CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE GMBH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 29, 2020

2020001910 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 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.
15/035,976 05/11/2016 Manuel RAUCH 502901-1553PUS-385427.000 7328
27799 7590 10/29/2020
COZEN O'CONNOR
277 PARK AVENUE , 20TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10172
EXAMINER
MUSTAFA, IMRAN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/29/2020 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):
patentdocket@cozen.com
patentsecretary@cozen.com
patentsorter@cozen.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte MANUEL RAUCH, GEBHARD OELMAIER,
URS BECK, and KURT STEGE
__________

Appeal 2020-001910
Application 15/035,976
Technology Center 3600
__________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 15–29. See Final Act. 1. Claims 1–14
have been canceled. See Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE GMBH. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001910
Application 15/035,976

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to a navigational system and a method for
operating a navigational system. Claim 15, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
15. A navigation system for ascertaining qualified special
destinations, the navigation system comprising:
a user interface having a display and an input configured
to receive inputs from a user of the navigation system, the inputs
including (i) one or more special destinations; and (ii) one or
more use limitations;
a GPS locator that communicates with global positioning
satellites to determine the current location of a vehicle in which
the navigation system is installed;
a database storing:
(a) a plurality of traffic nodes,
(b) path sections connecting said traffic nodes,
(c) properties of the traffic nodes, and
(d) special destinations, including any special
destinations input via the user interface, the special
destinations being linked, in each case, to one or more of
the traffic nodes in the form of connecting nodes; and
a route computation device, the route computation device
being configured to, based at least in part on current vehicle
location information from the GPS locator:
assign each special destination, with respect to each
connecting node that is linked thereto, at least one total
path length of a first total path connecting the special
destination and the connecting node,
at least in a case where the first total path has a
limitation corresponding to a use limitation input by the
user, assign the special destination and the connecting
node at least the total path length of a second total path
that has lower use limitations at least with respect to the
input limitation parameter,
display, on the user interface, the first and second
total paths including an indication of the total paths and
the use limitations for each total path, the first and second
Appeal 2020-001910
Application 15/035,976

3
total paths being arranged in ascending order of total path
length, and
receive, from the user using the user interface, a user
selection of one from among the first and second total
paths,
wherein, in management of the database, after
ascertainment of the first total path having use limitations, the
corresponding path section with the most restrictive limitation is
selected and eliminated for purposes of finding a total path
having lower use limitations, and a search is carried out for new
total paths between the special destination and the connecting
node that bypass the eliminated path section.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Gieseke US 2006/0015249 A1 Jan. 19, 2006
Crook US 2006/0036363 A1 Feb. 16, 2006
Kropp US 2007/0225900 A1 Sept. 27, 2007
Forstall US 2009/0005082 A1 Jan. 1, 2009
Poppen US 2011/0106429 A1 May 5, 2011

REJECTION
Claims 15–29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Poppen, Kropp, Forstall, Crook, and Gieseke. Final Act.
2.
OPINION
Independent claims 15 and 22 require, among other limitations,
wherein, in management of the database, after ascertainment of
the first total path having use limitations, the corresponding path
section with the most restrictive limitation is selected and
eliminated for purposes of finding a total path having lower use
limitations, and a search is carried out for new total paths
Appeal 2020-001910
Application 15/035,976

4
between the special destination and the connecting node that
bypass the eliminated path section.
Appeal Br. 12–13, 16–17 (Claims App.) (emphases added). The Examiner
relies on Gieseke for this limitation. Final Act. 6–7 (citing Gieseke ¶ 44).2
Appellant argues that in the cited portion of paragraph 44, which the
Examiner relies on,
Gieseke merely teaches that a user may input attribute
information and that a new route can be calculated based on those
input characteristics. However, the cited portion of Gieseke fails
to teach or remotely suggest the feature of claim 1 that “after
ascertainment of the first total path having use limitations, the
corresponding path section with the most restrictive limitation
is selected and eliminated for purposes of finding a total path
having lower use limitations, and a search is carried out for new
total paths between the special destination and the connecting
node that bypass the eliminated path section, . . .”
Appeal Br. 9. In response, the Examiner refers to paragraph 51, which states
that “[a]fter the route calculation module 204 calculates the first route,
the adaptive routing module 310 may provide the driver with an option
of modifying the route by entering driver or user preferences” and
paragraph 53, which states that in “FIG. 5, an illustrative new optimal
route that has been calculated by the route calculation module 204 or
the adaptive routing module 210 as a function of the driver preference
set forth above is depicted.” Ans. 3–4 (quoting Gieseke ¶¶ 51, 55).
Appellant has the better position. Claims 15 and 22 require at least
two searches of total paths (“ascertainment of the first total path” and “a
search is carried out for new total paths”) involving at least two restrictive or

