Michael R. Smith et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 1, 2019

11854279 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2019)

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.
11/854,279 09/12/2007 Michael R. Smith 137667.00204 4579
27557 7590 08/01/2019
BLANK ROME LLP
1825 Eye Street NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20006-5403
EXAMINER
NGHIEM, MICHAEL P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2862
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2019 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):
WashingtonDocketing@blankrome.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MICHAEL R. SMITH and PERRY JAY O’NEIL
____________________

Appeal 2018-007280
Application 11/854,279
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before MARK NAGUMO, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 28, and 34–39. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification (“Spec.”) of Application
11/854,279 (the “’279 Application”); the Final Office Action dated
September 6, 2017 (“Final Act.”); the Advisory Action dated December 26,
2017 (“Adv. Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed February 6, 2018 (“App. Br.”);
the Examiner’s Answer dated May 10, 2018 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief
filed July 10, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
2 Appellants identify User-Centric IP, LP as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-007280
Application 11/854,279

2
Claim 28, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal
Brief with key limitations italicized, illustrates the claimed subject matter:
28. A method, comprising:
providing a computer program for a mobile data
processing device, the computer program including a user
interface;
providing functionality, via the user interface, for a user
to report a hazardous event;
providing functionality, via the user interface, for the
user to specify a location within a venue by inputting or
selecting a location designation defined by the venue;
receiving, by a server, information from the mobile data
processing device corresponding to a hazardous event within
the venue, the information including a type of hazardous event
and the location designation input or selected by the user; and
outputting, by the server, information including the type
of hazardous event and the location designation input or
selected by the user.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the follow prior art in rejecting the claims on
appeal:
Sinclair US 2003/0100259 A1 May 29, 2003
Smith US 2004/0181340 A1 Sept. 16, 2004
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 28 and 34–39 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Smith in view of Sinclair. Final
Act. 4–6.
Appeal 2018-007280
Application 11/854,279

3
OPINION
The Examiner finds that Smith discloses the elements of claim 28, the
sole independent claim, but for the hazardous event is within a venue. Final
Act. 4–5. The Examiner finds that Smith discloses that a spotter may enter
data into a mobile computing device that includes a type of observed
condition and an approximate location of the observed condition. Ans. 2.
The Examiner finds that Smith discloses that the approximate location [of a
hazardous event] may be based on the location of the mobile device that
includes a GPS system. Id. at 3. The Examiner finds that “Sinclair discloses
a mobile device for reporting a hazardous event (location of) within a
venue.” Id. The Examiner find that personal receiver 283 in Sinclair
decodes broadcast data 27 and allows an individual user to hear selected
broadcast information, and “the selected broadcast information can be from
a user selected location within the stands.” Id. at 6. The Examiner finds,
therefore, that “Sinclair discloses the specific or selected location is a
location within the venue (stands).” Id. The Examiner concludes that “it
would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to provide Smith with reporting a hazardous
event within [a venue] as disclosed by Sinclair for the purpose of []mak[ing]
sure fans can take safety precautions.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner
determines that the combination of Smith and Sinclair discloses “providing
functionality, via the user interface, for the user to specify a location within
the venue by inputting or selecting a location designation defined by the
venue.” Ans. 6.

3 Labels to elements are presented in bold font, regardless of their
presentation in the original document.
Appeal 2018-007280
Application 11/854,279

4
Smith relates to weather forecasting and warning systems. Smith ¶ 1.
Smith teaches a system that alerts vehicle operators to weather hazards the
vehicle is predicted to encounter. Smith ¶ 16. Smith describes determining
the approximate location of an event by a global positioning system (GPS).
Smith ¶ 87.
Sinclair discloses a system for receiving and transmitting a wide range
of audio information at sporting events. Sinclair ¶ 3. In Sinclair’s system, a
system receiver/transmitter 22, configured to receive information from a
plurality of remote recording devices 26, encodes the information and then
broadcasts selected audio data to a plurality of personal receivers 28.
Sinclair ¶ 20, Fig. 9. Personal receiver 28 decodes the broadcast data 27 and
allows an individual user to hear selected broadcast information. Sinclair ¶
20.
Appellant argues that the combined references fail to teach or suggest
“providing functionality, via [a] user interface, for [a] user to specify a
location within a venue by inputting or selecting a location designation
defined by the venue.” App. Br. 6. We agree.
The Specification describes adapting the system “for use in a
particular location, such as a large stadium, arena, race track, or other venue
in which prompt reporting of hazardous and life-threatening event can
potentially save lives.” Spec. ¶ 97 (emphasis added). The Specification
contemplates that functionality is provided so a user may input a section,
row, and/or seat number where a hazardous event is occurring. Spec. ¶ 97.
Claim 28 requires that the venue (which may be interpreted as the
venue management or operator) must define a designation location. App.
Br. 9 (Claims App.). Unless we view “venue” so broadly as to mean the
Appeal 2018-007280
Application 11/854,279

5
entire Earth, a GPS location is not “defined by the venue”— A GPS
location does not meet claim 28’s requirement that a location designation is
“defined by the venue.”Although Sinclair discloses transmission of
information in a venue, the Examiner misreads Sinclair in finding that
“Sinclair discloses a mobile device (28) for reporting a hazardous event
(location of) within a venue.” See Ans. 3 (emphasis added). In fact, Sinclair
discloses that mobile device 28 receives information from various locations,
such as “dugouts, bullpens, pre and post game radio radio/TV audio
interviews, batting cages, under each base bag and on all managers, coaches,
umpires and selected individuals.” Sinclair ¶ 25; see also Reply Br. 3.
Contrary to the Examiner’s determination, Sinclair’s mobile devices 28 are
not used to report any information. Therefore, the Examiner’s
determination that it would have been obvious to combine Smith and
Sinclair appears to be based on making sure fans in a venue can receive
notice of hazardous events, not on a user reporting a hazardous event.
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the claims as obvious
over Smith in view of Sinclair.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 28 and 34–39 is reversed.
REVERSED