Yuichi Kageyama et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 26, 2020

14006765 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 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.
14/006,765 11/14/2013 Yuichi Kageyama 10917US01 5593
154930 7590 06/26/2020
XSENSUS LLP
200 Daingerfield Road
Suite 201
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
AUNG, AYE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2452
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2020 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):
Faith.Baggett@xsensus.com
Sandy.Miles@Xsensus.com
anaquadocketing@Xsensus.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte YUICHI KAGEYAMA, MITSURU TAKEHARA,
NORIFUMI KIKKAWA, and YUAN WEI
____________

Appeal 2019-000568
Application 14/006,765
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 6–8, 10–16, and 22–24, i.e., all pending claims.
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 (2017). Appellant identifies the real party in interest
as Sony Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-000568
Application 14/006,765

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention concerns “managing a
community site.” Spec. ¶¶ 11–12, code (57).2 The Specification explains
that a Social Network Service (SNS) “provides a community site which only
users of the mobile apparatuses sharing the same space and time can access
by acquiring position information and time information through the function
of GPS (Global Positioning System), Wi-Fi, or the like.” Id. ¶ 3. The
Specification also explains that an SNS “provides not only a human
association on a network via the Internet but also a service in which the
human association is realized by ad-hoc mobile apparatuses executing
proximity wireless communication and which reflects real world human
association, which is referred to as ASNS (Ad-hoc SNS).” Id. ¶ 4.
According to the Specification, however, “when the community site
is left unmanaged, there is a concern that a third person may secretly look at
information of the community site.” Spec. ¶ 9. Thus, due to unease about
data security, “users may not use the community site.” Id. Hence, the
invention endeavors to provide users “with more peace of mind” by deleting
data under certain circumstances, thus precluding unauthorized access to
data. Id. ¶¶ 10–15, 45, 60, 73–82, 96–98, Fig. 6. Consequently,
communications can occur “securely since the information can be prevented

2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed March 22, 2012; “Final Act.” for the Final Office Action,
mailed May 9, 2017; “Advisory Act.” for the Advisory Action, mailed
August 10, 2017; “Appeal Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed April 26, 2018;
and “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed August 27, 2018.
Appeal 2019-000568
Application 14/006,765

3
from being leaked, for example, so that a third person cannot look at the
information.” Id. ¶ 100; see id. ¶ 99.
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the claims at issue and reads
as follows (with formatting added for clarity):
1. A server comprising:
a communication interface configured to acquire, from
each of a plurality of terminals, location information
corresponding to each of the plurality of terminals; and
processing circuitry configured to:
create a community site which only terminals
within a predetermined range of a geographic location
corresponding to the community site are permitted to
access;
manage the community site in accordance with
management data to permit access to the community site
only by terminals located within the predetermined range
of the geographic location based at least in part on the
location information corresponding to each of the
plurality of terminals; and
provide content identified by at least one of the
plurality of terminals permitted to access the community
site to be accessible via the community site,
wherein
the communication interface is configured to acquire
updated location information corresponding to the at least one
of the plurality of terminals, and
the processing circuitry is configured to automatically
delete the content identified by the at least one of the plurality
of terminals from the community site in a case that it is
determined that the at least one of the plurality of terminals is
outside of the predetermined range of the geographic location
Appeal 2019-000568
Application 14/006,765

4
corresponding to the community site based on the updated
location information.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the
Examiner relies on the following prior art:3
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 16, and 22–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Oh and Lambers. Final Act. 3–5.
Claims 2, 6, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Oh, Lambers, and Fujihara. Final Act. 5–6.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Oh, Lambers, and Alfaro. Final Act. 6–7.
Claims 10–15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Oh, Lambers, and Steiner. Final Act. 7–9.

3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29,
125 Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103 effective March 16, 2013.
Because the effective filing date for Application 14/006,765 predates the
AIA’s amendments to § 103, this decision refers to the pre-AIA version
of § 103.
Lambers US 2005/0096936 A1 May 5, 2005
Alfaro et al. (“Alfaro”) US 2006/0223599 A1 Oct. 5, 2006
Oh US 2010/0056183 A1 Mar. 4, 2010
Fujihara et al. (“Fujihara”) US 2012/0110099 A1 May 3, 2012
(filed Mar. 17, 2010)
Steiner US 2012/0213404 A1 Aug. 23, 2012
(filed Aug. 29, 2011)
Appeal 2019-000568
Application 14/006,765

5
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments
that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained below, we concur with
the Examiner’s conclusions concerning unpatentability under § 103(a). We
adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasoning in the Final Office Action,
Advisory Action, and Answer. See Final Act. 3–9; Advisory Act. 2;
Ans. 3–6. We add the following to address and emphasize specific findings
and arguments.
The § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1, 16, and 22–24
WHETHER LAMBERS QUALIFIES AS PRIOR ART
Appellant disputes that Lambers qualifies as prior art. See Appeal
Br. 10–12. In particular, Appellant argues that Lambers “is non-analogous
to the claimed subject matter.” Id. at 12; see id. at 13.
“A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination
only when it is analogous to the claimed invention.” Airbus S.A.S. v.
Firepass Corp., 941 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The scope of
analogous art includes two types of references: (1) references “from the
same field of endeavor” as the claimed invention and (2) references
“reasonably pertinent” to a problem facing the inventor. In re Bigio,
381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036
(CCPA 1979). A “reasonably pertinent” reference “logically would have
commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering” a problem facing
the inventor. See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
For a problem facing the inventor, Appellant asserts that Lambers
“would not have been considered by an inventor trying to solve the problem
of unmanaged community site when a manager does not manage the
Appeal 2019-000568
Application 14/006,765

6
community site or there is no manager” because Lambers “neither discloses
a community site nor discloses managing an ASNA [sic] server.” Appeal
Br. 11. Appellant also asserts that a skilled artisan “would not look to a
vending machine that deletes its own content based on its own location for
the feature of a server deleting content from a community site based on a
location of a mobile terminal (separate from the server) that posts on the
community site.” Id. at 12 (emphasis omitted).
We disagree that an inventor or skilled artisan would not look to
Lambers when considering a problem facing the inventor. The Specification
explains that “when the community site is left unmanaged, there is a concern
that a third person may secretly look at information of the community site.”
Spec. ¶ 9. Thus, due to unease about data security, “users may not use the
community site.” Id. Hence, the invention endeavors to provide users “with
more peace of mind” by deleting data under certain circumstances, thus
precluding unauthorized access to data. Id. ¶¶ 10–15, 45, 60, 73–82, 96–98,
Fig. 6.
Like the invention, Lambers addresses data security and precluding
unauthorized access to data. See, e.g., Final Act. 4; Advisory Act. 2;
Ans. 4–5; Lambers ¶¶ 9, 40, code (57). Specifically, Lambers discloses
a processing center distributing data “securely” to automated vending
machines to permit purchases of products containing the data, e.g., CDs or
DVDs containing music, movies, or software. Lambers ¶¶ 8–9, 27, 31–32,
37, Fig. 2; see id. ¶¶ 2, 11; Final Act. 4. Lambers explains that during data
distribution the “data may be secured to prevent interception and
unauthorized use of the data.” Lambers code (57); see Final Act. 4. In
addition, Lambers describes bidirectional communications between the
Appeal 2019-000568
Application 14/006,765

7
processing center and the vending machines to permit the vending machines
“to transmit to the processing center such data as operational status,
customer orders, machine or system fault data, inventory levels, [and]
security breaches.” Lambers ¶¶ 27, 31; see id. ¶ 41; Ans. 4 (citing Lambers
¶¶ 27, 31).
In addition, Lambers addresses a security breach that occurs because
a vending machine has been stolen, “moved to another location” outside
“a predetermined range of longitudes and latitudes,” e.g., locations outside
a particular store, and then reenergized. Lambers ¶ 40; see Appeal Br. 9
(citing Lambers ¶ 40). For further data security, Lambers discloses
configuring a vending machine “to automatically delete all internally stored
data files to prevent unauthorized use and copying of the data files.” Lambers
¶ 40; see Final Act. 4 (citing Lambers ¶ 40); Ans. 4–5 (citing Lambers ¶ 40).
Like the invention, configuring a vending machine “to automatically
delete all internally stored data files to prevent unauthorized use and copying of
the data files” in Lambers addresses data security and precluding
unauthorized access to data. See Final Act. 4; Advisory Act. 2; Ans. 4–5;
Lambers ¶ 40. Accordingly, Lambers “logically would have commended
itself to an inventor’s attention in considering” a problem facing the
inventor. See Clay, 966 F.2d at 659. Hence, Lambers constitutes analogous
art as “reasonably pertinent” to a problem facing the inventor.
CLAIM 1: THE “AUTOMATICALLY DELETE” LIMITATION
As noted above, the § 103(a) rejection of claim 1 rests on Oh and
Lambers. See Final Act. 3–4. Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 because Oh and Lambers fail to teach or suggest following
limitation in claim 1:
Appeal 2019-000568
Application 14/006,765

8
the processing circuitry is configured to automatically delete
the content identified by the at least one of the plurality of
terminals from the community site in a case that it is
determined that the at least one of the plurality of terminals is
outside of the predetermined range of the geographic location
corresponding to the community site based on the updated
location information.
See Appeal Br. 8–10.
In particular, Appellant contends that a vending machine in Lambers
corresponds to a client device “that receives the content . . . before vending
the content to a purchasing user.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellant also contends
that Lambers “describes a configuration in which the client device,” i.e., the
vending machine, “deletes the electronic content when” it determines that it
“is outside of a predetermined range of a location.” Id. at 9. Then,
Appellant asserts that claim 1 differs from Lambers because “claim 1
expressly recites that the server is the device that deletes content identified
by terminals when the at least one of the plurality of terminals is outside of
the predetermined range of the geographic location.” Id. (emphasis
omitted).
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
(1) Oh discloses a server providing location-based, content-sharing services
according to claim 1; (2) Lambers discloses location-based content deletion
for security reasons; and (3) the combined disclosures teach or suggest the
“automatically delete” limitation. See Oh ¶¶ 10, 26–27, 30, 35–39, 44,
Figs. 1–3; Lambers ¶¶ 27, 40; Final Act. 3–4; Advisory Act. 2; Ans. 5–6.
Appellant also argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
because combining the teachings of Oh and Lambers does not yield
claim 1’s subject matter. See Appeal Br. 12–13. Specifically, Appellant
Appeal 2019-000568
Application 14/006,765

9
asserts that modifying Oh’s mobile devices “to include the capability of
deleting content as described in Lambers would result in a system in which
the mobile devices (and not a server) would delete the content of a chat
(Lambers) when the mobile terminals move away from the location
designated for the chat (Oh).” Id. at 13 (emphasis omitted).
We disagree. Oh discloses a server communicating with mobile
devices. Oh ¶¶ 26–27, 31–33, 35, 44, Figs. 1–2; see Final Act. 3; Advisory
Act. 2; Ans. 6. Lambers discloses deleting from a first device (a vending
machine) content provided by or associated with a second device
(a processing center) when the second device lacks an ability to control the
content due to the content’s geographic location away from the second
device. See Lambers ¶¶ 27, 40; Final Act. 4; Advisory Act. 2; Ans. 5–6.
Applying that concept to Oh’s server and mobile devices results in deleting
from the server content provided by or associated with a mobile device when
the mobile device lacks an ability to control the content due to the content’s
geographic location away from the mobile device. For instance, the mobile
device may lack an ability to control the content when the mobile device
exits “a predetermined geographic region associated with a location-based
chat session.” Oh ¶ 36; see Final Act. 3–4; Advisory Act. 2; Ans. 4–5; Oh
¶¶ 10, 26, 30, 32–35, Fig. 2. As the Examiner properly reasons, modifying
Oh’s server “to include the capability of deleting content in Lambers would
result in a system as claimed.” Ans. 6.
For the reasons discussed above, Appellant’s arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 for obviousness
based on Oh and Lambers. In our view, the claimed subject matter
exemplifies the principle that “[t]he combination of familiar elements
Appeal 2019-000568
Application 14/006,765

10
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416 (2007). Thus, we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claim 1.
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 22–24 AND DEPENDENT CLAIM 16
Appellant does not argue patentability separately for independent
claims 22–24 or dependent claim 16. See Appeal Br. 7–14. Thus, we
sustain the § 103(a) rejection of these claims for the same reasons as claim 1.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The § 103(a) Rejections of Claims 2, 6–8, and 10–15
Claims 2, 6–8, and 10–15 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1.
Appellant does not argue patentability separately for these dependent claims.
See Appeal Br. 7–14. Thus, we sustain the § 103(a) rejections of these
dependent claims for the same reasons as claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 6–8, 10–16,
and 22–24.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 16,
22–24 103(a) Oh, Lambers
1, 16,
22–24
2, 6, 7 103(a) Oh, Lambers, Fujihara 2, 6, 7
8 103(a) Oh, Lambers, Alfaro 8
Appeal 2019-000568
Application 14/006,765

11
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
10–15 103(a) Oh, Lambers, Steiner 10–15
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 6–8,
10–16,
22–24

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)(1)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED