Ex Parte Cummings

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 15, 2016

11697977 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 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.
11/697,977 04/09/2007 Ian Cummings IAN-10302/29 7391
25006 7590 12/19/2016
DTNSMORF fr SHOHT T T P
EXAMINER
900 Wilshire Drive KONG, SZE-HON
Suite 300
TROY, MI 48084 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3661
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2016 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):
docket@patlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IAN CUMMINGS
Appeal 2014-006672
Application 11/697,977
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, JAMES A. WORTH, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ian Cummings (Appellant) appeals under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 9, 10, 13—15, and 41—46, which
are all of the pending claims. An oral hearing was held on November 14,
2016. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2014-006672
Application 11/697,977
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 41—46 are independent. Claims 41, 42, and 43, reproduced
below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal.
41. A method of reducing data transmission in a wireless client-
server navigation system, comprising the steps of:
receiving, at: a. server, a. request for data representative of a.
map from a mobile unit;
obtaining data describing the map in the form of line
segments interconnecting points having coordinates;
partitioning the map into a plurality of tiles;
designating a reference point:, in floating point format,
within or near each tile;
representing map data points in the form of offsets, in
integer format, from the reference points; and
forwarding the reference point and offset data, to the
mobile unit issuing the request.
42. A method of reducing data transmission in a wireless client-
server navigation system, comprising the steps of:
receiving, at a server, a request for data representative of a
map-related feature from a mobile unit;
obtaining data describing the feature in the form of line
segments interconnecting points having coordinates;
approximating the feature with a curve defined by an
algorithm and a number of parameters;
determining a distance standard based upon map scale
regarding the extent to which the algorithm and parameters will
affect the approximation of the feature; and
if the approximation meets or exceeds the standard,
forwarding the parameters to the mobile unit issuing the request,
43. A method of reducing data transmission in a wireless client-
server navigation system, comprising the steps of:
receiving, at a server, a request for data representative of a
map-related feature from a mobile unit;
obtaining data describing the feature in the form of line
segments interconnecting points having coordinates;
2
Appeal 2014-006672
Application 11/697,977
removing one or more of the points having coordinates;
approximating the feature with line segments
interconnecting the remaining points;
determining a distance standard based upon map scale
regarding the extent to which the algorithm and parameters1 will
affect the approximation of the feature;
if the approximation meets or exceeds the standard,
forwarding the approximation to the mobile unit issuing the
request.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Ihara US 6,058,350 May 2, 2000
Kimmel US 2002/0097912 A1 July 25, 2002
Jawerth US 2003/0231190 A1 Dec. 18, 2003
Wallner US 6,703,947 B1 Mar. 9, 2004
Han US 2005/0046615 A1 Mar. 3, 2005
Beatty US 2006/0215923 A1 Sept. 28, 2006
Tanizaki US 7,248,965 B2 July 24, 2007
THE REJECTIONS
I. Claims 9, 10, 41, and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Jawerth, Wallner, and Beatty.
Final Act. 6—8.
II. Claims 42, 43, 45, and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Jawerth, Tanizaki, and Han. Id.
at 8—10.
1 We note that claim 43 refers to “the algorithm and parameters,” but
contains no earlier recitation of these elements. In the context of the claims,
we consider claim 43 to have meant to refer to the extent to which removal
of one or more points and the interconnecting of the remaining points will
affect approximation of the feature.
3
Appeal 2014-006672
Application 11/697,977
III. Claims 13—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jawerth, Tanizaki, Han, Kimmel, and Ihara.
Id. at 10—11.
OPINION
Rejection I
The Examiner finds that Jawerth teaches some of the underlying
limitations of independent claims 41 and 44, but acknowledges that Jawerth
fails to teach several limitations. Final Act. 7. The Examiner finds that
Wallner teaches, inter alia, “receiving data describing a map; partitioning
the map into a plurality of tiles; designating a reference point within each
tile; representing the feature in the form of offsets from the reference
points.” Id. at 7—8 (citing Wallner, Fig. 5, 3:36-4:61).
The Examiner also finds that Beatty teaches “partitioning the map into
tiles, designating points in floating point format within or near each tile, and
representing map data points in the form of offsets, in integer format, from
the reference points.” Id. at 8 (citing Beatty, || 42, 43, 55, 59-61, 67—69,
71, 73). The Examiner takes the position that the reference point that is
quantized and converted into integer format in Beatty is the same point that
“was originally presented in floating point format[,] and therefore[,] the
point is used and is designated in floating point format.” Id. at 4.
