Jennifer Granito et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 24, 2020

13615198 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 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.
13/615,198 09/13/2012 Jennifer Granito 19487.110.1.2 1283
107193 7590 01/24/2020
Keller Jolley Preece/Facebook
1010 North 500 East
Suite 210
North Salt Lake, UT 84054
EXAMINER
FAN, HUA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2449
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/24/2020 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):
docketing@kjpip.com
gjolley@kjpip.com
ljohnson@kjpip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JENNIFER GRANITO, STEVE GREENBERG,
ANDY WICK, TOM JARMOLOWSKI, ALAN KEISTER, and
JEREMY REPHLO
Appeal 2018-004838
Application 13/615,198
Technology Center 2400
Before BARBARA A. BENOIT, JOHN R. KENNY, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 43–48, 55–61, 63–70, and 72–75. Non-
Final Act. 1, 4–13; Appeal Br. 8, 15. The Examiner objected to claims 50–
54 as being dependent on a rejected base claim. Id. at 4. Claims 1–42, 49,
62, and 71 have been canceled. Claims Appendix. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Facebook, Inc.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-004838
Application 13/615,198
2
SPECIFICATION
Appellant’s Specification relates to “the identification of users of an
instant-messaging system that share common characteristics.” Spec. 1. In
one embodiment, an instant messaging (IM) server detects that a first user in
a participant list of users is near a geographic location, such as a building or
an intersection. Spec. 24. The IM server also detects that a second user in
the participant list is near that same geographical location. Id. Without first
receiving a request from either user, the IM server provides an indication
that the first and second users are near the geographical location. Id. at 25.
CLAIMS
Claims 43, 57, and 64 are the pending independent claims. Claim 43
is illustrative and, with disputed limitations highlighted, reads as follows:
43. A method comprising:
identifying one or more co-users associated with a user of
a communications system;
determining, by at least one processor, locations of mobile
devices of the one or more co-users relative to one or more
locations other than a current location of a mobile device of the
user;
updating, in real time, positions of representations of the
one or more co-users in a graphical user interface based on the
determined locations of the mobile devices of the one or more co-
users relative to the one or more locations other than the current
location of the mobile device of the user, wherein updating the
positions of the representations of the one or more co-users in the
graphical user interface comprises providing visual indicators of
the positions of the one or more co-users relative to the one or
more locations other than the current location of the mobile
device of the user; and
presenting the graphical user interface for viewing by the
user of the communications system.
Appeal 2018-004838
Application 13/615,198
3
REFERENCES
The references relied upon by the Examiner are:
Name2 Reference Date
Mayer US 2002/0178163 A1 Nov. 28, 2002
Amir US 7,289,814 B2 Oct. 30, 2007
REJECTION
Claims 43–48, 55–61, 63–70, and 72–75 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Mayer and Amir.3
Non-Final Act. 1, 4–13.
ANALYSIS
Claim 43
Determining Limitation
Appellant argues that the combination of Mayer and Amir does not
teach or suggest “determining . . . the locations of mobile devices of co-users
relative to one or more locations other than a current location of a mobile
device of the user,” as recited in claim 43. Appeal Br. 8.
The Examiner finds that the combination of Mayer and Amir teaches
or suggests this disputed determining limitation. Non-Final Act. 6; Ans. 3–
6. The Examiner finds that Mayer teaches determining the locations of a
user’s and co-user’s mobile devices. Non-Final Act. 6; Ans. 3–6. Further,
the Examiner finds that Amir teaches a buffering region between user
devices that allow the user devices to not track each other’s locations until

2 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
3 The final sentence on page 6 of the Non-Final Action indicates that claims
49, 50, 62, and 71 were also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Paragraph 4 of
the Non-Final Action, however, indicates that claim 50 would be allowable
if rewritten in independent form. Non-Final Action 6. And the Claims
Appendix indicates that claims 49, 62, and 71 have been canceled.
Appeal 2018-004838
Application 13/615,198
4
one of them enters the buffering region. Ans. 5. The Examiner explains that
once one of the user’s devices enters the buffering region, the two devices
exchange location information to determine whether the two users are within
vicinity of R distance of each other. Id. The Examiner concludes that an
ordinarily skilled artisan would combine Amir’s buffering region with
Mayer’s system and that the resulting system would teach or suggest the
disputed limitations of claim 43. Id. at 5–6.
Appellant disagrees, arguing that combining Amir’s buffering region
with Mayer’s system would not satisfy the disputed determining limitation.
Appeal Br. 11–12; Reply Br. 2–6. Appellant asserts that the boundaries of
Amir’s buffering region are based on the user’s and co-user’s respective
locations to one another and, therefore, Mayer’s system as modified by Amir
would not determine locations of mobile devices relative to one or more
locations other than a current location of a mobile device of a user. Appeal
Br. 11–12; Reply Br. 2–6.
We agree with the Examiner that the combination of Mayer and Amir
teaches or suggests the disputed determining limitation. Ans. 3–6, 12–14.
Amir is directed to a system that alerts friends when one friend moves into
the vicinity of another (e.g., within a distance of R). Amir, 1:22–24, 5:46–
49. Amir creates a boundary region to minimize the number of location
update messages that need to be exchanged between the friends to provide
such an alert. Id. at 2:66–3:2, 3:36–45. Strip 330, shown in Figure 3A, is a
boundary region for the devices for user a (305) and friend b1 (310). Id. at
5:56–58; Fig. 3A. Because strip 330 has a width of R, “a” and b1 will be at
least R distance apart (not in the requisite vicinity of one another) as long as
they remain on opposite sides of strip 330. Id. at 6:10–14. This allows “a”
Appeal 2018-004838
Application 13/615,198
5
to move continuously without updating its location to b1 until either “a” or b1
enters strip 330 (and vice versa). Id. at 6:10–12, 20–26. Once “a” or b1
penetrates strip 330, their devices exchange location information. Id. at
6:27–29. If the two devices are determined to be closer than R + €, then the
devices alert the friends. Id. at 6:32–34. Amir’s comparison of b1’s device
location to strip 330 is the recited comparison of a co-user’s (b1’s) device
location to a location other than the location of the user’s (a’s) device. Thus,
we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Mayer and Amir
teaches or suggests the disputed determining limitation. Non-Final Act. 6;
Ans. 3–6.
Updating Limitation
Appellant argues that even if the combining Amir’s buffering region
with Mayer’s system would satisfy the determining location of claim 43, that
combination would not satisfy the limitation of:
updating, in real time, positions of representations of the one or
more co-users in a graphical user interface based on the
determined locations of the mobile devices of the one or more
co-users relative to the one or more locations other than the
current location of the mobile device of the user,
also recited in claim 43. Appeal Br. 12–13; Reply Br. 4–6. Appellant
asserts that, until a user or co-user enter the buffer region in Amir, the user’s
and co-user’s devices do not exchange location information. Appeal Br. 12–
13; Reply Br. 4–6. Further, Appellant asserts that once the user or co-user
enter the buffer region, the user’s and co-user’s devices exchange
information based on their locations, not that of the buffering region.
Appeal Br. 12–13; Reply Br. 4–6. Appellant asserts that, therefore, Amir
does not update in real time positions of the co-user in a graphical user
interface based on the location of the buffering region and that the only
Appeal 2018-004838
Application 13/615,198
6
updating that is performed is based on the co-user’s location with respect to
the user. Appeal Br. 12–13; Reply Br. 4–6.
The Examiner responds that the proposed combination does not
involve mechanically combining Amir with Mayer, but rather combining (i)
Amir’s teaching of using a buffering region as a reference for the user and
co-user’s device locations with (ii) Mayer’s teachings of displaying the
device locations in real-time, so that the combined system would update the
location of the user’s and co-user’s devices with respect to a buffering
region. Ans. 13. Appellant has not identified any errors with respect to that
combination. Reply Br. 4–6. Instead, Appellant has merely argued why if
Amir’s lack of exchange of device information were incorporated into the
combination, the combination might not satisfy the disputed limitations. Id.
As mentioned, however, that argument is not responsive to the combination
set forth by the Examiner and is thus not persuasive. Ans. 13.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Mayer and Amir teaches or suggests the disputed updating limitation.
