Ex Parte Cubillo

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 11, 2016

11612695 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111612,695 12/19/2006
25537 7590 04/13/2016
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Pedro A. Cubillo
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.
20060199 6570
EXAMINER
MANCHO, RONNIE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3664
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/13/2016 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):
patents@verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PEDRO A. CUBILLO
Appeal2014-004629
Application 11/612,695 1
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFERD. BAHR, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pedro A. Cubillo (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-22. We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2015).
1 According to the Appellant, the real party in interest is Verizon
Communications Inc. and its subsidiary companies (see Appeal Br. 3).
Appeal2014-004629
Application 11/612,695
We AFFIRM.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
SUMMARY OF INVENTION
The Appellant's invention relates to a computerized map application
in which the user may customize contents of displayed maps. Spec. 2 i-f 14.
Claims 1, 12, and 15 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system comprising:
a map subsystem configured to:
provide data representative of a map to an access
device communicatively coupled to said map subsystem, the
map being representative of a geographic area,
search landmark data stored by a landmark data
subsystem to identify landmark data representative of
landmarks located within the geographic area,
use the identified landmark data to generate at least
one seiectabie iandmark option to be included in a iandmark
selection tool,
provide the landmark selection tool to the access
device, the landmark selection tool including the at least one
selectable landmark option,
detect a user selection of the at least one selectable
landmark option, and
provide, in response to the user selection, at least
one visual indicator of the at least one landmark for display on
the map.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal:
2
Appeal2014-004629
Application 11/612,695
Paulauskas
Yamada
US 2003/0191578 Al
US 2007 /0032947 Al
REJECTIONS
Oct. 9, 2003
Feb. 8,2007
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102( e) as being anticipated by Paulauskas.
Claims 3, 5, 7, 11-14, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Paulauskas in view of Yamada.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 15-17, and 19
The Examiner finds that Paulauskas discloses all of the elements of
independent claim 1. Final Action 2-3, 12-13. More specifically, the
Examiner finds that the Paulauskas navigation system 110 located in vehicle
111 searches geographic databases 162 for landmark data 169 (points of
interest)2 representative of landmarks located within a geographic region in
which the vehicle is traveling, uses landmark data 169 to generate a list of
selectable landmark categories 362 (list of a plurality of different categories
of points of interest) to be included in a landmark selection tool 360 (menu),
and provides the landmark selection tool-including the selectable landmark
categories-to an access device 110 (navigation system). Id. (citing inter
alia Paulauskas i-f 4 7).
The Appellant argues that Paulauskas fails to disclose generation of a
list of landmark categories "based on 'at least one landmark located within
2 Parentheticals refer to the terminology of Paulauskas.
3
Appeal2014-004629
Application 11/612,695
the geographic area."' Appeal Br. 9. The Appellant further argues that the
Paulauskas category list may include categories "for which no locations are
included within the geographic area." Id.
The Examiner responds that claim 1 includes no recitations that 1) the
generation of a list of landmark categories be "generated based on" at least
one landmark located within the geographic area, or 2) such list not include
landmarks for which no location is present within the geographic area.
Answer 4--5. The Examiner further responds that Paulauskas does, in fact,
disclose the generation of a list of landmark categories based on at least one
landmark located in the geographic area. Id. at 5 (citing inter alia
Paulauskas i-f 38).
The Appellant replies by reiterating that Paulauskas fails to disclose
"generating the selection option based on landmark data generated from an
identified landmark data from within the geographic area," and by
attempting to differentiate the cited reference by stating "the seiection
system of Paulauskas is independent of the particular geographic location in
which the system is located." Reply Br. 3.
We are not persuaded by the Appellant's arguments. Paulauskas
discloses that its "list of point of interest categories is generated by the point
of interest selection routine 340 using the facility type data (269(5) in FIG.
4)from the point of interest data 169 from the geographic database 162."
Paulauskas i-f 47 (emphasis added). Paulauskas further discloses that "[t]he
point of interest data 169 includes a plurality of data records 269 each of
which includes data about a separate point of interest located in the
coverage area of the geographic database 162." Id. i-f 38 (emphasis added).
Moreover, Paulauskas discloses landmark data 169 representative of
4
Appeal2014-004629
Application 11/612,695
landmarks located within a geographic region in which vehicle 111 is
traveling. Paulauskas i-f 30. Because the list of landmark categories included
within the Paulauskas selection tool is taken from landmarks (that is, points
of interest) existent in the coverage area, the list is based on data generated
from identified landmarks. Paulauskas, therefore, discloses each of the
recitations of claim 1.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 1 as being anticipated by Paulauskas.
With respect to the rejection of claim 15, the Appellant relies on the
arguments presented above in regards to the rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br.
11. Accordingly, for the same reasons as discussed above, we also sustain
the rejection of independent claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Paulauskas.
The Appellant does not make any other substantive argument
regarding the rejection of dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 16, 17, and 19.
See Appeal Br. 9--11. Therefore, we likewise sustain the anticipation
rejection of dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 16, 17, and 19.
Claims 3, 5, 7, 11-14, and 20
Regarding claim 12, the Appellant only presents similar arguments to
those advanced with respect to claim 1, namely that the combined teachings
of Paulauskas and Yamada fail to disclose the generation and presentation of
a landmark selection tool with selectable options corresponding to actual
landmarks in the geographic area. Appeal Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 5-7. We
are not persuaded by these arguments for the same reasons as provided
5
Appeal2014-004629
Application 11/612,695
above with respect to claim 1. We therefore sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claim 12 as unpatentable over Paulauskas in view of Yamada.
The Appellant does not make any other substantive argument
regarding the rejection of dependent claims 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 14, and 20. See
Appeal Br. 7-14. Therefore, we also sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 14, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Paulauskas in view of Yamada.
Claims 21and22
Claim 21 depends from claim 1 and further requires that "the at least
one selectable landmark option is associated with one and only one
landmark within the geographic area." Appeal Br. 20. The Examiner finds
that although Paulauskas does not use the wording "one and only one," the
subject matter of claim 21 is obvious in view of Paulauskas3 because, in the
event that oniy a singie iandmark of a particuiar category is present in the
geographic area, then that category listing is associated with one and only
one landmark in the geographic area and selection of that category will
result in one and only one landmark being displayed on the map. Final
Action 11 ; Answer 10-11.
The Appellant argues that a given Paulauskas category may be
associated with different numbers of locations, including none or more than
one. Appeal Br. 14; Reply Br. 8.
3 While the rejection of claim 21 in the Final Action is included in a section
indicating the rejections therein are based on the combination of Paulauskas
and Yamada (Final Action 6-11 ), the Examiner clarifies in the Reply Brief
that the rejection is based only on Paulauskas (Answer 10).
6
Appeal2014-004629
Application 11/612,695
We are not persuaded by the Appellant's arguments. As the list of
landmark categories provided in the Paulauskas category selection tool is
based on actual landmarks located within the geographic area, it follows that
in an area containing only a single landmark of a given type, the selectable
landmark option for that category will be associated with one and only one
landmark within the geographic area. The Appellant offers no persuasive
evidence to refute the Examiner's finding. For example, while the Appellant
argues that Paulauskas falls short because it discloses "no logic or
functionality ... to enforce that 'the at least one selectable landmark option
is associated with one and only one landmark within the geographic area"'
(Appeal Br. 14; Reply Br. 8), no such requirement is required by claim 21,
but merely that an association is present between "one selectable landmark
option" and "one and only one landmark within the geographic area."
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 21.
Ciaim 22 depends from claim 15 and contains the same requirements
as claim 21 (Appeal Br. 20), and the Appellant argues claims 21 and 22
together (Appeal Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 7-9). Therefore, we also sustain the
rejection of claim 22.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 15, 17, and
19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102( e) is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 3, 5, 7, 11-14, and 20-22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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) (2015).
7
Appeal2014-004629
Application 11/612,695
AFFIRMED
8