Ex Parte Ando et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 2, 2013

11370857 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte YUICHI ANDO, TAKESHI OTA,
ISAO WATANABE, TAKUMI ARIE, and HIROSHI AMANO
____________________

Appeal 2011-008751
Application 11/370,857
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-008751
Application 11/370,857

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of
claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-8. App. Br. 2. Claims 2 and 5 were previously
cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We heard oral
arguments on November 14, 2013. A transcript will be included in the
record in due time.
We affirm.

THE INVENTION
The invention relates to techniques for improved point-of-interest
(“POI”) searching of a point information database. A point searching
apparatus of the invention is configured to search a point information
database that manages point information for different areas. One or more
geographic areas of the point information are searched based on the current
position of the apparatus relative to the borders of the various areas that may
be searched. Search results are displayed to a user of the apparatus. See
generally Spec. 2-3.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A point searching apparatus configured to search
through a point information database, the point information
database managing point information for different areas and
allowing a search to be carried out for each area, the point
searching apparatus comprising:
selecting means for selecting a search range boundary
and for selecting whether a current position of the point search
apparatus with respect to the search range boundary is in the
center of the search range boundary and whether the current
position of the point search apparatus with respect to the search
range boundary is on an edge of the search range boundary, the
search range boundary defining a scope of a search range;
Appeal 2011-008751
Application 11/370,857

3
searching means for searching a newly generated
database populated with a portion of entries of the point
information database, the portion of the entries determined
based on selecting each area out of a plurality of available areas
that has any portion within the search range boundary and for
retrieving predetermined point information from the newly
generated database;
display controlling means for displaying point
information retrieved by the searching means; and
positioning means for maintaining the current position of
the point search apparatus with respect to the search range
boundary in response to any change in the current position of
the point search apparatus with respect to the different areas.

THE REJECTION
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Koizumi (U.S. Patent No. 6,462,676 B1; issued Oct. 8,
2002) and Seitz (U.S. Patent No. 4,484,192; issued Nov. 20, 1984). Ans. 3-
9.
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to Appellants’ Briefs
(including oral argument) and the Examiner’s Answer for the respective
positions of Appellants and the Examiner. Only those arguments actually
made by Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments that
Appellants did not make in the Briefs have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2010).

ISSUES
Appellants’ arguments present us with the following issues:
1. Has the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Koizumi
and Seitz teaches or suggests “positioning means for maintaining
Appeal 2011-008751
Application 11/370,857

4
the current position of the point search apparatus with respect to
the search range boundary in response to any change in the current
position of the point search apparatus with respect to the different
areas” as recited in the claims?
2. Has the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Koizumi
and Seitz teaches or suggests
selecting means for selecting a search range boundary and
for selecting whether a current position of the point search
apparatus with respect to the search range boundary is in the
center of the search range boundary and whether the current
position of the point search apparatus with respect to the
search range boundary is on an edge of the search range
boundary, the search range boundary defining a scope of a
search range
as recited in the claims?

ANALYSIS
Issue 1
Appellants argue, “if the system of Seitz were to be combined with
the system of Koizumi, then the dot representing the user would never reach
the edge of the frame and the pop-up window shown in Figure 8B of
Koizumi would never be triggered.” App. Br. 8 (emphases omitted).
Appellants therefore conclude that if the moving map of Seitz were
combined with Koizumi’s POI search, then Koizumi would no longer
function for its intended purpose “to enable a user to ‘preview’ certain
locales which are in a certain direction.” Id. Appellants further argue that
the combination of Koizumi and Seitz “fails to disclose linking a position of
a vehicle to a search range boundary” but rather discloses only a “search
Appeal 2011-008751
Application 11/370,857