Alleged Inoperability and Teaching Away
Appellant argues that the combination of Mayer and Amir would
render Amir inoperable for its intended purpose because Mayer updates user
locations in real-time, which is purportedly contrary to Amir’s desire to
minimize the number of location update messages exchanged. Appeal
Br. 13; Reply 6–7. Appellant argues that, for the same reasons, Amir
teaches away from the claimed invention. Reply Br. 7. We are not
persuaded by either argument. Even if Mayer discloses updating user
locations in real-time, Appellant cites nothing from Mayer that would
prevent its system from incorporating Amir’s buffer regions to minimize the
Appeal 2018-004838
Application 13/615,198
7
exchange of update messages. Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 6–7. Nor does
Appellant cite anything that would prevent Mayer’s system from merely
using Amir’s boundary region as a reference for comparison. Appeal Br. 13;
Reply Br. 6–7. Similarly, Appellant cites nothing in Amir that teaches away
from the combination (i.e., criticizes, discredits, or discourages the addition
of Amir’s boundary region to Mayer’s system). In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195,
1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Mayer would
be rendered inoperable by the proposed combination with Amir or that Amir
teaches away from that combination.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 43.
Claims 57 and 64
Appellant presents the same arguments for claims 57 and 64 as for
claim 43. Appeal Br. 8–14. As Appellant notes, claims 57 and 64 recite
similar limitations to the disputed limitations of claim 43.4 Id. at 8–9. Thus,
we sustain the rejection of claims 57 and 64 for the same reasons as for
claim 43.

4 Claim 57 recites “determining locations of mobile devices of the one
or more co-users relative to one or more locations other than a current
location of a mobile device of the user” and “updating, in real time, positions
of representations of the co-users in a graphical user interface based on the
locations of the mobile devices of the one or more co-users relative to the
one or more locations other than the current location of the mobile device of
the user.” Claims Appendix. Claim 64 recites “wherein locations associated
with the co-users of the first subgroup are determined and updated in real
time based on a location of mobile devices of the co-users of the first
subgroup relative to a location other than a current location of a mobile
device of the user.” Claims Appendix.
Appeal 2018-004838
Application 13/615,198
8
Claims 44 and 58
Appellant argues that Mayer and Amir do not teach or suggest
“updating positions of representations of the one or more co-users in the
graphical user interface based on the determined locations of the mobile
devices of the one or more co-users comprises positioning co-users at
common locations into groups,” as recited in claims 44 and 58. Appeal Br.
14. In particular, Appellant asserts that neither Mayer nor Amir teaches
positioning co-users at common locations into groups in a graphical user
interface. Id. The Examiner finds that Mayer teaches or suggests this
limitation by disclosing that, when potential dates (co-users) are very close
to the user, those potential dates can be moved to a special category on top
of the list of search results. Ans. 15; Mayer ¶ 72. Appellant identifies no
error in this finding, and we see none. Reply Br. 7. Thus, we sustain the
rejection of claims 44 and 58.
Claims 45 and 59
Appellant argues that Mayer and Amir do not teach or suggest
“updating positions of representations of the one or more co-users in the
graphical user interface based on the determined locations of the mobile
devices of the one or more co-users further comprises indicating which co-
users are near each other,” as recited in claims 45 and 59. Appeal Br. 15.
Appellant asserts that neither Mayer nor Amir teach indicating which co-
users are near each other. Id. The Examiner finds that Mayer teaches or
suggests this limitation by disclosing that, when potential dates (co-users)
are very close to the user, those potential dates can be moved to a special
category on top of the list of search results for dates. Ans. 15; Mayer ¶ 72.
Appellant identifies no error in this finding, and we see none. Reply Br. 7.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 45 and 59.
Appeal 2018-004838
Application 13/615,198
9
Claim 47
Appellant argues that Mayer and Amir do not teach or suggest
“indicating which co-users are near each other comprises grouping co-user
near each other into a group and identifying the group as being near each
other,” as recited in claim 47. Appeal Br. 15. Appellant asserts that Mayer
and Amir do not group co-users based on proximity. Id. The Examiner
finds that Mayer teaches or suggests this limitation by disclosing that, when
potential dates (co-users) are very close to the user, those potential dates can
be moved to a special category on top of the list of search results for dates.
Ans. 15; Mayer ¶ 72. Appellant identifies no error in this finding, and we
see none. Reply Br. 7. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 47.
Claims 46, 48, 55, 56, 60, 61, 63, 65–70, and 72–75
Appellant does not argue claims 46, 48, 55, 56, 60, 61, 63, 65–70, and
72–75 separately. Thus, we sustain the rejection of these claims.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
43–48, 55–61,
63–70, 72–75
103(a) Mayer, Amir 43–48,
55–61,
63–70,
72–75

AFFIRMED