Ex Parte Bowman

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 14, 2015

11685912 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GORDON GREGORY BOWMAN
____________

Appeal 2012-005690
Application 11/685,912
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–30, which constitute all the claims pending in this application.1
We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to “techniques for generating map
content on wireless communications devices.” (Spec. ¶ 2.) Claim 1, which

1 The real party in interest identified by Appellant is Research In Motion
Limited. (App. Br. 1.)
Appeal 2012-005690
Application 11/685,912

2
is illustrative, reads as follows, with the disputed limitation emphasized in
italics:
1. A method of displaying a map on a wireless
communications device, the method comprising steps of:
obtaining map data for rendering the map to be displayed
on the wireless communications device, the map data including
label data for rendering a label for identifying a map feature on
the map;
determining whether a curvature of a map element
associated with the map feature exceeds a predetermined
threshold; and
rendering the label on the map in a new map location
that avoids the map location where the curvature exceeds the
predetermined threshold.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims.
Wiley US 6,154,219 Nov. 28, 2000
Pechatnikov US 2003/0229441 A1 Dec. 11, 2003
Morsello US 7,028,260 B1 Apr. 11, 2006

Claims 1–30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wiley, Morsello, and Pechatnikov. (Ans. 4–9.)

Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.” filed Oct. 14, 2011); the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.” filed Feb. 16,
2012); and the Answer (“Ans.” mailed Dec. 20, 2011) for the respective
positions of Appellant and the Examiner.

ISSUE
The issue presented by Appellant’s contentions is whether the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Wiley, Morsello, and
Appeal 2012-005690
Application 11/685,912

3
Pechatnikov teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claim 1 identified
supra.2

ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Wiley teaches “rendering the
label on the map in a map location that avoids the map location where the
curvature of a map element is excessive” (Ans. 5, citing Wiley, col. 1, ll. 41–
49; col. 4, ll. 1–16; col. 14, ll. 5–8). Appellant contends “while Wiley
teaches that the line object label is preferably placed on a straight line
segment, there is nothing in Wiley that teaches or even suggests ‘avoiding
the map location where the curvature of a map element is excessive.’” (App.
Br. 6 (emphasis added).) We agree with Appellant.
Cited portions of Wiley describe avoiding collision of label positions
with map objects (Wiley, col. 4, ll. 1–16; col. 14, ll. 5–8) or “line objects are
preferably labeled with a straight line label, positioned somewhere collinear
with the line” (id. at col. 1, ll. 41–49). The Examiner does not explain how
Wiley’s determining label positions to avoid collision with existing map
objects teaches or suggests positioning a label to avoid a map location where
the curvature of a map element is excessive. (See Ans. 5.) Further, the
Examiner does not provide sufficient evidence or explanation how Wiley’s
“preferred labeling [] in a straight line, which is placed somewhere collinear
with the line” (Ans. 11) teaches or suggests placing a label that avoids a map
location where the curvature of a map element is excessive. (See Ans. 5,

2 Appellant’s arguments raise additional issues. Because the identified issue
is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional issues.
Appeal 2012-005690
Application 11/685,912

4
10–14.) Neither Morsello nor Pechatnikov cures the deficiency of Wiley.
(See, e.g., Ans. 14 (“Morsello does not teach where along the curve labels
should or should not be placed.”) (emphasis added); Ans. 5 (showing the
Examiner relies on Morsello for teaching “detecting the curvature of a path
in order to determine areas of high curvature by comparing the curvature of
the path to a threshold”); Ans. 6 (showing the Examiner relies on
Pechatnikov for teaching “displaying map data information in a wireless
communications device”).) Thus, we do not find the portions of Wiley,
Morsello, and Pechatnikov relied upon by the Examiner teach or suggest the
disputed limitation.
Accordingly, we agree the Examiner erred, as the findings in the
Examiner’s rejections are not sufficient to show the combination of Wiley,
Morsello, and Pechatnikov teaches or suggests all of the limitations of claim
1, and, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wiley, Morsello, and
Pechatnikov together with the rejection of claims 2–24, which depend from
claim 1. Similarly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claim 25, which recites essentially the
same limitation as the disputed limitation of claim 1, together with the
rejection of claims 26–30, which depend from claim 25.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–30 is reversed.

REVERSED

tj