball. Alex registers as active in an interest
group he creates for basketball. Five other active users of Qsocial
see the newly created interest group based on their being in the
same geographical location as Alex and their having an interest in
basketball, which is in their profile. The five active users respond,
and using the interest group feature, arrange to meet at the
Neighborhood Park and play 3-on-3 basketball. In creating the
basketball interest group, Alex could put a time limit on the
basketball interest group.
Spec. 10:12-19. Appellants' Specification indicates that the basketball
interest group could be newly created or could have already existed, and can
be static (with no time limit) or dynamic (with a time limit). Spec. 10:20-
22. As with Alex, upon submitting dynamic interest data with an expiry
4
Appeal2013-006479
Application 10/931,309
time about a specific social event in the vicinity, Degnbol's user registers to
a group event that is available to Degnbol' s other users that are registered to
receive location based proximity alerts. Therefore, we are not persuaded
that the Examiner erred in finding that Degnbol discloses limitation [ d] of
claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 7-12, and 15-39 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).
AFFIRMED
5