Nitesh Ratnakar

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 13, 2020

12122705 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2020)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/122,705 05/18/2008
105518 7590 01/15/2020
JDM Patent Law PLLC
5570 Sterrett Place, Suite 201
Columbia, MD 21044
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Nitesh Ratnakar
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.
RATN0013 9425
EXAMINER
REIBER, SHANTELL LAKETA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/15/2020 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):
jma@jdmpatentlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NITESH RATNAKAR
Appeal2019-000125
Application 12/122,705
Technology Center 2600
Before BARBARA A. BENOIT, PHILLIP A. BENNETT, and
SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant 1 appeals from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 42-54. Claims 1--41 are cancelled. 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. § l.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nitesh
Ratnakar. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2019-000125
Application 12/122,705
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a web to mobile device location-based
event reminder. Claim 42, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
42. A method of storing data about a published event in a
mobile device and reminding of the published event based on a
current geographical location of the mobile device, the mobile
device equipped with a location-determining function capable of
determining geographical location of the mobile device, the
method comprising:
receiving, by the mobile device, event data about an event
published on a publicly published user interactive page, and
storing the received event data in an event information database
of the mobile device, the received event data including location
information about a geographical location of the published event,
the received event data transmitted from an aggregate event
information database storing the received event data upon an
activation of an event data transferring operation through a user
interface element corresponding to the published event displayed
on the user interactive page;
receiving, by the mobile device, information about a
current geographical location of the mobile device from the
location-determining function;
determining, by the mobile device, whether, based on the
received information about the current geographical location of
the mobile device and the stored location information of the
published event, the current geographical location of the mobile
device matches with the geographical location of the published
event using one or more pre-set matching criteria; and
reminding, by the mobile device, of the published event if
the current geographical location of the mobile device is
determined to match with the geographical location of the
published event.
App. Br. 12 ( Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal2019-000125
Application 12/122,705
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Campbell
Cole
Jiang
O'Farrell
US 7,076,505 B2
US 7,084,758 Bl
US 8,467,955 B2
July 11, 2006
Aug. 1, 2006
June 18, 2013
US 2007 /0220063 Al Sept. 20, 2007
REJECTIONS
Claims 42, 43, 45, 46 and 48-54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Cole and Jiang. Final Act. 10-16.
Claim 44 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Cole, Jiang, and O'Farrell. Final Act. 16-17.
Claim 47 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Cole, Jiang, and Campbell. Final Act. 17.
ISSUES
First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Cole teaches or
suggests "reminding, by the mobile device, of the published event if the
current geographical location of the mobile device is determined to match
with the geographical location of the published event," as recited in
claim 42?
Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Jiang teaches "the
received event data transmitted from an aggregate event information
database storing the received event data upon an activation of an event data
transferring operation through a user interface element corresponding to the
3
Appeal2019-000125
Application 12/122,705
published event displayed on the user interactive page," as recited in
claim 42?
Third Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings
of Cole and Jiang in such a way as to achieve the invention recited in
claim 42?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments set forth in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief. We are not
persuaded by Appellant's arguments. We adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken (Final Act. 2-17) and (2) the findings, reasons, and explanations set
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's
Brief ( Ans. 2-11) and concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner.
We highlight the following for emphasis.
First Issue
The Examiner rejects independent claim 42 as obvious over Cole and
Jiang. Relevant to this issue, the Examiner finds Cole teaches "reminding,
by the mobile device, of the event if the current geographical location of the
mobile device is determined to match with the geographical location of the
event." Final Act. 11 (citing Cole Fig. 2; col. 6, 11. 11-23).
Appellant argues Cole teaches suppressing reminders when a mobile
device arrives at an event location, and therefore does not teach the recited
"reminding." App. Br. 5. Appellant further contends that Cole is deficient
because "if there is anything that triggers a reminder of an event, it is the
current time (as obtained by the mobile device), not the current geographical
4
Appeal2019-000125
Application 12/122,705
location information, that triggers the event." App. Br. 5; see also Reply
Br. 4 ("[T]he term 'Location-Based Reminder' is just a convenient phrase to
be used to indicate that the primary time-based reminder has a location
component used to determine when not to issue the time-based reminder.").
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. Appellant's first
argument-that Cole teaches suppressing reminders-is not persuasive
because Cole also teaches that when a location match occurs, "the reminder
alert may be revised or altered ... so that a less intrusive alert is generated."
