Ex Parte Wallace

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 14, 2016

11801014 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111801,014 0510712007
112877 7590 07118/2016
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Trimble Navigation Limited
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Daniel John Wallace
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.
89730-032700US-0307046 1711
EXAMINER
AMSDELL, DANA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/18/2016 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
j lhice@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL JOHN WALLACE
Appeal2014-002575 1
Application 11/801,0142
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL W. KIM, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
August 5, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed December 3, 2013), and
the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed October 4, 2013) and Final Office
Action ("Final Act.," mailed April 17, 2013).
2 Appellant identifies Trimble Navigation Limited as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-002575
Application 11/801,014
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant's claimed invention relates to a system and method for
externally augmented asset management (Abstract).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim and
representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for providing externally augmented asset
management, said method comprising:
receiving information from a first reporting source about
an asset, wherein said first reporting source comprises an
electronic device coupled with said asset, and wherein said
information from said first reporting source is received by a data
receiver of an asset management system;
receiving information from a second reporting source
about said asset, wherein said second reporting source comprises
a second electronic device different from said first reporting
source, and wherein said information from said second reporting
source is received by said data receiver;
receiving information from a third reporting source about
at least one environmental condition, wherein said third reporting
source is different from said first reporting source and said
second reporting source, and wherein said information from said
third reporting source is received electronically by said data
receiver; and
populating a database with said information from said first
reporting source, said information from said second reporting
source and said information from said third reporting source,
wherein frequency of population of said database with said
information from said third reporting source increases with
increased operational use of said asset and decreases with
decreased operational use of said asset, such that said
information from said first reporting source, said information
from said second reporting source and information from said
third reporting source can be collected from said database.
2
Appeal2014-002575
Application 11/801,014
REJECTION
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Woon (US 2007/0050137 Al, pub. Mar. 1, 2007) and Gueziec
(US 2006/0145892 Al, pub. July 6, 2006).
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues claims 1-18 as a group (App. Br. 5-11). We select
claim 1 as representative. The remaining claims stand or fall with claim 1.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner cites
Woon as disclosing substantially all of the limitations of claim 1, but the
Examiner acknowledges that "[Woon's] teachings are not specific to
populating a database as recited" (Final Act. 7), i.e., "populating a database
with said information from ... said third reporting source, wherein
frequency of population of said database with said information from said
third reporting source increases with increased operational use of said asset
and decreases with decreased operational use of said asset," as recited in
claim 1. And the Examiner cites Gueziec to cure the deficiency of Woon
(id. at 7-8).
Gueziec is directed to a traveler information monitoring and
dissemination system, and discloses that the system provides real time
information (e.g., regarding traffic speed, incidents, and congestion) relevant
to a person travelling along a specific route (Gueziec, Abstract, i-fi-120, 37).
As best shown in Figure 1 of Gueziec, the system includes multiple data
sources 100 that provide information, including traffic information, in real
time or near real time (id. i-fi-1 42, 44). This information is collected on a
3
Appeal2014-002575
Application 11/801,014
continuous basis by feeding programs 114 that standardize the data and
provide the data to Traveler Data Processor ("TDP") 150 (id. i-fi-122, 42).
TDP 150 engages in various routines to organize and manage the data,
which subsequently are issued timely to system subscribers via Traveler
Data Traffic Publisher 170 and Traveler Data Dispatcher 180 (id. i1 42).
Each subscriber, thus, receives quality traffic data that are as complete and
timely as currently available (see id., claims 16, 20, 22).
Pointing to Active Traveler Information Database 130 in Figure 1,
which Gueziec describes as containing current information regarding traffic
incidents and other data that may impact travel (id. i172), the Examiner finds
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would "appreciate conceptually, that
the ... 'Active Traveler' database ... represents the information affecting
the vehicle traveling or 'operating"' such that as the traveler progresses
along his/her "travel (i.e.[,] location change/movement over time), the
frequency of data being stored, updated, and/or executed is increased" (Final
Act. 4). The Examiner, thus, concludes that Gueziec discloses "the
frequency of the database being populated as a linear function [of] new
information detection which is in tum a function of the speed of travel[ ] or
operation [of the traveler's vehicle]" (id. (citing Gueziec i-fi-121-24;
claims 16, 20, 22)).
Appellant asserts that in Gueziec, the frequency at which a processor
is executed to populate a particular type of data is based on ( 1) changes in
the data itself or (2) the level of interest in the data (App. Br. 7; see also
Reply Br. 4), and that Gueziec discloses when "'weather information is of
principal interest, it may be necessary to execute the Travel Data Processor
150 only once per hour"' (App. Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 4). Appellant,
4
Appeal2014-002575
Application 11/801,014
thus, maintains that when an asset, e.g., a traveler or a car, has increased
operational use, e.g., increased traveling, or decreased operational use,
e.g., decreased traveling, "the processor only executes once per hour
regardless of increased or decreased use of an asset" (Reply Br. 4).
Appellant's argument is not persuasive at least because it is not
responsive to the Examiner's rejection. Moreover, claim 1 recites that the
information received from the third reporting source is "about at least one
environmental condition." But there is nothing in claim 1 that limits this
information to weather information, as opposed to information regarding
other environmental conditions, e.g., traffic, as evidenced by dependent
claims 14 and 17.3
Further referencing the portions of Gueziec, on which the Examiner
relies, Appellant generally asserts that the cited portions do not support the
Examiner's assertion (i.e., that Gueziec discloses "the frequency of the
database being populated as a linear function [of] new information detection
which is in tum a function of the speed of travel[ ] or operation [of the
traveler's vehicle]"), and do not disclose or suggest "populating a database
with said information from ... said third reporting source, wherein
frequency of population of said database with said information from said
third reporting source increases with increased operational use of said asset
and decreases with decreased operational use of said asset," as recited in
claim 1. But Appellant does not provide any substantive argument or
3 Claim 14 recites that receiving information from the third reporting source
further comprises "receiving weather information." Claim 17 recites that the
third reporting source is selected from one of the group of environmental
information sources consisting of "a weather reporting station, a traffic
reporting station, and an imagery provider."
5
Appeal2014-002575
Application 11/801,014
technical reasoning to explain why the Examiner's findings are unreasonable
or unsupported.
Absent further explanation, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Therefore, we sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-18, which fall with
claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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
6