Ex Parte Barnes

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 30, 2018

14072086 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/072,086 11/05/2013
101535 7590 06/01/2018
Lempia Summerfield Katz LLC/HERE
20 South Clark Street
Suite 600
Chicago, IL 60603
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Craig R. Barnes
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
10171-15028A
(NC83409US)
CONFIRMATION NO.
6571
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, LAURAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2018 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):
docket-us@lsk-iplaw.com
pair_lsk@firsttofile.com
hereipr@here.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CRAIG R. BARNES
Appeal2017-010311
Application 14/072,086
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-010311
Application 14/072,086
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1--4, 6-13, and 15-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The claims are directed to a transit station event countdown indicator.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor;
at least one memory including computer program code, the
memory and the computer program code configured to, working
with the processor, cause the apparatus to perform at least the
following:
identifying a transit station;
providing a map including a location of the transit station;
determining a first transit station event countdown time
associated with a first transit station event for the transit station;
generating a first transit station event countdown indicator that is
linear shape configured to, at least partially, surround a center
point representing the location of the transit station such that the
first transit station event countdown time is represented by a first
angle from the center point;
displaying the first transit station event countdown
indicator spaced at a first predetermined distance from the
location of the transit station on the map;
1 Appellant indicates that the real party in interest is HERE GLOBAL B.V.
(Br. 2).
2
Appeal2017-010311
Application 14/072,086
determining a second transit station event countdown time
associated with a second transit station event for the transit
station;
generating a second transit station event countdown
indicator that is a linear shape configured to surround the center
point such that the second countdown time is represented by a
second angle from the center point; and
displaying the second transit station event countdown
indicator spaced at a second predetermined distance from the
location of the transit station on the map such that an endpoint of
the first transit station event countdown indicator and an
endpoint of the second transit station event countdown indicator
are spaced from the center point at the first predetermined
distance and the second predetermined distance.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Cordova, Jr.
David
Bishop et al.
Chiu
Khoe et al.
us 5,526,327
US 7,274,375 Bl
US 2011/0148623 Al
US 2011/0221615 Al
US 2014/0358409 Al
REJECTIONS
June 11, 1996
Sept. 25, 2007
June 23, 2011
Sept. 15, 2011
Dec. 4, 2014
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1--4, 6-13, and 15-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Khoe in view of Cordova, Jr., Chiu, and David.
Claims 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Khoe in view of Cordova, Jr., Chiu, David, and Bishop.
3
Appeal2017-010311
Application 14/072,086
ANALYSIS
Appellant set forth separate arguments for patentability of
independent claims 1, 10, and 17. As a result, we will address each of the
independent claims in the order set forth in the Appeal Brief.
Claim 1
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellant contends that none of
the prior art includes countdown indicators that surround a center point on
the location of the transit station on the map. (Br. 7). Appellant sets forth
separate arguments to each of the four references relied upon in the
obviousness rejection. (Br. 7-12).
The Examiner clarifies how each of the prior art references is relied
upon and that the "combination of Khoe, Cordova, and Chiu would thus
provide for the claim requirement of the first countdown indicator
surrounding a center point representing the location of the transit
station; the first countdown indicator spaced at a first predetermined
distance from the location of the transit station on the map." (Ans. 5).
The Examiner asserts that Appellant's arguments address the
references of Khoe, Cordova, Chiu, and David separately instead of
addressing the combination as a whole. (Ans. 8). We agree with the
Examiner that Appellant's arguments are directed to the references
individually while the Examiner's rejections rely upon multiple references in
combination for each of the limitations which Appellant argues.
The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is
expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the
claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in
the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. See In re
4
Appeal2017-010311
Application 14/072,086
Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981). Therefore, Appellant's argument
is not persuasive because it fails to consider the combined teachings of the
references as applied by the Examiner.
Appellant further argues none of the prior art includes displaying the
first and second transit station event countdown indicators spaced at a first
and second predetermined distance from the location of the transit station on
the map. (Br. 12).
The Examiner responds that Appellant is arguing the references
separately. (Ans. 8). Again, the Examiner relies upon the combination of
Khoe, Cordova, Jr., and Chiu references to teach the totality of the
limitation. ( Ans. 8-10). We agree with the Examiner that the combination
of Khoe, Cordova, Jr., and Chiu teaches and fairly suggests displaying the
first and second transit station event countdown indicators spaced at a first
and second predetermined distance from the location of the transit station on
the map.
Alternatively, the Examiner relies upon the teachings of the David
reference to teach and suggest the placement of the second transit station
event countdown indicator spaced at a second predetermined distance from
the location of the transit station on the map would also be obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art. (Ans. 10). Additionally, we agree with the
Examiner's alternative reliance upon the David reference which teaches
plural indicators spaced at differing predetermined distances from the center
of a display.
