PATENT OWNER
`
`PATENT OWNER
`EXHIBIT 2017
`
`EXHIBIT 201 7
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER
`EXHIBIT 2017
`
`EXHIBIT 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
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
