11973654 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 13, 2012)

Ex Parte Beatty

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesFeb 13, 2012

11973654 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 13, 2012)

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. 11/973,654 10/10/2007 Bryan Kendall Beatty 304145.02 2126 27366 7590 02/13/2012 WESTMAN CHAMPLIN (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) SUITE 1400 900 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 EXAMINER TO, TUAN C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3663 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/13/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte BRYAN KENDALL BEATTY ____________ Appeal 2010-003667 Application 11/973,654 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, KEN B. BARRETT, and JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-003667 Application 11/973,654 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1 and 3-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Edge (US 6,606,554 B2; iss. Aug. 12, 2003), and claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Edge and Hancock (US 6,202,023 B1; iss. Mar. 13, 2001). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM. THE INVENTION Claims 1 and 8 illustrate the claimed subject matter on appeal: 1. A computer implemented method of reducing the number of characters contained in a geographically-oriented string, the method comprising: converting a floating-point coordinate value represented in the geographically-oriented string to an integer value; and converting the integer value to a base-N string, wherein N represents the number of characters in an implementation-defined character set; and using the base-N string as a reduced-character component of the geographically-oriented string. 8. A method of reducing the number of characters associated with a set of latitude and longitude coordinates, the method comprising: converting a floating-point latitude value to a latitude integer value; and converting the latitude integer value to a first base-N string, wherein N represents the number of characters in an implementation-defined character set; converting a floating-point longitude value to a longitude integer value; and converting the longitude integer value to a second base-N string, wherein N represents the number of characters in an implementation-defined character set. Appeal 2010-003667 Application 11/973,654 3 ISSUES ON APPEAL Whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 3-10 as being anticipated by Edge or claim 2 as being obvious over Edge and Hancock because Edge and Hancock fail to teach or suggest the disputed limitations? ANALYSIS Claims 1 and 3-10 as anticipated by Edge Claims 1 and 3-7 Appellant argues that Edge does not disclose any manipulation of a geographically-oriented string by conversion through base-N operations as called for in claim 1. Br. 6-7. We find that Edge discloses this feature and adopt the Examiner’s findings. Ans. 3-4, 7-8. Edge converts integers into alphabetic characters or symbols (col. 7, ll. 18-20), which provide N-base strings. See Spec. [0048] (N represents the number of characters in an implementation-defined set); [0051] (example of a 30 character set). Appellant’s argument that Edge does not perform this step because the conversion involves complex mathematical operations (Br. 7) is not commensurate with claim 1. Edge also uses a base-N string as a reduced character set. See Ans. 4, 8; Edge, col. 8, ll. 8-54 & Table 1. We also agree that Edge converts a floating-point coordinate value to an integer value by applying a mapping algorithm that preserves a desired level of accuracy as called for in claim 4. See Ans. 4, 10-11; Edge, col. 6, ll. 44-55. Appellant’s argument that Edge’s method does not correspond to Appellant’s disclosed method (Br. 8-9) is not commensurate with claim 4. We further agree that Edge discloses “applying a mapping algorithm based at least in part on the circumference of the earth” as recited in claim 5. See Ans. 11. Edge applies a mapping algorithm to longitude measurements Appeal 2010-003667 Application 11/973,654 4 and UTM zones (col. 7, ll. 11-34) that would be based at least in part on the earth’s circumference. See Spec. [0073] (present description can include UTM, latitude/longitude, and other coordinate systems). We also agree that Edge discloses “applying a mapping algorithm based at least in part on a desired error level in describing a position on the earth” as recited in claim 6 (Ans. 5, 11 (citing col. 6, ll. 20-43)) and “concatenating [a first] base-N string and the second base-N string to form a concatenated string” as recited in claim 7 (Ans. 5, 11-12). Appellant has not shown any error in the Examiner’s findings. See Br. 10. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 3-7. Appellant does not separately argue claim 3. See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Claims 8-10 Appellant argues that Edge does not convert latitude and longitude values to a base-N string as called for in independent claim 8. Br. 11. As discussed supra for claim 1, Edge discloses this feature. Ans. 5-6, 9-10. Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with claim 8. See Br. 11. We also agree that Edge discloses concatenating the first and second base-N strings as called for in claim 9 (Ans. 12) and converting a floating- point latitude value to a latitude integer value by applying a mapping algorithm that is based at least in part on a desired level of accuracy as called for in claim 10 (Ans. 11 (citing col. 6, ll. 20-43); see also col. 4, ll. 44-55. Appellant has not shown any error in the Examiner’s findings. Br. 11-12. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 8-10. Appeal 2010-003667 Application 11/973,654 5 Claim 2 as obvious over Edge and Hancock Claim 2 recites that the geographically-oriented string of claim 1 is “a geographically-oriented Uniform Resource Locator associated with a web page.” Hancock discloses this feature. See Ans. 7, 13 (citing Abstract); Hancock, col. 3, ll. 37-46 (URL is provided for map of geographical area). Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s findings or conclusion of obviousness. Br. 14-15. As such, we sustain the rejection of claim 2. CONCLUSION The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1 and 3-10 as being anticipated by Edge or claim 2 as being obvious over Edge and Hancock. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 3-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Edge is AFFIRMED. The Examiner’s decision to reject claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Edge and Hancock 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). Appeal 2010-003667 Application 11/973,654 6 AFFIRMED1 mls 1 We have decided the appeal before us. However, should there be further prosecution of claims 1-10, the Examiner’s attention is directed to the Memorandum from Andrew H. Hirshfeld, Acting Deputy Comm’r for the Patent Examination Policy, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (to the Technology Center Directors), New Interim Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Examination Instructions (August 24, 2009) and the Memorandum from Robert W. Bahr, Acting Assoc. Comm’r for Patent Examination Policy, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (to the Patent Examining Corps), Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility for Process Claims in View of Bilski v. Kappos (July 27, 2010).