International Business Machines Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 17, 2020

2019006973 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2020)

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.
14/592,792 01/08/2015 Matthew R. Claycomb RSW920140170US1 7195
49330 7590 12/17/2020
DUKE W. YEE
Yee & Associates, P.C.
P.O. BOX 6669
MCKINNEY, TX 75071
EXAMINER
MUSTAFA, IMRAN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2020 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):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MATTHEW R. CLAYCOMB, TRENTON J. JOHNSON,
JAMES L. LENTZ, DANA L. PRICE, CHARMANT K. TAN, and
RAMRATAN VENNAM

Appeal 2019-006973
Application 14/592,792
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, AMEE A. SHAH, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
International Business Machines Corporation. Appeal Br. 3 (“Appeal Br.”
refers to the Amended Appeal Brief, filed April 9, 2019).
Appeal 2019-006973
Application 14/592,792

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1, 8, and 14 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A method, comprising:
confidentially monitoring, by a processor as part of user-
controlled private travel security, a user’s travel using user-
configured travel monitoring constraints specified by the user
within a user confidential-travel profile that independently
control release of confidential user travel information
comprising (i) a first user-configured travel monitoring
constraint specified by the user to either authorize or prohibit
release of a user-selected confidential travel route and (ii) a
second user-configured travel monitoring constraint specified
by the user to either authorize or prohibit release of a user-
selected confidential travel time frame; and
sending, in response to a detected route deviation by the
user relative to the confidential user travel information, a
traveler alert comprising a user-authorized set of the
confidential user travel information for which release is not
prohibited by the user according to the user-configured travel
monitoring constraints within the user confidential-travel
profile to a trusted third party specified by the user within the
user confidential-travel profile to receive the user-authorized set
of the confidential user travel information within traveler alerts.
Appeal Br. 60, Claims App.

Rejections
Claims 1–3, 6–9, 12–16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Laird et al. (US 2005/0075116 A1, pub. Apr. 7,
2005) (“Laird”) and Snavely et al. (US 2010/0299060 A1, pub. Nov. 25,
2010) (“Snavely”). Ans. 3.
Appeal 2019-006973
Application 14/592,792

3

Claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Laird, Snavely, and Hewitt (US 2015/0160014 A1, pub.
June 11, 2015). Final Act. 7.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects independent claims 1, 8, and 14 based on the
combined teachings of Laird and Snavely. Final Act. 2–4; Ans. 3. The
Examiner relies on Laird only to teach “confidentially monitoring, by a
processor as part of user-controlled private travel security, a user’s travel
using user-configured travel monitoring constraints within a user
confidential-travel profile.” Final Act. 2–3 (citing Laird ¶¶ 152–154). The
Examiner finds that the remainder of the subject matter of claims 1, 8, and
14 is taught by Snavely. See id. at 3–4 (citing Snavely ¶¶ 18, 25).
Accordingly, the Examiner finds Snavely teaches the “sending” step of
claim 1, i.e.,
sending, in response to a detected [travel] route deviation
by the user relative to the confidential user travel information, a
traveler alert comprising a user-authorized set of the
confidential user travel information for which release is not
prohibited by the user according to the user-configured travel
monitoring constraints within the user confidential-travel
profile to a trusted third party specified by the user within the
user confidential-travel profile to receive the user-authorized set
of the confidential user travel information within traveler alerts.
Among other things, the “sending” step requires that the confidential user
travel information is sent (i.e., shared) in response to a detected travel route
deviation of a user-selected confidential travel route.
The Appellant argues that Laird and Snavely fail to disclose the
“sending” step of claim 1, and the similar recitations of independent claims 8
Appeal 2019-006973
Application 14/592,792

4

and 14. See Appeal Br. 32–38. The Appellant points out that Snavely’s
disclosure in paragraphs 18 and 25 teaches that users may share their
progress along a projected route, but when a route deviation is detected the
user’s location is not shared. Id. at 34. The Appellant argues that this
teaching is the opposite of what is required by the sending step, which shares
information when a travel route deviation is detected. See id. at 36. The
Appellant’s argument is persuasive.
In response, the Examiner does not and cannot explain how Snavely
teaches sharing information when a travel route deviation is detected.
Instead, the Examiner responds to the Appellant’s argument by referencing
Snavely’s paragraph 27, which is particular to sharing information based on
the violation of a proximity rule. Ans. 12–14 (citing Snavely ¶ 27). For
example, if a child leaves a specified area, such as a neighborhood, the
child’s information may be shared with their parent. See id. In this regard,
perhaps it is the Examiner’s position that a child leaving a specified area
corresponds to a child deviating from a particular travel route. However, the
Examiner fails to establish on the record how a child moving outside a
specified area equates to deviating from a user-selected confidential travel
route. Also, the Examiner finds that Snavely adds that if the child arrives at
a known location outside of the specified area, location sharing may cease.
Ans. 12 (citing Snavely ¶ 27). However, this appears to be another type of
proximity monitoring rather than detecting a deviation of a user-selected
confidential travel route. Therefore, we determine that the Examiner fails to
adequately establish on this record that Snavely teaches sharing information
based on the detection of a deviation of a travel route.
Appeal 2019-006973
Application 14/592,792

5

In the Answer, the Examiner also references that Laird teaches a
server that detects rule violations, such as detecting a travel route deviation.
Ans. 11–12 (citing Liard ¶ 7). To the extent that this teaching may cure the
deficient finding that Snavely teaches sharing information based on the
deviation of a travel route, the Examiner fails to adequately explain on the
record how the combined teachings of Laird and Snavely would have
resulted in the entirety of the “sending” step. In other words, the Examiner
changes the basis of the rejection without sufficiently articulating what
teachings of Laird and Snavely were relied upon and why it would have
been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the
specific teachings of the references to meet the claimed subject matter. See
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on
obviousness grounds . . . [require] some articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”)
(cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007)).
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1, 8, and 14, and dependent claims 2, 3, 6–9, 12–16, 19, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Laird and Snavely. Further, the
Examiner fails to rely on Hewitt in any manner that remedies the deficiency
in the Examiner’s rejection as discussed above. Therefore, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Laird, Snavely, and Hewitt.

Appeal 2019-006973
Application 14/592,792

6

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 6–9,
12–16, 19,
20
103 Laird, Snavely

1–3, 6–9,
12–16, 19,
20
4, 5, 10, 11,
17, 18
103 Laird, Snavely, Hewitt 4, 5, 10,
11, 17, 18
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED