`
`PATENT OWNER
`EXHIBIT 2017
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 201 7EXHIBIT 201 7
`
`
`
`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.
`
`11/156,875
`
`06/17/2005
`
`S. Lee Hancock
`
`WGRS-001
`
`5611
`
`7590
`23410
`Vista IP Law Group LLP
`2040 MAIN STREET, Suite 710
`IRVINE, CA 92614
`
`10/17/2013
`
`EXAMINER
`
`AL HASHEMI, SANA A
`
`ART UNIT
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`2156
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`10/17/2013
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`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.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`Ex parte S. LEE HANCOCK, JORDAN HASTINGS,
`and SCOTT D. MORRISON
`____________
`
`Appeal 2011-004999
`Application 11/156,875
`Technology Center 2100
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
`JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION ON APPEAL
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
`
`of claims 52-57, 60-78, 80-92, and 96-105, which are all of the pending
`
`claims. Claims 1-51, 58, 59, 79, 93-95, and 106-110 have been canceled.
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
`
`
`
`We reverse.
`
`
`
`Appeal 2011-004999
`Application 11/156,875
`
`
`Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
`
`reference is made to the Appeal Brief (filed July 9, 2010 and amended July
`
`27, 2010), the Answer (mailed Nov. 8, 2010), and the Reply Brief (filed Jan.
`
`10, 2011).
`
`
`
`Appellants’ Invention
`
`Appellants’ invention relates to providing informational services,
`
`including locations of interest within a geographical area, to a portable
`
`navigational apparatus. The navigational apparatus includes an input device
`
`for entering a proprietary search term uniquely associated with an entity
`
`within a district of a geographical area. A processor coupled to the input
`
`device receives the entered proprietary search term and generates a query
`
`including the proprietary search term and location information associated
`
`with the navigational apparatus. See generally Abstract.
`
`
`
`Claim 52 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
`
`52. A portable navigational apparatus for locating one or more
`locations of interest within a geographical area, comprising:
`an input device for entering a proprietary search term uniquely
`associated with an entity within a district of the geographical area and
`identifying one or more locations of interest within the geographical area;
`a processor coupled to the input device for receiving the entered
`proprietary search term, the processor configured for generating a search
`query comprising the entered proprietary search term and locational
`information associated with the navigational apparatus;
`a communications interface coupled to the processor for
`communicating with a server via a wireless network, the interface
`configured for sending the search query to the server, and for receiving a
`search result from the server, the search result comprising one or more
`locations for the entity uniquely associated with the proprietary search term
`that have a relationship with the locational information;
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Appeal 2011-004999
`Application 11/156,875
`
`
`an output device coupled to the processor for outputting the one or
`more locations comprising the search result; and
`an automatic location identification ("ALl") device that identifies the
`current location of the navigational apparatus within the geographic area, the
`processor coupled to the ALl device for obtaining the current location of the
`navigational apparatus from the ALl device at the time of sending the search
`query, the locational information in the search query comprising at least one
`of the current location and a projected location of the navigational apparatus
`based at least in part on the current location.
`
`The Examiner’s Rejection
`
`
`
`
`
`Claims 52-57, 60-78, 80-92, and 96-105, all of the appealed claims,
`
`stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by DeLorme
`
`(U.S. 5,948,040, Sept. 7, 1999).
`
`
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`Appellants’ arguments with respect to the Examiner’s anticipation
`
`rejection of each of the appealed independent claims 52, 63, 82, and 100
`
`focus on the contention that DeLorme does not disclose the user entry of a
`
`proprietary search term that is uniquely associated with geographical
`
`locations as claimed. According to Appellants, the Examiner (Ans. 9-10)
`
`erred in relying upon the Figure 1B-2 illustration in DeLorme as describing
`
`the user entry of a proprietary search term as claimed. App. Br. 16-26;
`
`Reply Br. 7.1
`
`We agree with Appellants, as our interpretation of the disclosure of
`
`DeLorme coincides with that of Appellants. As argued by Appellants, while
`
`
`1 Appellants have made other arguments. We do not reach these arguments
`since the arguments discussed infra are dispositive of this appeal.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Appeal 2011-004999
`Application 11/156,875
`
`DeLorme’s Figure 1B-2 description includes the short hand designation
`
`“ORD” which arguably uniquely identifies Chicago O’Hare International
`
`Airport, there is no indication that such a term was ever entered as a search
`
`term by a user but, rather, is merely a display being output to a user. Reply
`
`Br. 7.
`
`Similarly, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s (Ans. 9)
`
`further reliance on DeLorme’s Figure 7A-7B is also in error. DeLorme
`
`describes the Figure 7A-7B drawing as illustrating relational database tables
`
`are involved in the processing of DeLorme’s TRIPS travel information
`
`system. See DeLorme, col. 56, ll. 2-5. We find nothing in DeLorme’s
`
`accompanying description of Figure 7A-7B which discloses that a
`
`proprietary search term which is uniquely associated with a geographical
`
`location is ever entered by a user as claimed.
`
`Lastly, we agree with Appellants that, while DeLorme’s Figure 9A-
`
`9B embodiment provides for sensing of a user’s location provided by a GPS
`
`sensor associated with a user’s wireless communication unit (WCU) 907,
`
`there is no disclosure of the claimed user entry of a proprietary search term
`
`that uniquely identifies a geographical location. As argued by Appellants,
`
`the disclosed dialogue between a user and DeLorme’s TRIPS travel
`
`information system merely provides for “yes” or “no” responses to the
`
`TRIPS system communications. Reply Br. 8 (citing DeLorme, col. 71, l. 61
`
`to col. 72, l. 12 and col. 73, l. 28 to col. 74, l. 3).
`
`In view of the above discussion, since all of the claim limitations are
`
`not present in the disclosure of DeLorme, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of independent claims 52, 63, 82, and 100, nor
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Appeal 2011-004999
`Application 11/156,875
`
`the rejection of claims 53-57, 60-62, 64-78, 80, 81, 83-92, 96-99, and 101-
`
`105 dependent thereon.
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner erred in
`
`rejecting claims 52-57, 60-78, 80-92, and 96-105 for anticipation under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`
`
`
`
`The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 52-57, 60-78, 80-92, and
`
`DECISION
`
`96-105 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed.
`
`
`
`
`
`REVERSED
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`kis