Ex Parte DU et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 18, 2018

13362920 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/362,920 0113112012
113694 7590
Oblon/Corelogic Inc.
1940 Duke Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
04/20/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Wei DU
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.
385865US8 6646
EXAMINER
SUGLO, JANET L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2864
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/20/2018 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):
oblonpat@oblon.com
patentdocket@oblon.com
tfarrell@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WEI DU, MARK DROLLINGER,
and JASON STRADTNER
Appeal2017-008071
Application 13/362,920
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
The Invention
The Appellants claim an apparatus, method and non-transitory
computer readable storage medium for collecting position point information
for a hazard assessment. Claim 16 is illustrative:
16. A method for collecting position point information
for a hazard assessment, said method comprising:
receiving data via an interface of a mobile electronics
device;
storing said data in a non-transitory storage device;
Appeal2017-008071
Application 13/362,920
recording with a positioning module position point
information about a present location of said mobile electronics
device in response to said receiving;
storing a plurality of position points in said
non-transitory storage device such that the non-transitory
storage device retains the plurality of position points that
respectively correspond with positions of a structure located
within the parcel;[lJ and
determining a flood risk score for said parcel based on
said plurality of position points.
Myers
Cavalcante
The References
US 7,191,064 Bl
US 2013/0116920 Al
The Rejections
Mar. 13, 2007
May 9, 2013
(filed Nov. 7, 2011)
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1-14, 16-22, and 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Cavalcante and claims 15 and 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Cavalcante in view of Myers.
OPINION
We reverse the rejections. We need address only the independent
claims (1, 16, and 24 ). 2 Those claims require storing position points that
correspond with positions of a structure within a parcel.
"Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be
disclosed, either expressly or under principles of inherency, in a single prior
1 The claim lacks antecedent basis for "the parcel".
2 In the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 the Examiner does not set forth any
obviousness rationale regarding the limitations in the independent claims
(Final Act. 6-7).
2
Appeal2017-008071
Application 13/362,920
art reference." Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. US.A., Inc., 868
F.2d 1251, 1255-56 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Cavalcante discloses "flood aware systems and methods for routing
travel" (i-f 2) wherein (i-f 11 ):
A location detector detects a current location. A geographical
database provides details of a given area. Selecting a
destination causes a route generator to generate routes through
the area from the current location. A flood simulator receives
meteorological data and determines flooding along the routes.
A risk-modeling unit determines the risk to travelers of using
each route.
The Examiner finds (Ans. 3):
Cavalcante teaches mapping an entire parcel of land which
includes streets and every structure within that parcel.
Cavalcante shows in figures 1 and 2 [sic, figures 2 and 3A ], in
the bottom left hand comer, that an airport is included, which is
well known within the art to be a building within the parcel of
land. It is further well known that several structures reside
within the shown map in addition to the airport building such as
the depicted Colleges and Universities near the center of the
city.
The Appellants challenge the Examiner's finding that it was well
known in the art that an airport is a building within a parcel of land (Reply
Br. 1-3). The Examiner, therefore, must provide evidentiary support for the
finding, and the Examiner has not done so.
Regarding Figures 2 and 3A, Cavalcante discloses:
[0034] Fig. 2 shows an example of mapped 140 real time
meteorological iconically representing weather 142 from flood
simulation 124. The extent of flooding is indicated by
cloud 142 clusters with the number of clouds in each cluster
indicating how heavy flooding is in each particular location.
3
Appeal2017-008071
Application 13/362,920
[0035] FIG. 3A shows a mapped 150 example of risk results
from the risk analysis model prior to application to routes with
each risk 152 iconically indicated and generated from the flood
simulation map of FIG. 2. Driving hazards are indicated by
clusters of crash icons 152 with the number in each indicating
the severity of the local hazard. The flood-risk-modeling
unit 100 generates multiple routes, preferably ranked according
to the flood level, incident risk and length.
The Examiner does not establish that Cavalcante stores position points that
correspond with positions of an airport structure or a university within the
parcel in those maps.
Thus, the Examiner has not shown that Cavalcante discloses, either
expressly or under principles of inherency, every limitation of the
Appellants' independent claims.
For the above reasons we reverse the rejections.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejections of claims 1-14, 16-22, and 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Cavalcante and claims 15 and 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Cavalcante in view of Myers are reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
4