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify
Jawerth “to include the teachings of Wallner and Beatty in order to reduce
data size and make it possible to download data in small increments as
needed which can be used with navigation systems . . . and improve the
accuracy of the encoded data.” Id. at 8 (citing Wallner, 2:7—11). The
Examiner also notes that “Beatty clearly describes and teaches that floating
4
Appeal 2014-006672
Application 11/697,977
point format can be used for the more accurate[] presentation] [of] the
location of the points and the integer format conversion is for reducing the
data storage use and computation processes, compressing the data.” Id. at 3—
4.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reasoning for combining the
teachings of the references is in error. Appeal Br. 5. In particular, with
respect to the Examiner’s statement regarding making it possible to
download data in small increments, Appellant argues that “[a]ll of the cited
art. . . already ‘reduce data size’” just in different ways. Id. With respect to
the Examiner’s statement regarding improving the accuracy of the encoded
data, Appellant argues that that the goal of the cited art is data reduction
while still “maintain[ing] ‘accuracy’ where or if possible, but not to improve
it” Id.
The Examiner counters that all of the cited references are directed to
data compression for use with navigation systems and maps, and “the use[]
of/conversion of the floating point format into integer format can depend[]
on the desire of the computation processes and performance with its finite
and predictable results.” Final Act. 4. Because the Examiner reasons that
the results of combining known elements with known functions in the data
compression art would be predictable, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner lacks sufficient reasoning. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 416—17 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according
to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.”). Appellant has not persuasively explained why the
articulated reasoning lacks rational underpinnings so as to inform us of error
by the Examiner.
5
Appeal 2014-006672
Application 11/697,977
Appellant argues that Wallner performs its methodology “all in
integer format.” Appeal Br. 5 (emphasis omitted). Appellant also argues
that “to call Wallner’s coordinates (Figure 5) ‘tiles’ is being quite generous.”
Id. at 5 n. 1. We are not persuaded of error by the Examiner in that these
arguments fail to address the Examiner’s additional findings that Beatty
discloses partitioning a map into tiles and designating points in floating
point format within or near each tile. See Final Act. 8.
Appellant also argues that the reference point in Beatty is in integer
format as opposed to floating point format. Appeal Br. 6. In particular,
Appellant argues that “Beatty’s initial step is to convert all data from
floating point format to integers. At no point is a floating point reference
point used.” Id. (emphasis omitted); see also Reply Br. 3 (arguing that
Beatty teaches away from the use of a floating-point format). Appellant
continues that “Beatty’s compression process is applied to the quantized
vector data after it is converted to integer format.” Reply Br. 2 (citing
Beatty | 53) (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner responds that so long as the reference point is in a
floating point format at some point, regardless of whether it has been
converted into integer format before compression occurs, the claim language
is met. Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 3 (citing Beatty || 53, 55) (“Although
these floating-points are quantized, these are the same reference points being
used throughout the data compression process. . . . [T]he data will be
decompressed and the reference points will be dequantized, where these are
the same reference points that are in floating-point numbers”).
Given that the only reference to “floating point format” in claims 41
and 44, as written, relates to “designating” the reference point (Appeal Br.
6
Appeal 2014-006672
Application 11/697,977
10 (Claims App. 10)), we agree with the Examiner that the claim language
has been met in that Beatty indicates or specifies the reference point in
latitude or longitude (floating point format). See Beatty | 61 (describing that
“each pair of X, Y coordinates in latitude and longitude can be plotted on the
grid and assigned a new quantized X, Y pair in integers”). The designation
of this reference point in floating point format is not negated by the
subsequent conversion to integer format and compression process described
in Beatty.
As to Appellant’s argument that modifying Jawerth with the teachings
of Wallner and Beatty would change Jawerth’s principle of operation
because Jawerth “uses a combination of data selection, layering, and a
combination of lossy and lossless compression which is then stored in a
‘BFM’ format for transmission to an application running on a map rendering
sub-system (120),” we are not persuaded of Examiner error. Appeal Br. 6—
7.
The “principle of operation” referred to by Appellant relates to the
“basic principles” under which the prior art device was designed to operate.
In re Ratti, 270 F.2d at 813 (“This suggested combination of references
would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements
shown in [the primary reference] as well as a change in the basic principles
under which the [primary reference] construction was designed to operate.”)
(emphasis added). Under Ratti, “a change in the basic principles” refers to
change that is fundamental in scope so as to relate to scientific or technical
principles under which the invention is designed to operate. It cannot be
said that a “change in basic principles” occurs by the use of Wallner’s and
Beatty’s techniques for data compression in that Jawerth will continue to
7
Appeal 2014-006672
Application 11/697,977
receive compressed data for transmitting and displaying map data. Jawerth,
Abstr.; see also Ans. 4 (“Jawerth’s principle of operation is to transmit map
data by compressing the data for transmission and decompress the data for
viewing using various compression methods. Other references us[ing] other
data compression methods does not change the principle [of] operation of
Jawerth.”).
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of independent
claims 41 and 44, and their dependent claims 9 and 10 for which Appellant
relies on the same arguments (see Appeal Br. 4—7), as unpatentable over
Jawerth, Wallner, and Beatty.
Rejection II
The Examiner finds that Jawerth teaches some of the underlying
limitations of independent claims 42, 43, 45, and 46, but acknowledges that
Jawerth fails to teach “approximating the feature with a curve defined by an
algorithm and a number of parameters,” as well as “determining a distance
standard based upon map scale regarding the extent to which the algorithm
and parameters will affect the approximation of the feature; and if the
distance measure/approximation meets or exceeds the standard, forwarding
the parameters.” Final Act. 9.
The Examiner finds that Tanizaki teaches “approximating the feature
with a curve defined by an algorithm and a number of parameters,” as well
as “determining a distance standard regarding the extent to which the
algorithm and parameters will affect the approximation of the feature; and if
the distance measure meets or exceeds the standard, forwarding the
parameters.” Id. at 9-10 (citing Tanizaki, Fig. 2, 3:51—4:6, 4:21—5:6, 5:35—
50, 5:64—6:5, 6:43—61). The Examiner also finds that Han teaches
8
Appeal 2014-006672
Application 11/697,977
“approximating the feature and determining a distance standard based upon
map scale regarding the extent to which the algorithm and parameters will
affect the approximation of the feature.” Id. at 10 (citing Han, Figs. 1, 5, 7,
11 5, 7, 8, 15, 16, 46, 50, 53, 72, 73).
The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art for “a distance standard [to be] determined according
to the map scale where different map scales change[] the shape and scale of
the feature, therefore affecting the approximation of the feature” and that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have “combine[d] the invention of
Jawerth, Tanizaki and Han to approximate the feature . . . according to
distance standard based upon map scale and transmit the parameters to the
mobile unit for efficiently and accurately reducing] the processing load and
transmission in the system.” Id.
Appellant argues that “while [the] Examiner cites various passages of
Tanizaki for its teachings, the Examiner has not cited any arguments for the
proposed combination of Jawerth and Tanizaki.” Appeal Br. 7—8 (emphasis
omitted); see also Reply Br. 4. We are not persuaded by this argument in
that the Examiner has stated that one of ordinary skill in the art would
“combine . . . Jawerth, Tanizaki, and Han to approximate the feature . . .
according to distance standard based upon map scale and transmit the
parameters to the mobile unit for efficiently and accurately reducing] the
processing load and transmission in the system.” Final Act. 10. Appellant
has not persuasively explained why this articulated reasoning lacks rational
underpinnings so as to inform us of error by the Examiner.
Appellant also argues that Han is not relevant to Appellant’s
inventions. Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 4. Even assuming arguendo
9
Appeal 2014-006672
Application 11/697,977
that this is true, we are not persuaded of error by the Examiner in that the
argument fails to address the teachings of Tanizaki, which the Examiner
appears to rely on for the same teachings as Han (see Final Act. 9-10).
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of independent
claims 42, 43, 45, and 46 as unpatentable over Jawerth, Tanizaki, and Han.
Rejection III
The Examiner acknowledges that Jawerth fails to teach that the
parameters defining a curve for approximating a feature “include [] the
coordinates of points along the curve” or that the algorithm for defining a
curve approximating a feature “is a mathematical function” or that the curve
approximating the feature “is a Bezier or other spline, a polynomial or
fractal curve,” as recited in claims 13—15. Final Act. 11. The Examiner
turns to the teachings of Kimmel and Ihara for these features (id. (citing
Kimmel 24, 28, 29-34 and Ihara, Figs. 12a—12f, 7:58—8:19, 23:54—
24:27)) and determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify Jawerth “to include the teachings of Kimmel and
Ihara in order to increase the processing speed of the road map information
. . . and accurately approximate the feature mathematically using known
curves” (id. (citing Ihara, 8:16—19)).
Appellant argues that “the Examiner has no way of knowing” whether
processing speed will be increased or the approximation will be more
accurate, and that Ihara does not necessarily support the Examiner because
Appellant’s claims “are not directly related to recording media or readout
apparatus, [so] Ihara does not apply.” Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis omitted);
Reply Br. 5 (emphasis omitted).
10
Appeal 2014-006672
Application 11/697,977
The Examiner responds that “one of ordinary skill in the art would
know such limitations would achieve the benefit of increasing processing
speed or other reasonable advantages using the approximating functions
because such approximations will significantly decrease[] the number of
data points required to be stored and transmitted.” Ans. 5—6. We determine
that the rationale to support a modification of the prior art need not be
expressly stated in the prior art and can be reasoned from knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144(1)
and cases cited therein. Appellant has not demonstrated error in the
Examiner’s finding that the rationale is based on knowledge available to one
of ordinary skill in the art.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 13—15 as unpatentable over Jawerth, Tanizaki, Han, Kimmel, and
Ihara.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 9, 10, 13—15, and 41—46 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
11