Ex Parte Fraser et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 201311014498 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RONALD W. FRASER, CARL W. SHONK and MARK J. GLAZA ____________ Appeal 2010-011091 Application 11/014, 498 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before NEAL E. ABRAMS, GAY ANN SPAHN, and BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, Administrative Patent Judges. ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Ronald W. Fraser et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2010-011091 Application 11/014, 498 2 THE INVENTION The claimed invention is directed to “a method, system, and computer readable medium for dynamically determining routing availability among several routing service options,” particularly for a motor vehicle. Spec. 1, ll. 8-10. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method of dynamically selecting a routing service comprising: receiving a route request at a call center from a telematics unit via a wireless connection; determining a vehicle communication configuration responsive to the request; determining map data availability responsive to the request; and selecting a routing service option based on the vehicle communication configuration determination and the map data availability determination. THE PRIOR ART The Examiner relied upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: Walker US 2004/0024522 A1 Feb. 5, 2004 THE REJECTION Claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Walker. OPINION The Examiner determined that all of the subject matter recited in independent claims 1, 15 and 19 is taught by Walker in the Abstract and in Appeal 2010-011091 Application 11/014, 498 3 twelve cited paragraphs in the reference. See Ans. 3, 4 and 6. One of the arguments raised by Appellants is that Walker fails to teach the limitation in all three of the independent claims that the selection of a routing service option is based at least in part upon map data availability determination (Br. 5; Reply Br. 3), and that “[t]he phrase at issue is ‘selecting a routing service option based on the vehicle communication configuration determination and the map data availability determination’” (Reply Br. 2). In this regard, as illustrated in Figure 1, Appellants have disclosed several routing service options by which navigation information may be passed to a vehicle upon request, including off-board navigation servers 182, on-board navigation units 136, and direct voice communications from a call center 170. Spec. 15, ll. 5-11. Appellants’ system then determines a vehicle communication configuration responsive to the map data availability of one or more of the routing service options, and selects a routing service option based upon these two factors. Fig. 2; Spec. 13, l. 6 – Spec. 15, l. 11. In setting forth the rejection, the Examiner quoted the limitation in issue as it is recited in claim 1 and then, in support of the determination that this limitation is taught by Walters, merely stated “see abstract; page 2, par. 27; page 11, par. 145; page 12, par. 148, 152, 154; page 14, par. 170.” Ans. 4. This was repeated again as the Examiner’s response to the arguments presented by Appellants on this issue in the Brief and the Reply Brief. Ans. 8-9. The Examiner has not explained where Walker discloses that “selecting a routing service option” is based at least in part upon “map data availability.” Review of the cited passages in Walker reveals that while they acknowledge the presence of navigation information and communicating such information to the vehicle, there is no mention of “map data” or “map Appeal 2010-011091 Application 11/014, 498 4 data availability,” much less an explicit teaching that this is a factor in selecting a “routing service option.” Therefore, support for the Examiner’s conclusion on this issue is not found in the referenced portions of Walker, and Appellants’ assertion that Walker does not teach this aspect of the claimed invention is uncontroverted by persuasive argument or evidence. This being the case, Walker fails to anticipate the subject matter recited in independent claims 1, 15 and 19, and the rejection of these claims is not sustained. It follows that the like rejection of dependent claims 2-14, 16-18 and 20-22 also is not sustained. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Walker is reversed. REVERSED hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation