Ex Parte Celli et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 10, 2016

12520784 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/520,784 0612212009
35525 7590 08/12/2016
IBM CORP (YA)
C/O YEE & AS SOCIA TES PC
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Massimiliano Celli
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
FR920060061US1 1968
EXAMINER
TISSOT, ADAM D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/12/2016 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):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
mgamez@yeeiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
L11'-~ITED STATES PATENT AND TRADE~'v1ARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MASSIMILIANO CELLI, LUIGI PICHETTI,
MARCO SECCHI, and MARCELLO VALA TI
Appeal2013-009524
Application 12/520,784
Technology Center 3600
Before LINDA E. HORNER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Massimiliano Celli et al. (Appellants) 1 seek our review under
35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20, which are
all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as International Business
Machines Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2013-009524
Application 12/520,784
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' claimed subject matter relates to "presentation of real
time status information associated with a particular location to a user."
Spec. 1, 11. 6-7. Claims 1, 7, and 9 are independent claims. Claim 1 is
reproduced below.
1. A method of presenting real time status information
associated with a particular location to a user, said method
compnsmg:
determining a location for which associated real time
status information is to be provided;
identifying an entry in a database of locations as associated
with said location, the database of locations being maintained in
a computer memory;
a computer extracting from said entry a reference to a real
time status information source;
the computer retrieving real time status information from
said source; and
presenting said real time status information to said user
using a computer display.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied upon the following evidence:
Tamai
Ceylan
Endo
Sakamoto
Kreft
She ha
us 5,608,635
us 6,144,919
US 6,278,940B1
US 2001/0026276 Al
US 2005/0251331 Al
US 7,082,365 B2
REJECTIONS
Mar. 4, 1997
Nov. 7, 2000
Aug. 21, 2001
Oct. 4, 2001
Nov. 10, 2005
July 25, 2006
Appellants appeal from the Final Action, dated November 9, 2012
("Final Act."), which contained the following rejections:
2
Appeal2013-009524
Application 12/520,784
1. Claims 1-10, 14, 15, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sakamoto.
2. Claims 11, 13, 16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sakamoto and either Tamai, or Ceylan, or Endo.
3. Claims 12 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Sakamoto and either Sheha or Kreft.
ANALYSIS
First Ground of Rejection
Independent claims 1, 7, and 9
Appellants present arguments for independent claims 1, 7, and 9 as a
group. Appeal Br. 6-9. We select claim 1 as representative, and claims 7
and 9 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants argue that Sakamoto does not disclose or render obvious
the steps of "identifying an entry in a database of locations as associated
with said location" and "extracting from said entry a reference to a real time
status information source" as called for in each of independent claims 1, 7,
and 9. Appeal Br. 6-7. The Examiner found that Sakamoto discloses the
identifying step. Final Act. 7 (citing Sakamoto, paras. 19, 138, 149, and
159). The Examiner further found that although "Sakamoto does not
specifically disclose extracting a reference from the database entry,
Sakamoto teaches that the map data arranging part integrates two sources of
information - the map data storage part and the communications part." Id. at
8 (citing Sakamoto, para. 141). The Examiner further found that "[i]t is well
known in the art that databases must contain reference links or flags that
point to other relevant data." Id. The Examiner determined that "[i]t would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that in order to integrate
3
Appeal2013-009524
Application 12/520,784
the two sources (i.e., data from the map needs to be associated with
incoming communicated data for that map section), a reference/flag/pointer
must be extracted to improve navigational guidance." Id. The Examiner
found, in the alternative, that when Sakamoto' s parking lot information ID
refers to the link data, "it is equivalent to identifying an entry in a database
of locations that is associated with the location" and that "the [parking lot]
availability information is the reference extracted from the entry." Id. (citing
Sakamoto, para. 159).
Sakamoto discloses a map display device that receives external
information, converts the information into applicable object models, and
arranges the object models in a map space for display so as to allow a user to
"intuitively understand time-varying information," such as information
about traffic jams and various information available from the Internet.
Sakamoto, para. 131. The device includes an input part 2, a map data
storage part 3, a map data arranging part 4, a display 5, an object model
display information storage part 6, and a communications part 7. Id. at para.
136. Sakamoto discloses that "[t]he communications part 7
transmits/receives information to/from an external system typically through
the Internet." Id. at para. 139 (emphasis added, boldface omitted). The map
data arranging part 4 arranges the map using map data stored in map data
storage part 3, information provided by communications part 7, and
information stored in object model display information storage part 6. Id. at
para. 141. Sakamoto describes, in pertinent art, the process used by map
data arranging part 4 as it relates to information in communications part 7:
[T]he map data arranging part 4 reads time-varying
communications information from the communications part 7.
As [it] is time-varying, the communications information needs to
4
Appeal2013-009524
Application 12/520,784
be read at least once from an external information source via the
communications part 7. In this sense, the communications
information is unlike general landmark information only about
location and shape of landmark buildings .
. . . [T]he map data arranging part 4 determines whether there is
any communications information read by the communications
part 7, and if any, determines whether a map image covers
corresponding coordinates included in the communications
information. If there is no communications information, or if the
map image does not cover such coordinates, this is the end of
subroutine step S 13, and the procedure returns to the main
routine.
Id. at paras. 150, 165 (emphasis added, boldface omitted).
Based on the above disclosures, we understand the map display device
of Sakamoto to display time-varying information, along with static
information, on a map. Sakamoto discloses that communications part 7
transmits/receives information to/from an external system typically through
the Internet (id. at para. 139), and that communications part 7 "reads"
information "from an external information source" (id. at para. 150). Based
on this understanding of the device of Sakamoto, we agree with the
Examiner's finding that Sakamoto' s communications part 7 retrieves real
time status information from a real time status information source (e.g., via
the Internet). We disagree with Appellants' characterization of Sakamoto as
teaching a "push-model for acquiring data, where data is received in an
unsolicited fashion." Appeal Br. 8-9 (emphasis and footnote omitted)
(citing Sakamoto, paras. 165, 178). As noted supra, paragraphs 139, 150,
and 165 of Sakamoto describe that communications part 7 reads the time-
varying information from an external information source via the Internet.
Paragraph 178 describes how map data arranging part 4 reads information
5
Appeal2013-009524
Application 12/520,784
from communications part 7. This paragraph does not describe how
communications part 7 receives the time-varying information from the
external source and does not support Appellants' contention that data is
pushed to communications part 7. We understand Sakamoto to disclose that
communications part 7 actively retrieves (i.e., reads) the time-varying
information from the external source.
Appellants contend that Sakamoto's time-varying information
contained in communications part 7 is not "real time status information" that
is associated with a particular location. Appeal Br. 6. We disagree with
Appellants' characterization of Sakamoto. In particular, Sakamoto discloses
that communications part 7 contains real time information, such as current
traffic information, current emergency information, current parking lot
availability information, and current landmark information, including
advertisement information. Sakamoto, paras. 151-163 (describing details of
time-varying information depicted in Figure 4), paras. 177-179 (describing
format of time-varying information depicted in Figures 9 and 10), Figs. 4, 9,
10. We see no patentable difference between this current information
disclosed in Sakamoto and the claimed "real time status information." See
Spec. 11, 11. 25-28 (describing that "real time reflects the fact that the status
information handled by the invention is generally inclined to be dynamic and
to change over time to reflect the changes in status of the POI in question"
and allowing for some "delay between the change of status itself and the
corresponding change of value of the status information").
To the extent Appellants contend that Sakamoto' s real time
information is not "status" information, we also disagree with this
characterization of Sakamoto. The Examiner's finding that Sakamoto's
6
Appeal2013-009524
Application 12/520,784
communication part 7 retrieves status information, such as parking lot
availability information (Sakamoto, para. 159), is supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Further, the Examiner's finding that this parking lot availability
information is associated with a particular location is supported by a
preponderance of the evidence. In particular, Sakamoto discloses that
"parking lot availability information is composed of a parking lot
information ID and link data." Sakamoto, para. 159. Sakamoto further
describes:
The link data typically includes location information, a parking
lot ID, and availability information. The parking lot information
ID is an information identification number for identifying that
the accompanying link data is the parking lot information. The
location information indicates where the parking lot is located.
The parking lot ID is a facility number assigned to the parking
lot. The availability information indicates the availability level
of the parking lot.
Id. Sakamoto further discloses that the map data arranging part 4 will
execute creation of an object model to display the time-varying information
about the point of interest (e.g., the parking lot availability information for a
nearby parking lot) when the vehicle nears the point of interest. Sakamoto,
paras. 167-171, Fig. 6.
We agree with the Examiner that Sakamoto' s "link data is equivalent
to the claimed 'entry."' Final Act. 8. For example, in the case of parking lot
availability information, Sakamoto' s link data includes information about
where the parking lot is located, and thus it is an entry associated with the
location. Sakamoto extracts from this entry a reference to a parking lot ID,
which is a real time status information source, and retrieves real time status
information (e.g., availability level of the parking lot) from the source.
7
Appeal2013-009524
Application 12/520,784
Further, Sakamoto discloses providing the object model on the display when
the vehicle nears the parking lot. Appellants contend that Sakamoto does
not disclose using the extracted reference to retrieve real time status
information. Appeal Br. 7. This argument is not commensurate with the
scope of claims 1, 7, and 9, which simply recite "retrieving real time status
information from said source" and which do not recite using the extracted
reference to a real time status information source to do so.
Appellants further argue that the Examiner erred in finding that
Sakamoto inherently stores the parking lot availability information in a
database. Id. at 6-7 (arguing that "such information is directly accessed by
the map data arranging part from the communication part (paragraph [0150])
without any use of a database"). As we found supra, Sakamoto discloses the
communication part 7 reads the time-varying information from an external
information source. We agree with the Examiner that implicit in this
disclosure is that Sakamoto' s communication part 7 must store this read
information in some known manner so that it may be read by the map data
arranging part. Ans. 6. We further agree with the Examiner that databases
were known at the time of Appellants' invention (id.) and that "[i]t is well
known in the art that databases must contain reference links or flags that
point to other relevant data" (Final Act. 8). We agree with the Examiner's
finding that it is inherent in Sakamoto that the time-varying information read
by communications part 7 is stored in a database. Ans. 7-8. Even if such a
disclosure is not inherent in Sakamoto, we are not persuaded that the act of
storing the time-varying information in a well-known database in the manner
claimed is more than the predictable use of a prior art element according to
its established function. KSR!nt'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550U.S. 398, 417
8
Appeal2013-009524
Application 12/520,784
(2007) ("a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the
predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
functions").
For these reasons, Appellants have not demonstrated error in the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 7, and 9. Appellants also have not
presented any further arguments for patentability of claims 2 and 3, which
depend from claim 1, and of claim 10, which depends from claim 9. As
such, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 7, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
Claims 4, 5, and 8
Appellants argue claims 4, 5, and 8 as a group. Appeal Br. 9-10. We
select claim 4 as representative, and claims 5 and 8 stand or fall with claim
4. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claim 4 recites, "wherein identifying an
entry in said database of locations as associated with said location involves
determining whether said entry concerns a position physically proximate
with said location." Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). The Examiner found that
Sakamoto discloses "interact[ing] with the electronic storage of locations to
determine when the user is physically proximate to a subject location" and
determined that it would have been obvious to modify Sakamoto to include
proximate location information in the database to improve navigational
guidance. Final Act. 9-10 (citing Sakamoto, paras. 161, 162, 171 ).
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in finding that Sakamoto
describes a "database of locations." Appeal Br. 10. We find this argument
does not demonstrate error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 4 for the
same reasons described above in our analysis of the "database of locations"
argument as it relates to claim 1.
9
Appeal2013-009524
Application 12/520,784
Appellants further argue that the cited passages in Sakamoto
"describe[] how 'object models' are displayed" and not "determining
whether said entry concerns a position physically proximate with said
location." Id. As noted by the Examiner (Ans. 8), paragraph 171 of
Sakamoto describes that map data arranging part 4 executes creation of an
object model once the device determines that the vehicle comes close to a
predetermined distance range from the point of interest (e.g., parking lot,
landmark, traffic jam, etc.). Further, as we found supra, map data arranging
part 4 reads the time-varying information from communications part 7 as
part of the process of creating the object model. In order to determine which
parking lot information within communications part 7 to display, Sakamoto
must identify the appropriate entry from among all parking lot locations in
communications part 7 by determining whether the entry concerns a position
physically proximate with said location of the vehicle. As such, the
Examiner's findings as to Sakamoto are supported by a preponderance of the
evidence. For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 4, and of
claims 5 and 8, which fall with claim 4, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites, "wherein said reference to a real time status
information source is an Internet address, and wherein said step of retrieving
real time status information from said source involves interrogating the
internet server identified by said internet address." Appeal Br. 18 (Claims
App.). Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Sakamoto
discloses or renders obvious using an internet address to retrieve the real
time status information. Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 6.
10
Appeal2013-009524
Application 12/520,784
The Examiner responds that "Sakamoto discloses that information can
be obtained from the internet (an internet 'address' is inherent)" and "as
obtaining information from the internet requires an address, it also requires a
source at the address to receive and transmit information" and thus, "it
would ... have been obvious that a server (referred to via the internet
address) would be interrogated to retrieve the desired information)." Ans. 8.
For the reasons described above in the analysis of claim 1, we
disagree with Appellants' characterization of Sakamoto as being a system in
which information is pushed to communications part 7. Rather, we agree
with the Examiner's reading of Sakamoto as disclosing a device in which
communications part 7 reads time-varying informationfrom an external
source via the internet. Sakamoto, para. 139. We further agree with the
Examiner's determination based on the Examiner's reasoning set forth above
that using an internet address to interrogate an external source to retrieve the
time-varying information would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art in light of the disclosure of Sakamoto. As such, we sustain
the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 14 and 19
Appellants argue claims 14 and 19 as a group. Appeal Br. 12-13. We
select claim 14 as representative, and claim 19 stands or falls with claim 14.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claim 14 recites, "wherein the step of
retrieving real time status information from said source is performed in
response to determining status of a vehicle that the user is located in."
Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.). The Examiner found that Sakamoto discloses
the limitation of claim 14 in that "'status of a vehicle' includes location of
11
Appeal2013-009524
Application 12/520,784
said vehicle" and paragraph 171 of Sakamoto discloses interacting with the
database based on location of the vehicle. Final Act. 11.
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred because Sakamoto' s
paragraph 171 describes object model display information that is processed
after the status information has been pushed to communications part 7.
Appeal Br. 12. We do not find this argument to demonstrate error in the
Examiner's finding because, for the same reasons discussed above in the
analysis of claim 1, we disagree with Appellants that Sakamoto pushes
information to communications part 7. As such, we sustain the rejection of
claims 14 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 15 and 20
Appellants argue claims 15 and 20 as a group. Appeal Br. 13. We
select claim 15 as representative, and claim 20 stands or falls with claim 15.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claim 15 recites, "wherein a definition file is
associated with the entry and defines a format that is used in presenting said
real time status information to said user." Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.).
The Examiner found that the format used to present real time status
information to the user is an obvious matter of design choice, and further
found that Sakamoto discloses "modifying the display based on the type of
information obtained and presented to the user." Final Act. 11; Ans. 9
(citing Sakamoto, Figs. 22, 28-32).
Appellants contend that the Examiner's findings fail to account for the
claimed association of the definition file with the database entry. Reply
Br. 7-8. Sakamoto discloses, however, a definition file (see, e.g., Fig. 27)
that includes specific images used for specific types of information and
different sizes of images based on the distance between the vehicle and the
12
Appeal2013-009524
Application 12/520,784
point of interest. Thus, in the case, for example, where a parking lot is the
point of interest, and the entry (i.e., link data for a particular parking lot) in
the database is identified based on the vehicle's location, then according to
Sakamoto' s device, the map display device would display an image of the
parking lot availability information using a particular size of the image based
on the location of the vehicle in relation to the parking lot. Sakamoto
discloses that "a plurality of image files are prepared as 2D shape
information included in the object model display information." Sakamoto,
para. 236. This image file corresponds to the claimed "definition file" and is
associated with the entry (link data) for the particular parking lot of interest.
For these reasons, the Examiner's finding that Sakamoto discloses the
limitation of claim 15 is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. As
such, we sustain the rejection of claims 15 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Second Ground of Re} ection
Appellants argue claims 11, 13, 16, and 18 as a group. Appeal Br. 14.
We select claim 11 as representative, and claims 13, 16, and 18 stand or fall
with claim 11. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claim 11 recites, "wherein the
entry is associated with a category, and the steps of extracting, retrieving and
presenting are performed responsive to a determination that the category has
been selected for display by said user." Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.). The
Examiner found that "it is well known to associate map database information
via category and selecting a category for display based on specific action of
the user to select the category" and determined that it would have been
obvious to modify Sakamoto to include this well-known feature. Final
Act. 12.
13
Appeal2013-009524
Application 12/520,784
Appellants argue that
there would have been no reason . . . to modify the teachings of
Sakamoto to either 'extract' a reference to an information source
or 'retrieve' information from such 'extracted' source responsive
to a category-selection since the alleged information that is
displayed has already been provided by the communication part
7 as a part of its push-based architecture prior to any such alleged
user selection of a category.
Appeal Br. 14. We do not find this argument to demonstrate error in the
Examiner's finding because, for the same reasons discussed above in the
analysis of claim 1, we disagree with Appellants that Sakamoto pushes
information to communications part 7. As such, we sustain the second
ground of rejection of claims 11, 13, 16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Third Ground of Rejection
Appellants argue that claims 12 and 17 are patentable for the same
reasons presented in support of claim 11. Appeal Br. 15. We do not find
these arguments persuasive for the reasons set forth above. As such, we
sustain the third ground of rejection of claims 12 and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ l.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
14