5
range boundary which is pegged to the map instead of the vehicle.” Id.
Still more specifically, Appellants contend that because Koizumi relies on
the user crossing the edge of the display map to trigger the pop-up of
forecasted points of interest, the search range is “pegged to the map instead
of the vehicle.” App. Br. 8-9. We are unpersuaded by these contentions of
Examiner error.
The Examiner explains that the combination of Koizumi and Seitz
teaches definition of a search range boundary and “maintaining the position
of the user's own position with respect to the search range boundary in
response to any change in the user's own current position with respect to the
different areas.” Ans. 11. We agree. As explained by the Examiner,
Koizumi discloses a “forecast” feature to identify points of interest in the
user’s advancing direction—i.e., points that may be outside the boundaries
of the presently displayed map. Ans. 12 (citing Koizumi col. 8, ll. 7-13).
The Examiner therefore finds that Koizumi discloses, “the user can instruct
the apparatus to display places existing outside the display range without
necessarily reaching the edge of the frame.” Id. We agree. Thus, we are
unpersuaded of error and we find that combining the real-time moving map
of Seitz with Koizumi’s search and display of points of interest in user’s
advancing direction does not defeat the intended purpose of Koizumi.
For emphasis, we note that Koizumi does not necessarily require that
an edge of the displayed map be crossed by the user’s current position to
force an update of the display with respect to forecast points of interest.
Rather, Koizumi specifically discloses that the forecast process (for
displaying points of interest beyond the current displayed map range) is
performed “when the present position of the user moves to the vicinity of the
Appeal 2011-008751
Application 11/370,857

6
edge of the present display range on the screen of the portable terminal 29.”
Koizumi, col. 8, ll. 65-67 (emphasis added). Thus, contrary to Appellants’
contentions, Koizumi does not require that the user’s current position on the
presently displayed map must cross an edge of the displayed map to trigger
update of the forecast points of interest. Rather, as the current position of
Koizumi’s user approaches “the vicinity of the edge” the forecast points of
interest may be updated. Therefore, we find that the skilled artisan would
understand that any desirable quantum of movement of Koizumi’s user
toward the vicinity of the edge may be sufficient to cause an update of the
forecast area to be searched. In other words, any incremental movement of
the user from a current location toward the vicinity of a present edge of the
displayed map may generate an update of the forecasted points of interest in
Koizumi.
Appellants further argue that because Seitz “never discloses anything
regarding a search range boundary,” it cannot cure the above deficiencies of
Koizumi. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 2-3. We are unpersuaded. The Examiner
relies on Seitz for maintaining the user’s current position relative to a
defined area—i.e., the bounds of a moving map as explicitly disclosed by
Seitz or the bounds of a search area as taught or suggested by the
Examiner’s combination of Koizumi and Seitz. To the extent that
Appellants argue that the references cannot be bodily combined because
Seitz fails to disclose a “search range boundary,” such an argument is
unavailing. Bodily incorporation is not necessary in an obviousness
rejection. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Thus, we find
that the Examiner's proposed combination of Koizumi and Seitz predictably
Appeal 2011-008751
Application 11/370,857

7
uses prior art elements according to their established functions—an obvious
improvement. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in finding
that the combination of Koizumi and Seitz teaches or suggests “positioning
means for maintaining the current position of the point search apparatus with
respect to the search range boundary in response to any change in the current
position of the point search apparatus with respect to the different areas” as
recited in claim 1.

Issue 2
Independent claim 1 includes a selecting means for selecting the
search range boundary and for selecting the current position of the
apparatus/user relative to the selected search range boundary. Independent
claims 4 and 7 include a similar recitation. In rejecting independent claims
1, 4, and 7, the Examiner finds that Koizumi teaches these selection features.
Ans. 3-8. Appellants do not address this feature with respect to claim 1 but
rather argue that the similar feature in claims 4 and 7 is not taught by the
combination of Koizumi and Seitz. App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 5-6. We are
unpersuaded.
Appellants’ argument regarding the selecting feature in claims 4 and 7
consists of conclusory remarks that the combination of Koizumi and Seitz
fails to describe or render obvious the selecting feature of the claims. App.
Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 5-6. It is well settled that mere attorney’s arguments
and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are
entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed.
Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Attorney
Appeal 2011-008751
Application 11/370,857

8
argument is not evidence. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA
1974). Nor can such argument take the place of evidence lacking in the
record. Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977).
Lacking sufficient evidence of error in the Examiner’s finding, we are
unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding that the combination of
Koizumi and Seitz teaches or suggests
selecting means for selecting a search range boundary and for
selecting whether a current position of the point search apparatus
with respect to the search range boundary is in the center of the
search range boundary and whether the current position of the
point search apparatus with respect to the search range boundary is
on an edge of the search range boundary, the search range
boundary defining a scope of a search range
as recited in the claims.
In view of the above discussion, we are unpersuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 4, and 7 and dependent claim
3, 6, and 8 not argued separately.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, and
6-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
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) (2010).

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2011-008751
Application 11/370,857

9

tj