2 The Examiner relies on Poppen, Kropp, Forstall, and Crook for limitations
other than those discussed above. Final Act. 2–6.
Appeal 2020-001910
Application 15/035,976

5
use limitations (“with the most restrictive limitation” and “having lower use
limitations”), in which the second search is dependent on the outcome of the
first search because: (1) in the first search, “the most restrictive limitation is
selected” and “eliminated”; and, (2) in the second search, “new total paths”
are found “that bypass the eliminated path section” of the first search, and
these new total paths “hav[e] lower use limitations.” We note that because
there are a “most restrictive limitation” and “lower use limitations,” there
must necessarily be some limitation ranking to satisfy the claim language.
Paragraph 44 of Gieseke, in its entirety, states
[t]he adaptive routing module 210 may allow the driver or
user to adjust the route based upon user preferences that may
relate to road attributes or vehicle characteristics. The driver may
want to avoid certain roads or segments based upon vehicle
weight or cargo restrictions and so forth. For example, a driver
may want to avoid any overpasses that do not provide at least
four meters of height clearance. As such, as a function of these
user input preferences about road attributes, the adaptive routing
module 210 may also calculate the new route to avoid roads that
have bridges that do no[t] provide at least four meters of
clearance. The vehicle characteristic may be selected from a
group of vehicle characteristics including a vehicle type, a cargo
type, a vehicle size, a cargo size, a vehicle height, a cargo height,
and a vehicle weight.
Gieseke ¶ 44; emphases added. Paragraph 44 of Gieseke, at best, discloses
that a user can start a new search of a new total path that has a particular
restriction(s). Paragraph 44 does not disclose that the new search is
dependent on an earlier search by bypassing any total path found in the
earlier search (although it appears that the new search can involve a use
limitation(s) that is different from that of an earlier search via “user input
preferences”). The Examiner does not explain how it can be said that
Appeal 2020-001910
Application 15/035,976

6
Gieseke discloses any limitation ranking, i.e., considering a “most restriction
limitation” and “lower use limitations,” as required by the claims.
Paragraphs 51 and 55 of Gieseke do not make up for these
deficiencies. As the Examiner recognizes, Gieseke discloses that “module
204 calculates the first route” and thereafter, that first route can be modified
“by entering driver or user preferences.” Gieseke ¶ 51. However, “the first
route” appears to be the route that is discussed in preceding paragraph 50,
which describes, in relation to Figure 4, that “the user or driver of the
vehicle may want to travel from node 302k to node 302b. Node 302k is input
as the trip origin and node 302b is input as the trip destination.” Gieseke ¶
50 (emphases added). In other words, “the first route” does not take into
account any special destination nor use limitation. In contrast, paragraph 53
of Gieseke discloses a “new optimal route” shown in Figure 5 that takes into
account “the driver preferences.” Gieseke ¶ 53. It is this “new optimal route”
that corresponds to a “first total path having use limitations” as recited in the
claims.
[T]he precise language of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that ‘(a) person shall
be entitled to a patent unless,’ concerning novelty and
unobviousness, clearly places a burden of proof on the Patent
Office which requires it to produce the factual basis for its
rejection of an application under sections 102 and 103.
In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1016 (CCPA 1967). All words in a claim must
be considered in judging the obviousness of the claimed subject matter. See
In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385. Because the rejection does not
adequately address these aspects of the claims, the rejection of claims 15–29
as being unpatentable over Poppen, Kropp, Forstall, Crook, and Gieseke
cannot stand. Thus, the obviousness rejection is not sustained.

Appeal 2020-001910
Application 15/035,976

7
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 15–29 is reversed.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
15–29 103 Poppen, Kropp,
Forstall, Crook,
Gieseke
15–29

REVERSED