Ex Parte Berus

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2017

13587524 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 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.
13/587,524 08/16/2012 Bernard Berus 042933/421920 2185
139885 7590 08/25/2017
HFRF rT1nha1/Aktnn fr RirH
EXAMINER
Bank of America Plaza TROOST, AARON L
101 South Tryon Street, Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/25/2017 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):
u sptomail @ alston .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BERNARD BERUS
Appeal 2016-004324
Application 13/587,524
Technology Center 3600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, HUNG H. BUI, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6—8, 10, 12, 13, 15—17, 19, and 21—29.
Claims 2, 5, 9, 11, 14, 18, and 20 are cancelled. Final Act. 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2016-004324
Application 13/587,524
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is directed to modification of routes based on
user input. Spec. 11. Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed
limitations in italics, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
causing calculation of a route in a map;
causing presentation of the route or a portion thereof on the
map on a touchscreen display;
sensing user input defining a gesture directed to the route or a
portion thereof presented on the touchscreen display, wherein the
gesture ends at a location along the route and indicates both the
location along the route to avoid and a user preference defining at
least a desired degree of avoidance of the location;
determining, by a processor, in response to the user input and
based at least in part on the location and the user preference, a
modified route, wherein the desired degree of avoidance of the
location corresponds to a desired distance the user would like the
modified route to be away from the location', and
causing presentation of the modified route or a portion thereof
on the map on the touchscreen display.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 6—8, 10, 13, 15—17, 19, and 22—29 stand rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of
Boschker et al. (US 2013/0211719 Al; published Aug. 15, 2013)
(“Boschker”) and Risov et al. (US 2010/0004858 Al; published Jan. 7,
2010) (“Risov”).
2
Appeal 2016-004324
Application 13/587,524
Claims 3, 12, and 21 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Boschker, Risov, and
Momeyer et al. (US 8,432,368 B2; issued Apr. 30, 2013) (“Momeyer”).
ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Boschker
and Risov teaches or suggests “wherein the desired degree of avoidance of
the location corresponds to a desired distance the user would like the
modified route to be away from the location,” as recited in independent
claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claims 10 and 19?
Appellant argues Risov
teaches inputting a box to define an exclusion area, which really
is no different than the wipe gesture of Boschker when
concerned with where the route is to avoid. To explain, like the
wipe gesture of Boschker, there is no indication as to a desired
distance away from the box of Risov in which to modify the
route.
App. Br. 7; see Reply Br. 2—3.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments and agree with the
Examiner’s findings. See Final Act. 3^4; Ans. 2—5. Boschker teaches the
ability to “readily specify a change to the proposed route by directly
indicating an area to be avoided on the displayed map.” Boschker 1184. A
user may do so by using a wiping motion, or other touch based gestures, to
indicate the area to be avoided. Id. Tflf 184, 190-192, 195, Figs. 9—11.
Although Boschker teaches a “desired degree of avoidance of the location,”
the Examiner finds Boschker does not explicitly teach, but relies on Risov
for teaching, “wherein the desired degree of avoidance of the location
3
Appeal 2016-004324
Application 13/587,524
corresponds to a desired distance the user would like the modified route to
be away from the location.” Ans. 3^4. Risov describes excluding
undesirable geographical areas or locations from potential route paths during
route creation. Risov 11. A user may identify an area that the user desires
not to be included in the route, and define the exclusion area by boundary
parameters, e.g., a defined radial distance from a location, such as by a box.
Risov 114, Fig. 3. For the reasons set forth by the Examiner (Ans. 3—4), we
agree with the Examiner that the exclusion area defined by a radial distance
from a location as taught in Risov, as combined with the teachings in
Boschker, teach or suggest the disputed limitation.
Appellant further argues “the Examiner’s combination of Risov and
Boschker in the attempted manner is improper” because “Risov is limited to
route generation, not modification of an existing route.” App. Br. 7.
