Ex Parte Bell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 27, 2017

13567333 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2017)

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.
13/567,333 08/06/2012 Denise A. Bell RS W920120066U S1 (775) 4886
46320 7590
CRGO LAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, EL 33434
EXAMINER
KING, RODNEY P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2017 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DENISE A. BELL, TRAVIS GRIGSBY,
JANA JENKINS, and TREVOR LIVINGSTON
Appeal 2017-002042
Application 13/567,333
Technology Center 3600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, ERIC FRAHM, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA, II, Administrative Patent Judges.
COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—18, which are all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Invention
The disclosed and claimed invention on appeal: “relates to navigation
software and more particularly to navigation data granularity during
navigation.” (Spec. 12).
Appeal 2017-002042
Application 13/567,333
Representative Claim
1. A method for dynamic, progressive routing granularity for
a computed route in a navigation system, the method
comprising:
computing a route of turn by turn directives from an origin
to a destination in memory of a navigation computing
system;
[LI] determining one segment of the route from amongst
multiple different segments of the route to be a familiar
segment;
removing from the familiar segment at least one of the turn
by turn directives; and,
[L2] displaying the route in the navigation computing
system without turn by turn directives that have been
removed as part of the familiar segment.
App. Br. 9 (Contested limitations LI and L2 are emphasized).
Rejections 1
A. Claims 1, 6, 7, and 12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being obvious over the teachings and suggestions of ARASTAFAR (US
2012/0158283 Al, pub. date: June 21, 2012).
B. Claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 16—18 are rejected under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combined teachings and
suggestions of ARASTAFAR and Hertz et al. (US 2013/0059607 Al, pub.
date: Mar. 7, 2013) (hereinafter “Hertz”).
C. Claims 3, 9, and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
1 We have corrected the Examiner’s rejection headings for Rejections A
and B to include the claims actually rejected by the Examiner under the
respective headings. See Final Act. 3—10.
2
Appeal 2017-002042
Application 13/567,333
being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of
ARASTAFAR, Hertz, and Petersen et al. (US 8,306,749 Bl, issued Nov. 6,
2012) (hereinafter “Petersen”).
Grouping of Claims
Based upon Appellants’ arguments, we decide the appeal of Rejection
A of independent claims 1 and 7 based upon representative claim 1. We
address the remaining claims rejected under rejections B and C, infra. To
the extent Appellants have not advanced separate, substantive arguments for
particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and any evidence
presented. We disagree with Appellants’ arguments, and we adopt as our
own: (1) the findings and legal conclusions set forth by the Examiner in the
Final Office Action (2—11) from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the
findings, legal conclusions, and explanations set forth in the Answer (3—4) in
response to Appellants’ arguments. We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis in our analysis below.
Rejection A of Independent Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Issues: Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), did the Examiner err by
finding ARASTAFAR teaches or suggests contested limitations LI and L2:
[LI] determining one segment of the route from amongst
multiple different segments of the route to be a familiar
segment;
3
Appeal 2017-002042
Application 13/567,333
[L2] displaying the route in the navigation computing
system without turn by turn directives that have been
removed as part of the familiar segment[,]
within the meaning of representative claim 1? 2 (Emphasis added).
Contested Limitation LI (Claim 1)
[LI] determining one segment of the route from amongst
multiple different segments of the route to be a familiar
segment;
We find the Examiner’s reading (Final Act. 3) of contested limitation
LI on at least paragraph 42 of ARASTAFAR is supported by a
preponderance of the evidence: “FIG. 4 depicts an example of a road map
in which certain routes are classified as familiar (familiar paths 300) and
other routes are classified as unfamiliar (unfamiliar paths 310).”
(ARASTAFAR, 142, first sentence) (emphasis added).
Thus, we find at least one route of ARASTAFAR’s “road map” (i.e.,
“one segment of the route from amongst multiple different segments of the
route ”) is determined to be a familiar route or segment. (Id.). As also found
by the Examiner (Final Act. 3), ARASTAFAR 136 describes “the step of
determining whether the current route is a familiar path comprises a prior
step of learning travel patterns.” (emphasis added). Further buttressing the
2 We give the contested claim limitations the broadest reasonable
interpretation (BRI) consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 111
F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See, e.g., Spec. 129 (“The description of
the present invention has been presented for purposes of illustration and
description, but is not intended to be exhaustive or limited to the invention
in the form disclosed. Many modifications and variations will be apparent
to those of ordinary skill in the art without departing from the scope and
spirit of the invention.” (Emphasis added)).
4
Appeal 2017-002042
Application 13/567,333
Examiner’s findings, see ARASTAFAR143, in pertinent part:
“Determining familiarity based on the user’s general familiarity with a
particular geographical entity or region obviates the need to collect travel
data and determine travel patterns.” (emphasis added).
Moreover, Appellants admit that ARASTAFAR’s “device is
configured to determine whether a current route is a ‘familiar path’ . . . .”
(App. Br. 6,11. 7—8). Therefore, on this record, and given the strength of the
evidence (ARASTAFAR || 36, 42, Fig. 4; Final Act. 3), we find
Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive regarding contested limitation FI of
claim 1.
Contested Limitation L2 (Claim 1)
[F2] displaying the route in the navigation computing
system without turn by turn directives that have been
removed as part of the familiar segment.
Nevertheless, Appellants reproduce a portion of the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 on page 5 of the Appeal Brief, and conclude:
Thus, Examiner believes that the teaching in Arastafar of the
increasing or decreasing of turn arrows based upon travel
patterns is sufficient to meet the claim language of the
determination of one segment of many segments of a route that
is familiar, removing from that one segment turn by turn
directives, and displaying the route in the navigation computing
system without turn by turn directives that have been removed
as part of the familiar segment. So much is not true.
(App. Br. 5—6).
5
Appeal 2017-002042
Application 13/567,333
Appellants further urge: “the teachings of Arastafar do [not] provide
for the removal from directions of any familiar segment. Instead,
paragraph [0048] simply reduces navigational notifications provided in
supplement to the directions.” (App. Br. 6) (emphasis added).
We disagree. The Examiner finds at least Figure 5 and paragraphs
42 45 of ARASTAFAR teach or suggest the contested limitations. (Final
Act. 3). We note Figure 5 of ARASTAFAR depicts a bottom half portion
expressly labeled: “FAMIFIAR NEIGHBORHOOD (DECREASE
FREQUENCY OF NOTIFICATIONS).” Thus, we find ARASTAFAR’s
Figure 5 and paragraphs 42-45 (see Final Act. 3) teach an embodiment
wherein a single or last notification (i.e., tum-by turn-directive), when
leaving an unfamiliar area, would be decreased to ZERO notifications
(i.e., “directives”) while driving within the familiar area.3
Buttressing the Examiner’s findings, see also adjacent paragraphs 48—
51, describing Figures 6 and 7 of ARASTAFAR. These paragraphs (and
Figures 6 and 7) describe an embodiment in which an advance notification
and a final notification are given regarding an approaching turn onto a
familiar street (i.e., when entering a familiar area). Thus, we find
ARASTAFAR teaches or suggests that, when approaching a familiar area,
and after an advance notification and a final notification, then notifications
(“turn by turn directives”) are suspended (i.e., removed) for the duration of
travel through the familiar area.
3 ARASTAFAR expressly teaches: “The navigation application may
provide a visual notification and/or an audible notification. An example of a
visual notification is a turn arrow 420 (and/or a highlighted path) which
may be depicted onscreen to visually indicate to the user where he should
turn.” Id. 145. (emphasis added).
6
Appeal 2017-002042
Application 13/567,333
We find ARASTAFAR teaches or suggests that notifications are
resumed when the motorist enters another unfamiliar area. See, e.g.,
ARASTAFAR 142, in pertinent part: “Conversely, when the user travels
along a route (or route segment) that is classified (designated) as an
unfamiliar path 310, the frequency of notifications is automatically
increased.” (e.g., from ZERO to one or more notifications/directives).
The Supreme Court guides: “when a patent ‘simply arranges old
elements with each performing the same function it had been known to
perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an
arrangement, the combination is obvious.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (quoting Sakraida v. AgPro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273,
282 (1976)). Moreover, “‘the question under [35 U.S.C. § 103] is not
merely what the references expressly teach but what they would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made.’” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807
(Fed. Cir. 1989), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); see also MPEP § 2123.
We find this guidance is applicable here. Given ARASTAFAR’s
teachings and suggestions, as discussed above, we find a preponderance of
the evidence supports the Examiner’s broader claim construction and
underlying factual findings, as further explained in the “Response to
Arguments” in the Answer (4):
it is well known, common, and widely considered that
removing any item from an original number of items
encompasses decreasing the original number of items to a
different, updated, lower number of items. Therefore, it would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of Applicant’s invention to modify the method of
ARASTAFAR to disclose a navigation computing system with
7
Appeal 2017-002042
Application 13/567,333
the familiar segment without turn by turn directives that have
been removed as part of the segment while providing other turn
by turn directives of the computed route, since it is considered
that decreasing an item encompasses removing it. [4]
(emphasis added).
Moreover, we find removing ARASTAFAR’s tum-by-tum directives
(which would be unnecessary and even annoying while driving through a
familiar area) would have merely been a “predictable use of prior art
elements according to their established functions.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Further, regarding any information that is selectively displayed (i.e.,
displayed, or not displayed), which is intended for human perception, see Ex
parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1889 (BPAI 2008) (precedential) (“[T]he
nature of the information being manipulated does not lend patentability to an
otherwise unpatentable computer-implemented product or process.”). The
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) additionally guides:
“where the claim as a whole is directed [to] conveying a message or
meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system,
and/or the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for
information or data, no functional relationship exists.” MPEP
§ 2111.05 (III.) (9th Ed., Rev. 07.2015, Last Revised Nov. 2015).
Therefore, for at least the aforementioned reasons, we find the
Examiner’s underlying factual findings and legal conclusion of obviousness
are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Because Appellants have
4 Because “applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad
construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or
patentee.” In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (internal citation omitted).
8
Appeal 2017-002042
Application 13/567,333
not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we sustain Rejection A of independent
claim 1. The remaining claims 6, 7, and 12, also rejected under rejection A
and not separately argued, fall with representative claim 1. See Grouping of
Claims, supra.
Remaining Claims rejected under Rejections B and C
For the remaining claims rejected under § 103 Rejections B and C,
Appellants urge “at least for the reasons set forth in connection with claim 1
herein, Appellants seek the reversal of the rejections.” (App. Br. 8).
However, we find Appellants’ contentions regarding rejection A of claim 1
unpersuasive for the reasons discussed supra. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s Rejections B and C of the claims rejected thereunder.
Reply Brief
To the extent Appellants may advance new arguments in the Reply
Brief not in response to a shift in the Examiner’s position in the Answer, we
note arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised in the Appeal
Brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner’s Answer
will not be considered except for good cause, which Appellants have not
shown. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—18 under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
9