Bellesfield et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 21, 1999

08069161 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 21, 1999)

1 Application for patent filed May 28, 1993.
1
Paper No. 26
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte KEITH J. BELLESFIELD,
TERRY L. CAMPBELL,
THOMAS P. HASKELL and
BRADLEY D. SAUDER
______________
Appeal No. 96-0463
Application 08/069,1611
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, BARRETT and FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 to 15, which constitute all the claims
pending in the application. In the initial examiner's answer,
Appeal No. 96-0463
Application 08/069,161
2
the examiner allowed claims 1 through 4, and 8 through 12. As a
result of the supplemental examiner's answer mailed on September
30, 1998, which follows from a remand to the examiner from this
panel on July 30, 1998, the examiner has withdrawn a rejection as
to claims 6 and 14 and indicates they would be allowable if
rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of
the base claim and any intervening claims. Therefore, the claims
that remain on appeal for our consideration are claims 5, 7, 13
and 15.
Representative claim 5 is reproduced below:
5. A method for generating a list of places of interest
geographically located near a travel route, the method comprising
the steps of:
providing a user interface for receiving user input;
providing a routing database having geographic information
for roads and places within a geographic region;
providing a place of interest database having geographic
center data indicating the geographic locations of geographic
centers within the geographic region and places of interest data
associating each place of interest with one of the geographic
centers;
selecting, via the user interface, a departure point and a
destination point geographically located within the geographic
region;
using the routing database to generate a travel route
between the selected departure point and the selected destination
point;
Appeal No. 96-0463
Application 08/069,161
3
selecting geographic centers from the places of interest
database which are geographically located within a predetermined
distance of the generated travel route; and
generating a list of places of interest associated with the
selected geographic centers.
The reference relied on by the examiner is:
Person 5,067,081 Nov. 19, 1991
Claims 5, 7, 13 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Person.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the various briefs and answers for
the details thereof.
OPINION
We sustain the rejection essentially for the reasons set
forth by the examiner in the answer, further in view of the
following.
The context in which Person operates as it applies to
representative independent claim 5 on appeal is set forth at
column 5, lines 12 through 28. There it is indicated that the
external memory device 26 in Figure 2 may store geographical
areas such as county, state, region, country or continent as a
basis of the generalized geographic region claimed. The claimed
geographical location corresponds to the latitude and longi-
Appeal No. 96-0463
Application 08/069,161
4
tudinal coordinates of the respectively identified physical
centers which relate to the geographic centers of the claim or
other various points or landmarks or areas to be navigated based
on name along the path in which they are located. The external
member 26 is also shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3 also shows other types of memories in which
information is located: population center memory 69; landmark
memory 71 and roadway or linear memory 73, in addition to the
path memory 77 and radius memory 75. These are discussed
beginning at the bottom of column 9. At least with respect to
the landmark memory 71 at column 10, lines 5-12, the claimed
places of interest database may comprise this memory and
respective identifiers such as parks or airports may comprise the
claimed geographic centers. Additionally, the discussion
beginning at column 5, line 35 indicates that the entire system
operates by retrieving various types of data from the various
memories and reading them into the temporary memory storage unit,
which is identified as the RAM memory storage chip 56 in Figure 3
and shown as well in the microcomputer unit in Figure 2. For
purposes of determining a given route within Person all data is
processed within this RAM memory. Thus, there is an additional
broadly definable “places of interest database” having the stated
Appeal No. 96-0463
Application 08/069,161
5
main elements in a broad “association” to the extent recited in
the providing clause of representative claim 5 on appeal.
At least, within Person, the act of the user selecting
various radiuses as discussed beginning at column 7, line 16
corresponds to the broad selecting clause of representative claim
5 on appeal. The user, for example, may selectively vary the
radius of the current or designated location or the path itself
(see also Figure 4) which allows the user to select various
“geographic centers” from the noted places of interest database
as defined earlier within a predetermined distance of the travel
route. The final step of generating a list of places at the end
of representative claim 5 on appeal as well as the display aspect
thereof in its dependent claim 7, is met by the final display to
the user in Person. Note, for example, column 14, lines 3
through 10 and 59 through 66.
Representative claim 5 on appeal requires that the places of
interest database within it have “places of interest data
associating each place of interest with one of the geographic
centers.” The same argument made in the original brief at the
bottom of page 9, as well as repeated in the most recent
supplemental reply brief, that in Person “each place of interest
is not associated with a separate geographic location, but rather
Appeal No. 96-0463
Application 08/069,161
6
is correlated to a nearby geographic center” is misplaced. The
argument made is not what is actually recited in the claim. The
separateness of the association is not precluded by the language
of representative claim 5. Person clearly meets the language
claimed. Person performs “geocoding” to the extent claimed. The
assertion made at page 10 of the original brief that Person
“fails to disclose a places of interest database having places of
interest grouped by geographic center” is also misplaced. There
is no claimed “grouping.” There is only a broadly recited
“association.” The claim does not preclude each place of
interest having its own geographic center.
Even though we recognize that Person directly correlates
by latitude and longitude each and all named items within the
various memories, appellants' invention never loses sight of
this among the various databases anyway. Appellants' recitation
of the claimed “geographic center” amounts to an indirect,
intermediate manner of correlating the disclosed latitude and
longitude of each place of interest. To the extent claimed, we
see no patentable distinction. In any event, the broadly defined
use in Person of the temporary memory correlates all data from
all the various memories in one common “database” directly or
indirectly broadly associated or correlated. To the extent
Appeal No. 96-0463
Application 08/069,161
7
claimed, the claims on appeal do not distinguish over the
teachings in Person even within 35 U.S.C. § 102 since the reader
is placed in possession of the claimed invention given due
consideration to analogousness of the terminology in Person to
that which is claimed in the proper context.
Since appellants' briefs do not present arguments
distinguishing between any claim 5, 7, 13 and 15 on appeal,
all claims fall together.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 5, 7, 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
James D. Thomas )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
Lee E. Barrett ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
Michael R. Fleming )
Appeal No. 96-0463
Application 08/069,161
8
Administrative Patent Judge )
Ronald B. Cooley
Arnold, White & Durkee
P. O. Box 4433
Houston, TX 77210
JDT/cam