Cole col. 6, 11. 16-18. Thus, while Appellant is correct that Cole teaches
suppressing reminders when a location match occurs, Cole also teaches
issuing modified reminder alerts when a location match occurs.
As noted above, Appellant's second argument posits that Cole's
reminders are not triggered by a location match, but instead are time-
based-triggered when a time arrives for issuing a reminder. According to
Appellant, because the location match taught by Cole does not trigger a
reminder, it does not teach or suggest "reminding, by the mobile device, of
the event if the current geographical location of the mobile device is
determined to match with the geographical location of the event."
Appellant's second argument turns on an issue of claim interpretation,
in which we "give[] a disputed claim term its broadest reasonable
interpretation." In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appellant's second argument presumes that the disputed limitation requires
that the recited "reminding" be triggered or caused by a determination that
"the current geographical location of the mobile device is determined to
match with the geographical location of the published event."
5
Appeal2019-000125
Application 12/122,705
We conclude, consistent with its broadest reasonable interpretation in
light of the Specification, that the "reminding" limitation does not include a
requirement that the "reminding" be caused or triggered by a location match.
Instead, the language of the "reminding" limitation, interpreted broadly but
reasonably, requires only that the reminding occur when (i.e., at the same
time or subsequent to) a location match determination has been made. We
note the language of the claim does not explicitly impose a triggering
requirement. For example, the claim does not recite that the reminding is
"based on" a location match or "in response to" a location match. Rather,
the limitation merely recites that a location match determination be made,
and that the "reminding" occur if a location match has occurred-i.e.,
subsequent to such a determination.
Appellant's Specification supports this interpretation. The
Specification states that "[i]n essence, [a] location specific event published
on [a] web page is displayed to [a] user on [a] mobile device when [the] user
is physically present in proximity to event location." Spec. 4. The
Specification further states that the "[u]ser is reminded of event information
when physically present in proximity to event location." Id. In each of
these examples, the Specification does not indicate that the display or
reminding of the event information occurs because of the user's physical
presence in the event location. Rather, the Specification merely indicates
that reminder occurs when the user is present in the event location. Nor does
the Specification indicate that such a reminder may only occur if the user is
present in the event location. We conclude, therefore, that the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the "reminding" limitation requires only that the
6
Appeal2019-000125
Application 12/122,705
reminding occur when (i.e., at the same time or subsequent to) a location
match determination has been made.
Applying this interpretation of the disputed "reminding" limitation,
we agree with the Examiner that Cole teaches or suggests the limitation. As
shown in Figure 2, Cole depicts determining the location of a mobile
computer device ("MCD") (at block 206) and then determining if the
location of the MCD matches the event location (at decision step 208). If so,
decision branch "Y" is followed and a revised, less intrusive reminder is
issued at block 212. Cole col. 6, 11. 16-18 ("Alternatively, the reminder alert
may be revised or altered at step 212 in accordance with a predetermined
protocol so that a less intrusive alert is generated."). 2 Thus, Cole teaches
that subsequent to a determining that the MCD is in the same location as the
scheduled event, a reminder is sent to the user, and we are not persuaded at
Examiner error. 3
Second Issue
Appellant also asserts error in the Examiner's findings with respect to
the first "receiving" limitation of claim 42, which recites:
2 Cole also describes issuing a reminder from the "N" branch of decision
step 208. Issuing this reminder does not remove Cole from the scope of
claim 42 because the claim does not specify any particular action to take if
the location match does not occur.
3 We additionally note that in the event of further prosecution, Appellant
may wish to consider the relevance of the Board's precedential decision in
Ex Parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2013-007848 (PTAB April 28, 2016)
("Schulhauser"). In Schulhauser, the Board held, when construing a method
claim according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, conditional steps in
process claims need not be carried out to be within the scope of the claim.
Schulhauser at 8.
7
Appeal2019-000125
Application 12/122,705
receiving, by the mobile device, event data about an event
published on a publicly published user interactive page, and
storing the received event data in an event information database
of the mobile device, the received event data including location
information about a geographical location of the published event,
the received event data transmitted from an aggregate event
information database storing the received event data upon an
activation of an event data transferring operation through a user
interface element corresponding to the published event displayed
on the user interactive page.
App. Br. 12 (Claims Appendix).
The Examiner finds this limitation taught by Jiang. Final Act. 11-12
(citing Jiang col. 3, 1. 56-col. 4, 1. 5, col. 6, 11. 53-57; col. 7, 11. 5-10, 27).
More specifically, the Examiner finds Jiang teaches this limitation because
Jiang "discloses creating a social event (in other words, an event published
on the web) and allowing access to the social event on a web browser to
members of the social network (i.e., the event is accessible via the world
wide web therefore, considered as published on a publicly published user
interactive page)." Ans. 9.
Appellant argues Jiang is deficient because the claim requires that the
"event data about an event" be "published on a publicly published user
interactive page." App. Br. 9. Appellant asserts that the word "publicly" is
properly understood to mean "being accessible to everyone at large in the
public at large," and that Jiang is implemented within a private social
network and is accessible only by a limited audience. App. Br. 9. We do
not agree.
Appellant's assertion that the word "publicly" means "being
accessible to everyone at large in the public at large," is incorrect. Appellant
does not cite any evidence in support of this interpretation. Moreover, the
8
Appeal2019-000125
Application 12/122,705
words "public" and "publicly" do not appear in the Specification, so the
Specification does not support the definition advanced by Appellant. 4
Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of "publicly" in light of
the Specification includes "so as to be seen by other people." Publicly, New
Oxford American Dictionary, 3d Ed. (2010). 5
Jiang's disclosure of sharing information about events over a social
network is encompassed by the above construction of "publicly." That is,
Jiang teaches that event information may be shared "so as to be seen by
other people" within the social network.
Appellant also asserts that the portions of Jiang cited by the Examiner
"may have disclosed certain user interactive elements or some kind of data-
transferring activities[,] [b Jut none of them as anything to do with" various
additional aspects of the "receiving" limitation. App. Br. 9. We are not
persuaded by this argument. Appellant does not address the specific
findings made by the Examiner with respect to the disputed "receiving"
limitation-Appellant merely asserts that those findings are insufficient.
Demonstrating Examiner error requires more. Appellant must provide some
explanation for how the cited portions of Jiang do not teach the argued
limitation. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) ("A statement which merely points
out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate
patentability of the claim."); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir.
2011) ("[T]he Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more
4 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider
whether there is written description support in the Specification for the
phrase "publicly published user interactive page."
5 See Exhibit 1001 attached hereto.
9
Appeal2019-000125
Application 12/122,705
substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim
elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not
found in the prior art.").
Third Issue
In concluding claim 42 would have been obvious, the Examiner finds
that a person or ordinary skill in the art would have combined "the teachings
of Cole with the teachings of Jiang to arrive at the claimed invention for
allowing users to disseminate information about an event." Final Act. 13
( citing Jiang col. 1, 11. 20-29).
Appellant argues the Examiner's combination is unsupported because
"the Examiner simply fails to point to any reason, implicit or explicit, as
provided by the prior art that Cole and Jiang can somehow be reasonably
combined, especially that Jiang has nothing to do with any kind of reminder
function as related to Cole." App. Br. 10.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument. Appellant asserts that
the Examiner "fails to point to any reason" for combining the reference.
This assertion is incorrect. As noted above, the Examiner finds a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have combined Cole with Jiang for the
purpose of "allowing users to disseminate information about an event."
Final Act. 13. The Examiner further explains in the Answer:
[I]t would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art to combine the teachings of Cole's location based reminders
based on a scheduled calendar event with the teachings of Jiang's
social event as the scheduled calendar event accessible through
web services to arrive at the claimed invention for allowing users
to disseminate information about an event.
10
Appeal2019-000125
Application 12/122,705
Ans. 11. Appellant does not address this explanation or explain with
particularity how or why this reasoning is deficient. As such, we are not
persuaded the Examiner has erred in combining the teachings of Cole and
Jiang.
Because we are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments, we sustain
the rejection of claim 42. Appellant does not advance with particularity any
arguments with respect to any other claims. As a result, the remaining
claims fall along with claim 42.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner's rejections are affirmed.
More specifically,
We affirm the rejection of claims 42--43, 45--46 and 48-54 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cole and Jiang.
We affirm the rejection of claim 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cole, Jiang, and O'Farrell.
We affirm the rejection of claim 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cole, Jiang, and Campbell.
DECISION SUMMARY
42, 43, 45, 103(a) Cole, Jiang 42, 43, 45,
46,48-54 46,48-54
44 103(a) Cole, Jiang, 44
O'Farrell
47 103(a) Cole, Jiang, 47
Cam bell
11
Appeal2019-000125
Application 12/122,705
I Overall
Outcome
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
12