We are not persuaded. “The test for obviousness is what the
combined teachings of [prior art] references would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art.” In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
In this case, the Examiner provides articulated reasoning with rational
underpinnings to combine the references, consistent with the guidelines in
KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) {see Ans. 3-5), and
Appellant’s arguments fail to persuasively explain any error in that
reasoning. Moreover, as the Examiner points out, Risov is merely relied
upon “for setting an exclusion area, regardless of whether it is used for
initial route generation or modifying an initial route.” See Ans. 5. Likewise,
Appellant has not provided evidence that combining the teachings in
Boschker and Risov was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art,” or that such a combination “represented an
4
Appeal 2016-004324
Application 13/587,524
unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price,
Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claims 1, 10, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same
reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent
claims 6—8, 15—17, and 23—29, which were not separately argued.
Issue 2\ Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of
Boschker, Risov, and Momeyer teaches or suggests
wherein sensing user input comprises sensing user input
comprising a point and twist gesture, wherein a position of the
point of the user input indicates the location along the route to
avoid, and wherein a degree of the twist of the user input
indicates the desired degree of avoidance of the location,
as recited in dependent claim 3 and commensurately recited in dependent
claims 12 and 21?
Appellant argues
the mere disclosure of a ‘twist’ gesture does not account for the
specific claim feature that maps a specific ‘point and twist’
gesture to the two indications of the user input necessary for the
claim. Indeed, the claims require that the ‘point’ indicates the
location on the route and the ‘twist’ indicates the desired
degree of avoidance.
App. Br. 8.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments and agree with the
Examiner’s findings. See Final Act. 7; Ans. 5. The Examiner finds
Momeyer, as combined with Boschker and Risov, teaches or suggests the
5
Appeal 2016-004324
Application 13/587,524
disputed limitation. Final Act. 7. Momeyer teaches “a gesture, such as a
tap, squeeze, swipe or twist.” Momeyer Abstract. The Examiner explains
[p]oint and twist gestures are known in the art. . . . One of
ordinary skill in the art, knowing that different input techniques
are available, could have substituted the input of Boschker
and/or Risov with an alternative input gesture, such as a point
and twist input gesture . . . [which] would have yielded the
predictable result of enabling one-hand operation of the device
to set an avoidance area around a location.
Ans. 5.
Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence or explanation
showing the Examiner’s asserted combination is anything other than a
combination of familiar elements yielding no more than predictable results.
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416-417. We find that the Examiner has articulated
how the claimed features are met by the proposed combination of the
reference teachings with some rational underpinning, consistent with the
guidelines stated in KSR.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
dependent claims 3, 12, and 21.
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Boschker
and Risov teaches or suggests
wherein sensing user input comprises sensing user input
comprising a reverse pinch gesture defined by two fingers of
the user, wherein a center point defined by the two fingers of
the user input indicates the location along the route to avoid,
and wherein a distance of travel of the two fingers of the user
input indicates the desired degree of avoidance of the location,
6
Appeal 2016-004324
Application 13/587,524
as recited in dependent claim 4 and commensurately recited in dependent
claims 13 and 22?
Appellant argues
the disclosure of Boschker details two pinch points for defining
an area and the disclosure of Risov details a center point for
indicating an exclusion point. This, however, fails to map the
“distance of travel of the two finsers of the user input’ to ‘the
desired degree of avoidance of the location. ”
App. Br. 8.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments and agree with the
Examiner’s findings. See Final Act. 5; Ans. 6. The Examiner finds the
combination of Boschker and Risov teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation. Final Act. 5. Boschker teaches “multi-touch gesture[s]”
including “pinch points.” Boschker 1190. The Examiner explains
[r]averse pinch gestures are known in the art. . . . One of
ordinary skill in the art, knowing that different input techniques
are available, could have substituted the particular input of
Boschker and/or Risov with an alternative input gesture, such
as a reverse pinch gesture . . . [which] would have yielded the
predictable result of enabling one-hand operation of the device
to set an avoidance area around a location.
Ans. 6.
Similar to claim 3 above, Appellant has not provided persuasive
evidence or explanation showing the Examiner’s asserted combination is
anything other than a combination of familiar elements yielding no more
than predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416-417. We find that the
Examiner has articulated how the claimed features are met by the proposed
combination of the reference teachings with some rational underpinning,
consistent with the guidelines stated in KSR.
7
Appeal 2016-004324
Application 13/587,524
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
dependent claims 4, 13, and 22.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 1, 3, 4, 6—8, 10, 12, 13, 15—17, 19, and 21—29 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8