Appellant further contends that the Examiner's "rearrangement"
finding is improper, and Appellant provides arguments regarding
rearrangement based upon Appellant's Specification. (Br. 14 ).
5
Appeal2017-010311
Application 14/072,086
The Examiner maintains that Appellant's rearrangement arguments go
beyond the express language recited in the claims in an attempt to import
limitations from Specification and that the placement of the first and second
indicators spaced at a first and second predetermined distance is merely a
rearrangement of parts involving only routine skill in the art. (Ans. 10-11).
We agree with the Examiner regarding the finding of a rearrangement
of parts for the reasons stated by the Examiner, and Appellant does not
identify how the location of the displayed information changes the
"apparatus" of independent claim 1. (Ans. 10-11).
Appellant further argues that the "[p]rior art references David and
Cordova, Jr. are non-analogous art and cannot support the rejection of the
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103." (Br. 15).
The Examiner finds that "the problem faced by the inventor is
indicating time events to a user. While the application of the problem relates
to transit event indicators, the problem itself is understood to be indicating
time events to a user." (Ans. 12). The Examiner further finds "[b ]ecause
David and Cordova are both related to the indication of time events to a user,
they are reasonably pertinent to the problem, and are analogous art." (Ans.
13). We agree with the Examiner's line of reasoning and find Appellant's
argument to be unpersuasive of error in the Examiner's findings of fact and
conclusion of obviousness of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2--4
and 6-9.
6
Appeal2017-010311
Application 14/072,086
Claim 10
With respect to independent claim 10, Appellant presents similar
arguments advanced with respect to independent claim 1. (See Br. 17-19).
Appellant contends that the prior art does not teach or suggest the
"countdown indicators that surround a center point on the location of the
transit station on the map." (Br. 18). Appellant further contends that
"David and Cordova, Jr. are non-analogous art." (Br. 18).
Moreover, Appellant disagrees with the Examiner's finding that:
Khoe includes "[t]he commute application displays a map
with an indication of the arrival time of a transit at a particular
stop" and Cordova, Jr. includes a ring shaped timing area,
concluding it would be obvious to combine the two based on the
teaching of Chiu. See Office Action, p. 11.
(Br. 18). As discussed above with respect to independent claim 1,
Appellant's arguments are directed to the references individually
rather than to the combined teachings as relied upon by the Examiner
in the grounds of the rejection.
Appellant further argues that "neither reference aligns the first
countdown indicator with the geographic location of the transit station or
aligns the second countdown indicator with the geographic location of the
transit station." (Br. 18). The Examiner maintains that Appellant's
arguments are "substantively the same as the limitations" regarding the first
and second indicators addressed with respect to claim 1. We agree with the
Examiner. As a result, Appellant's arguments do not show error in the
Examiner's factual findings or conclusion of obviousness of independent
claim 10.
7
Appeal2017-010311
Application 14/072,086
Appellant further argues "[p]rior art references David and Cordova,
Jr. are non-analogous art and cannot support the rejection of the claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. (Br. 18).
The Examiner relies upon the discussion above with respect to the
non-analogous art. (Ans. 13). We agree with the Examiner that the David
and Cordova references are analogous art as found by the Examiner. As a
result, we agree with the Examiner's line of reasoning and find Appellant's
argument to be unpersuasive of error in the Examiner's findings of fact and
conclusion of obviousness of independent claim 10 and dependent claims
11-13, 15, and 16.
Claim 17
With respect to independent claim 1 7, Appellant argues that "Bishop
is silent regarding countdown times associated with transit station events and
countdown indicators." (Br. 21 ).
The Examiner responds that Appellant is arguing the Bishop reference
individually/separately, rather than as used in the combination as set forth in
the grounds of rejection. (Ans. 14). As discussed above, we agree with the
Examiner that Appellant is separately arguing the prior art references rather
than the combination as applied by the Examiner. As a result, Appellant's
argument does not persuade us of error in the Examiner's factual findings or
conclusion of obviousness of claim 17.
Appellant additionally sets forth the same general non-analogous art
argument. (Br. 21). Because we found Appellant's argument unpersuasive
above, we similarly find it unpersuasive with respect to independent claim
1 7, and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 7 and dependent
claims 18-2 0.
8
Appeal2017-010311
Application 14/072,086
Reply Brief
Appellant did not file a Reply Brief to respond to the Examiner's
additional clarifications and findings in the Examiner's Answer.
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in in rejecting claims 1--4, 6-13, and 15-20
based upon obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims
1--4, 6-13, and 15-20 based upon obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9