Kurt Partridge

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 22, 2021

2019005930 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2021)

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.
12/622,857 11/20/2009 Kurt E. Partridge PARC-20090456-US-NP 5161
35699 7590 03/22/2021
PVF -- PARC
c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP
2820 FIFTH STREET
DAVIS, CA 95618-7759
EXAMINER
RIFKIN, BEN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2198
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2021 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):
jenny@parklegal.com
sy_incoming@parklegal.com
tia@parklegal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KURT E. PARTRIDGE
____________

Appeal 2019-005930
Application 12/622,857
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ALLAN R. MACDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–21, which constitute all of the claims pending in
this application.1 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. Appellant identifies Palo Alto Research Center
Incorporated as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-005930
Application 12/622,857

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant states that the disclosed invention is “related to a method
and apparatus for inferring an activity associated with a user’s location trace
and contextual data.” Spec. ¶ 1.2
Illustrative Claim
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below:
1. A computer-implemented method for activity
inference from contextual information, the method comprising:

receiving, by a computer associated with a user’s
activity, a set of contextual information of the user;

generating a set of inference points, each of which is
represented by a set of variables that indicates an association
between the contextual information, a location, and an activity
of the user, from the set of contextual information, wherein a
respective inference point includes data values for the set of
variables;

computing a logical distance between the data values of a
first set of variables in a first inference point and a second set of
variables in a second inference point in the set of inference
points;

grouping the first and second inference points into an
activity cluster in response to the logical distance being lower

2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed Sept. 21, 2018
(“Final Act.”); Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed Mar. 14, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”)
and Reply Brief filed July 31, 2019 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer
mailed May 31, 2019 (“Ans.”); and the original Specification filed Nov. 20,
2009 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2019-005930
Application 12/622,857

3
than a predetermined threshold, wherein the activity cluster is
associated with a corresponding activity type;

generating an activity inference model based on the
activity cluster, wherein the activity inference model includes a
data structure comprising a context-to-activity mapping that
allocates respective weights to different contexts with respect to
the activity type;

applying a context trace for the user to the inference
model as an input parameter, wherein the context trace indicates
a number of points spatially represented on a map based on
corresponding location information of the computer;

determining, based on the context-to-activity mapping,
that the context trace corresponds to the activity type;

updating the activity inference model that corresponds to
the activity cluster based on the context trace; and

presenting a recommendation that includes one or more
activities associated with the activity type.

Appeal Br. 38–39 (Claims App.).
Rejections on Appeal3
Claims 1–4, 8–11, and 15–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Bellotti et al. (Activity-Based Serendipitous
Recommendations with the Magitti Mobile Leisure Guide CHI 2008
Proceedings Florence, Italy 1157–66 (2008)) (“Bellotti”) in view of Schiller
et al (“Location-Based Services,” THE MORGAN KAUFFMAN SERIES IN DATA

3 Although in the Final Rejection the Examiner rejected claims 1–21 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without
significantly more, in the Answer the Examiner withdrew the § 101
rejection. See Final Act. 2–3; Ans. 3.
Appeal 2019-005930
Application 12/622,857

4
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (2004)) (“Schiller”), Brinker et al. (US
2008/0205775 A1; published Aug. 28, 2008) (“Brinker”), and Fleseriu
(“C++ Tutorial: A Beginner's Guide to std::vector, Part 1”
https://www.codeguru.com/cpp/cpp/cpp _ mfc/stl/article.php/c4027 IC-
Tutorial-A-Beginners... (2003)) (“Fleseriu”). Final Act. 3–9.
Claims 5–7, 12–14, and 19–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bellotti, Schiller, Brinker, Fleseriu, and
DeWolf et al. (US 2002/0111172 A1; published Aug. 15, 2002) (“DeWolf”).
Final Act. 9–11.
ANALYSIS
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the dispositive issue
before us is whether the combined disclosures of Bellotti, Schiller, Brinker,
and Fleseriu teach or suggest applying a context trace for the user to the
inference model as an input parameter, “wherein the context trace indicates a
number of points spatially represented on a map based on corresponding
location information of the computer” (“the disputed limitation”), as recited
in claims 1, 8, and 15.4
Examiner’s Findings, and Appellant’s Arguments
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner finds that Bellotti’s “activity
prediction module” discloses the disputed limitation because it “denotes the
system taking on multiple location visits in its considerations.” Final Act. 5
(citing Bellotti, 1160, column 2). In the Appeal Brief, Appellant argues that
Bellotti does not disclose the claimed “context trace” because “mere[ ]

4 Appellant makes other arguments in the Briefs with respect to claims 1, 8,
and 15, but we do not address them because our decision of this issue is
dispositive with respect to these claims.
Appeal 2019-005930
Application 12/622,857

5
‘location information of the computer’ is not the context trace.” Appeal Br.
22–23. According to Appellant, “[i]nstead the context trace is the specific
points on a map corresponding to the location information.” Id. at 23.
Appellant also argues that the map in Figure 2 of Bellotti “merely shows
recommendation location[s], not the user’s location.” Id.
In the Answer, the Examiner finds that “location” is part of the
context awareness of the Magitti system and that “context awareness is used
throughout the system to make determinations about recommendations.”
Ans. 6 (citing Bellotti, 1159, column 2; 1160, column 2). The Examiner
also finds Bellotti “makes clear that it looks at the USER’S location as well
as the location of potential recommendations.” Id. (citing Bellotti, 1161,
Fig. 3, Activity Prediction Module section). The Examiner further finds that
Bellotti’s system “clearly relates context to location in order to make
recommendations to the user.” Id.
In response, Appellant asserts that whether Bellotti looks at the user’s
location is irrelevant because the issue is whether Bellotti discloses “a
number of points spatially represented on a map based on corresponding
location information of the computer.” Reply Br. 12. Appellant also states
that the only reference to a map in Bellotti is Figure 2, “which shows
recommendation location[s], not the user’s location.” Id. (citing Appeal Br.
22–23). Thus, Appellant argues that Bellotti does not disclose “a number of
points spatially represented on a map based on corresponding location
information of the computer.” Id.
Applicable Law
“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
Appeal 2019-005930
Application 12/622,857

6
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” KSR Int’l., Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The Examiner’s
burden of proving non-patentability is by a preponderance of the evidence.
See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“[P]reponderance of
the evidence is the standard that must be met by the PTO in making
rejections.”). “A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a
factual basis.” In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). “The
Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its
rejection. It may not . . . resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or
hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.” Id.
Claims 1–4, 8–11, and 15–185
We determine the Examiner’s findings concerning the disputed
limitation of claim 1 fail to meet this standard because they are conclusory
and do not provide a reasoned or adequate explanation of how Bellotti,
either alone or in combination with Schiller, Brinker, and Fleseriu, teaches
or suggests “wherein the context trace indicates a number of points spatially
represented on a map based on corresponding location information of the
computer.” Although we agree with the Examiner that Bellotti “relates
context to location in order to make recommendations to the user,” the
Examiner has not provided evidence or persuasive reasoning that Bellotti
teaches or suggests applying a context trace for the user that “indicates a
number of points spatially represented on a map based on corresponding

5 Appellant argues claims 1, 8, and 15 as a group focusing on claim 1.
Appeal Br. 18–27. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as illustrative, and the
remaining claims stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-005930
Application 12/622,857

7
location information of the computer.” In that regard, we agree with
Appellant that the only map disclosed in Bellotti is Figure 2, which shows
recommendation locations, but does not indicate points “based on
corresponding location information of the computer.” See Reply Br. 12.
Moreover, we have reviewed the portions of Bellotti cited by the Examiner
in regard to the disputed limitation of claim 1—page 1159 (column 2), page
1160 (column 2, User Interface section), page 1161 (column 2, Figure 3,
Activity Prediction Module section), page 1162 (column 2)—but we do not
discern, nor has the Examiner persuasively explained, how these portions of
Bellotti teach or suggest “wherein the context trace indicates a number of
points spatially represented on a map based on corresponding location
information of the computer.” See Final Act. 5; Ans. 6.
Accordingly, on this record, we are constrained to find the Examiner
erred because the Examiner has not shown that the combination of Bellotti,
Schiller, Brinker, and Fleseriu teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of
claim 1 by a preponderance of the evidence. See Caveney, 761 F.2d at 674.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15, and
dependent claims 2–4, 9–11, and 16–18, for obviousness under § 103(a).
Claims 5–7, 12–14, and 19–21
Claims 5–7 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. Appeal Br.
39–40 (Claims App.). Claims 12–14 depend directly or indirectly from
claim 8. Id. at 41–42. And, claims 19–21 depend directly or indirectly from
claim 15. Id. at 44–45. In the Final Office Action, the Examiner finds that
DeWolf teaches or suggests the limitations of dependent claims 5–7, 12–14,
and 19–21. Final Act. 9–11. The Examiner does not rely on DeWolf to
teach or suggest the deficiencies in the combination of Bellotti, Schiller,
Appeal 2019-005930
Application 12/622,857

8
Brinker, and Fleseriu as discussed above regarding the disputed limitation of
claim 1. Id.; see also Ans. 19–20. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 5–7, 12–14, and 19–21 for obviousness under
§ 103(a).
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. §  Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 8–11, 15–18 103(a)  Bellotti, Schiller,
Brinker, Fleseriu
1–4, 8–11,
15–18
5–7, 12–14, 19–21 103(a)   Bellotti, Schiller,
Brinker, Fleseriu,
DeWolf
5–7, 12–14,
19–21
Overall Outcome 1–21

REVERSED