Scenera Mobile Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 30, 2020

2019000976 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 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.
14/017,431 09/04/2013 Jeffrey S. Bardsley I330C3/US 9845
49278 7590 09/30/2020
SCENERA RESEARCH, LLC
155 Fleet Street
Portsmouth, NH 03801
EXAMINER
STITT, ERIK V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2145
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2020 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):
uspto.correspondence@sceneralabs.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFFREY S. BARDSLEY and RICHARD M. HORNER
Appeal 2019-000976
Application 14/017,431
Technology Center 2100
BEFORE JEFFREY S. SMITH, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and BARBARA A.
BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, 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 1, 3–15, and 17–24. 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 Scenera Mobile
Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-000976
Application 14/017,431
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “associating presence information with a
digital image.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for providing for using presence
information for an object in a digital image, comprising:
receiving user input selecting a portion of a digital image
including an object depicted in the digital image and defining
an identifier of the object;
storing the identifier as metadata of the digital image;
associating the identifier with the object;
indicating the association between the identifier stored as
metadata of the digital image and the object depicted in the
portion of the digital image;
determining whether the identifier is sufficient to obtain
presence information for the object, wherein the presence
information includes at least a communication availability
status; and
providing, in association with displaying the digital
image, a user interface control configured to perform an action
using the presence information if the identifier is sufficient to
obtain the presence information;
wherein at least one of the preceding actions is performed
on at least one electronic hardware component.
Appeal Br. 30 (Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2019-000976
Application 14/017,431
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Dan US 2002/0055926 A1 May 9, 2002
Cighir US 2006/0073853 A1 Apr. 6, 2006
Yang US 2006/0101005 A1 May 11, 2006

REJECTION
Claims 1, 3–15, and 17–24 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Yang, Dan, and Cighir. Final Act. 8–15.
OPINION
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 3–15, and 17–24 over Yang, Dan,
and Cighir
The Examiner finds Yang, Dan, and Cighir teach all limitations of
claim 1. Final Act. 8–10; see also Ans. 4–9.
In particular, the Examiner finds Yang teaches “receiving user input
selecting a portion of a digital image including an object depicted in the
digital image” as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 8 (citing Yang ¶ 15, Figs.
5–8). The Examiner finds Dan teaches “defining an identifier of the object”
as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 8–9 (citing Dan ¶¶ 83–84, Fig. 5). The
Examiner reasons “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention to combine Yang with Dan so that users
can upload their geographic objects.” Final Act. 9 (citing Dan ¶ 84).
In particular, the Examiner finds Yang teaches “determining whether
the identifier is sufficient to obtain presence information for the object,
wherein the presence information includes at least a communication
Appeal 2019-000976
Application 14/017,431
4
availability status” as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 9–10 (citing Yang ¶¶
19, 283, Figs. 34a, 41.).
Appellant presents the following principal arguments:
i. Yang does not teach “determining whether the identifier is
sufficient to obtain presence information for the object, wherein the presence
information includes at least a communication availability status” as recited
in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 22–26.
The first cited portion of Yang at paragraph [0283] merely
describes changing the size of a search area on a map. It does not
describe the recited “identifier,” much less whether such
identifier is “sufficient to obtain presence information for the
object.” The second cited portion of Yang at paragraph [0019]
merely describes indications of a business’s hours (whether it is
“open” or “closed”) and a phone number on a map. It does not
describe, however, “presence information” including “at least a
communication availability status” as claim 1 requires. Merely
indicating that a business is “open” or “closed” and a “phone
number” on a map does not indicate, disclose, or even suggest a
“communication availability status” of the business.
Appeal Br. 23–24.
ii.
Clearly, the portion of Yang at paragraph [0283] firstly relied
upon by the Examiner to purportedly show Yang discloses
“determining whether the identifier is sufficient to obtain
presence information for the object” has nothing whatsoever to
do with the portion of Yang at paragraph [0019] secondly relied
upon by the Examiner to purportedly [] show Yang discloses a
“communication status.”
Appeal Br. 24; see also Appeal Br. 25 (citing Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti,
Inc., 878 F.3d 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
Appeal 2019-000976
Application 14/017,431
5
iii. Dan
does not disclose or suggest at least the feature of “receiving user
input selecting a portion of a digital image including an object
depicted in the digital image and defining an identifier of the
object,” wherein it is determined “whether the identifier is
sufficient to obtain presence information for the object,” as
recited in representative claim 1.
Appeal Br. 26; see also Appeal Br. 27 (“The information described at
paragraph [0083] of Dan has nothing to do with a communication status, and
thus does not disclose defining the recited identifier.”).
We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner. We
concur with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding “determining whether the identifier is sufficient to obtain
presence information for the object, wherein the presence information
includes at least a communication availability status” as recited in claim 1,
Yang discloses
[t]he symbols may be associated with any entity characteristic,
such as hours of operation or availability of a product or service.
These characteristics may change over time, so that the symbols
can be coded and used to present dynamic information at a
glance. For example, when an entity is open for business, the
symbol can be a green dot, and when the business is closed, the
symbol can be changed to a red dot.
Yang ¶ 19.
We determine this disclosure is sufficient to teach “determining
whether the identifier is sufficient to obtain presence information for the
object, wherein the presence information includes at least a communication
availability status” as recited in claim 1. Yang’s symbol for an entity
corresponds to the recited “identifier” in claim 1. See Yang ¶ 19. Yang’s
Appeal 2019-000976
Application 14/017,431
6
greet dot and red dot correspond to the recited “presence information” in
claim 1. See Yang ¶ 19.
Appellant’s arguments (i) and (ii) are unavailing because Yang
paragraph 19 teaches the entirety of the argued limitation, and because open
(green dot) or closed (red dot) indicates a communication availability
status—open for communication or closed for communication. Thus,
Appellant’s arguments (i) and (ii) do not show any error.
Regarding Appellant’s argument (iii), we find this argument
unavailing because the Examiner does not rely on Dan, alone, for the argued
claim limitations; rather, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of
Yang and Dan, as explained above in our summary of the Examiner’s
findings and reasons. Appellant’s argument (iii) is directed to Dan, alone.
With respect to Dan, alone, the Examiner finds Dan teaches “defining an
identifier of the object” as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 8–9 (citing Dan
¶¶ 83–84, Fig. 5). Dan discloses “a screen 500 for inputting details about a
geographic object.” Dan ¶ 83. We determine this disclosure is sufficient to
teach “defining an identifier of the object” as recited in claim 1. Thus,
Appellant’s argument (iii) does not show any error.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–15 and 17–24, which are not
separately argued with particularity.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–15, and 17–24 is affirmed.
Appeal 2019-000976
Application 14/017,431
7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–15, 17–
24
103(a) Yang, Dan, Cighir 1, 3–15, 17–
24

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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED