Ex Parte Chapman et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 17, 2016

13194822 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2016)

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.
13/194,822 07/29/2011 Craig H. Chapman 480234.406C1 1678
500 7590 05/17/2016
SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC
701 FIFTH AVE
SUITE 5400
SEATTLE, WA 98104
EXAMINER
MOYER, DALE S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3664
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/17/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CRAIG H. CHAPMAN, OLIVER B. DOWNS,
ALEC BARKER, MITCHEL A. BURNS JR., and
SCOTT R. LOVE
____________

Appeal 2014-0040231,2
Application 13/194,822
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 11, 14, 17, 18, 21, 24–27, 37–40, 45–48, 52, 57, 58, 60–
62, 66–86. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Our decision references Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed July 29,
2011), Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed July 12, 2013), and Reply Brief
(“Reply Br.,” filed Jan. 14, 2014), as well as the Final Office Action (“Final
Action,” mailed Feb. 12, 2013) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,”
mailed Nov. 21, 2013).
2 “The real party in interest is Inrix, Inc.” Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2014-004023
Application 13/194,822

2

According to Appellants, the invention is directed “to techniques for
assessing traffic-related data, such as by filtering mobile data source data
samples that are inappropriate for roads of interest.” Spec. ¶ 3. Independent
claims 11 and 52 are under appeal. We reproduce, below, independent
claims 11 and 52 as representative of the appealed claims.
11. A computer-implemented method for assessing data
samples representing vehicles traveling on roads, the method
comprising:
receiving an indication of one or more segments of one or
more roads, each road segment having multiple associated data
samples that each are reported by one of multiple vehicles and
indicate a reported location of the vehicle that corresponds to the
road segment; and
for a first road segment of the one or more road segments,
automatically determining, by one or more configured
computing systems, that the multiple data samples associated
with the first road segment are not of interest based at least in
part on identifying the first road segment as being of a functional
road class that is not of interest; and
providing, by the one or more configured computing
systems, one or more indications to exclude the multiple data
samples associated with the first road segment from later use, to
enable other data samples to be available for use in facilitating
travel.
52. A non-transitory computer-readable medium
having stored contents that configure a computing device to
assess data samples representing traveling vehicles, by
performing a method comprising:
receiving, by the configured computing device, an
indication of multiple data samples that reflect reported travel
characteristics of multiple vehicles traveling on one or more
roads, the reported travel characteristics for the multiple data
samples reflecting locations of the multiple vehicles;
Appeal 2014-004023
Application 13/194,822

3

automatically determining, by the configured computing
device, that a first road of the one or more roads is not of interest
based at least in part on an amount of assessed variability in
vehicle traffic on the first road during one or more days;
automatically determining, by the configured computing
device, to exclude, from further use, a first group of one or more
data samples of the multiple data samples as being
unrepresentative of actual vehicle travel of interest on the one or
more roads, the determining to exclude being based at least in
part on the data samples of the first group corresponding to
vehicle traffic on the first road; and
providing one or more indications that the data samples of
the first group are unrepresentative of the actual vehicle travel of
interest on the one or more roads, to enable other of the multiple
data samples that are not in the first group to be available for use
in facilitating travel on the one or more roads.
Appeal Br., Claims App.

REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART3
The Examiner rejects claim 11, 14, 39, and 40 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Vieweg (US 6,067,501, iss. May 23, 2000).
The Examiner rejects claims 52, 60, and 73–78 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by, or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over, Yamane (US 2005/0043880 A1, pub. Feb. 24, 2005).
The Examiner rejects claims 57 and 58 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamane and Fagan4 (WO 2005/088578 A1, pub. Sept. 22,
2005).
See Answer 2–3; see also Final Action 7–8, 17–19, 21–25.

3 We note that the Examiner withdraws a number of rejections made in the
Final Action. See Answer 2–3.
4 We refer to the WO publication by the sole inventor’s surname.
Appeal 2014-004023
Application 13/194,822

4

ANALYSIS
Anticipation rejection of claims 11, 14, 39, and 40
Independent claim 11 recites
for a first road segment of the one or more road segments,
automatically determining, by one or more configured
computing systems, that the multiple data samples associated
with the first road segment are not of interest based at least in
part on identifying the first road segment as being of a functional
road class that is not of interest; and
providing, by the one or more configured computing
systems, one or more indications to exclude the multiple data
samples associated with the first road segment from later use, to
enable other data samples to be available for use in facilitating
travel.
Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphases added). Appellants argue the rejection
is in error because Vieweg does not teach the claimed “providing” step. See
Appeal Br. 25–27. In response, the Examiner finds that, with respect to
Vieweg’s processor 6 (that the Examiner finds determines that multiple data
samples associated with a first road segment are not of interest based at least
in part on identifying the first road segment as being of a functional road
class that is not of interest (see Final Action 7)), “it is inherent that device
processor 6 (see Vieweg, Fig. 2, element 6) is provided with software
commands for indicating the received traffic samples which are to be
excluded,” and further references Vieweg’s column 2, lines 14–21,
column 4, lines 15–46, and column 6, lines 11–15 (Answer 4; see also id.
at 3–4).
Initially, we determine that Vieweg does not anticipate the claim even
if we agree with the Examiner that “processor 6 . . . is provided with
software commands for indicating the received traffic samples which are to
Appeal 2014-004023
Application 13/194,822

5

be excluded” (Answer 4); rather, inasmuch as the Examiner equates
processor 6 with the claimed “one or more configured computing systems,”
processor 6 itself must provide the indication to exclude data. To the extent
that the Examiner finds that Vieweg’s processor 6 inherently (i.e.,
necessarily) “provide[s] . . . software commands for indicating the received
traffic samples which are to be excluded,” we disagree with the Examiner. It
may be, for example, that another system that is separate from processor 6
provides to processor 6 the indication to exclude the multiple data samples
associated with the first road segment from later use, as claimed.
Further, none of the portions of Vieweg identified by the Examiner
expressly describes that it is processor 6 that provides any indication to
exclude multiple data samples associated with a first road segment from later
use. For example, the referenced portion of column 2 discusses automatic
selection of relevant information without discussion as to which system
determines whether the information is relevant. The identified portion of
Vieweg’s column 4 states, in relevant part, that “the processor 6 is then able
to act upon a communications device 9, which is also connected to the data
bus 5, in order to transmit the determined traffic data to a data collection
point or to cause the received traffic information to be stored or suppressed.”
However, it is unclear whether processor 6 provides any indication (such as
to device 9) to exclude data from later use, or whether processor 6 simply
fails to send the to-be-excluded data, or whether processor 6 passes along an
indication (provided by another device) for device 9 to exclude data, for
example. Finally, the noted portion of Vieweg’s column 6 does not discuss
that processor 6 provides any indication to exclude data.
Appeal 2014-004023
Application 13/194,822

6

Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the anticipation
rejection of claim 11. Inasmuch as we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 11, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claims
14, 39, and 40 that depend from claim 11.
Anticipation and obviousness rejections of claims 52, 57, 58, 60,
and 73–78
Independent claim 52 recites “automatically determining, by the
configured computing device, that a first road of the one or more roads is
not of interest based at least in part on an amount of assessed variability in
vehicle traffic on the first road during one or more days.” Appeal Br.,
Claims App. (emphases added). Appellants contend the rejection is in error
because, contrary to the Examiner’s findings (see Final Action 17–18),
Yamane does not teach the claimed “determining” step (see, e.g., Appeal
Br. 10–13).
We note that the Examiner does not respond to Appellants’
contentions in the Appeal Brief regarding Yamane and the claimed
“determining” step. Regardless, based on our review of Yamane, we find
that although Yamane may disclose excluding specific traffic information
having “abnormal values” (see Appeal Br. 11; see also Final Action 17–18),
and even assuming that Yamane’s traffic information having abnormal
values teaches the claimed “assessed variability in vehicle traffic” (see
Appeal Br. 12), the Examiner still fails to establish by a preponderance of
the evidence that Yamane discloses “determining . . . that a first road is not
of interest based at least in part on an amount of assessed variability in
vehicle traffic” (see id.). Rather, as stated above, it appears that in Yamane
at most abnormal traffic information regarding the road is excluded, but the
Appeal 2014-004023
Application 13/194,822

7

Examiner does not establish that Yamane determines that the road itself is
not of interest because of variations in vehicle traffic.
Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the anticipation or
obvious rejection of claim 52, inasmuch as the Examiner relies on Yamane
to teach the claimed “determining” step for each rejection. Further, because
we do not sustain any rejection of independent claim 52, we do not sustain
any rejection of claims 57, 58, 60, and 73–78 that depend from claim 11.

DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections of claims 11, 14, 17, 18, 21,
24–27, 37–40, 45–48, 52, 57, 58, 60–62, 66–86 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b)
and 103(a).

REVERSED