Ex Parte Gaebler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2017

13230002 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2017)

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.
13/230,002 09/12/2011 Frank Gaebler P5440US00 4960
11764 7590
Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C.
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
AMIN, JWALANT B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2618
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2017 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@dcpatent.com
Nokia. IPR @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FRANK GAEBLER and THOMAS MANN
Appeal 2016-004168
Application 13/230,002
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, AARON W. MOORE, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—20, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2016-004168
Application 13/230,002
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method and apparatus for providing list-
based exploration of mapping data. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising facilitating a processing of
and/or processing (1) data and/or (2) information and/or (3) at
least one signal, the (1) data and/or (2) information and/or (3) at
least one signal based, at least in part, on the following:
an association of one or more features of a geographical
area with one or more list objects',
a processing of location information associated with one
or more map data items to group, to sort, or a combination
thereof the one or more map data items into the one or more
list objects', and
a rendering of at least one of the one or more list objects
as a representation of a map in a user interface,
wherein the user interface includes one or more user
interface elements for controlling a browsing of the one or more
map data items in the at least one of the one or more list
objects.
App. Br. 9 (Claims Appendix), emphasis added.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Daly et al. (“Daly”) US 6,339,747 B1 Jan. 15, 2002
Waldman et al. (“Waldman”) US 2011/0196610 Al Aug. 11, 2011
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Daly and Waldman. Final Act. 4.
2
Appeal 2016-004168
Application 13/230,002
ISSUE FOR DECISION
Did the Examiner err in finding Daly teaches “list objects” as recited
in independent claims 1 and 11?
ANALYSIS
Each of the independent claims recites the use of “list objects.” In
rejecting the independent claims, the Examiner finds Daly teaches the
recited “list objects,” citing Daly’s list 34 shown in Figure 2. Final Act. 5;
see also Ans. 4 (“Elements of list 34 correspond to list objects.”).
Appellants argue “Daly does not disclose list objects as claimed” because
list 34 identified by the Examiner is merely an “ordered list.” App. Br. 3^4.
More specifically, Appellants argue the list 34 cannot be the recited “list
objects” because claim 1 requires that the list object be associated with
features of a geographical area, and that map data items must be grouped or
sorted into the list object based on the processing of location information.1
App. Br. 4.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not demonstrated
Daly teaches the recited “list objects,” and in particular that the Examiner
has failed to explain how map data items are grouped or sorted into the
Daly’s list 34 (which the Examiner found to be a list object) based on
processing of location information. The list 34 shown in Figure 2 of Daly is
characterized by Daly as a “layer list.” Daly, col. 9,11. 13—20.
1 Claim 1 recites: “a processing of location information associated with one
or more map data items to group, to sort, or a combination thereof the one or
more map data items into the one or more list objects . . . .”
3
Appeal 2016-004168
Application 13/230,002
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner notes that “Daly does not
explicitly teach to group or sort the one or more map data items into the one
or more list objects based on processed location information.” Final Act. 6.
The Examiner nevertheless finds Daly renders this limitation obvious
because:
Daly teaches to display the list of cities based on the estimated
arrival of the storm ([F]ig. 3 and col. 13 lines 25-47 describes a
list of cities in the predicted path of a storm are displayed in a
window 54. The specific cities to be displayed in the window
54, the number of cities to be displayed in the window 54, and
the order in which the cities are to be displayed are all user
selectable. The cities may preferably be displayed in the
window 54 in order of the arrival time of the line of storms 42
or storm cell 52 at the city. Moreover, col. 9 lines 17-21
describes the layer list 34 presents layers of geographic
elements as an ordered list, where the order of the list
determines the order that the layers will be rendered in the
display window 32, and preferably established by an operator
during set-up mode. The user interface 35 allows the operator to
change the order of the items listed in the layer list 34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of present invention to order the map data
items (city names) in the list as taught by Daly because such a
system ensures that a user using the system can track the
expected future path of a weather phenomenon (col. 1 lines 9-
12).
Final Act. 6—7 (emphasis added). In the above-quoted passage, the
Examiner finds Daly’s city names are “map data items” within the meaning
of Appellants’ claims. The Examiner notes Daly teaches a list of cities in
the predicted path of a storm is displayed in a window 54 (see Fig. 3). The
Examiner does not find that the window 54 is a list object. Rather, the
Examiner finds it would have been obvious to include the list of cities in the
layer list 34 rather than the window 54. Final Act. 6—7. However, the
4
Appeal 2016-004168
Application 13/230,002
Examiner does not adequately explain, nor is it self-evident to us, why an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have sought to move the list of cities from
the window 54 to the layer list 34.
The Examiner finds this modification of Daly would have been
obvious because “because such a system ensures that a user using the system
can track the expected future path of a weather phenomenon.” Final Act. 7.
We do not find this rationale to be sufficient to sustain a conclusion of
obviousness. In Daly’s existing system, the window 54, as shown in Figure
3, independently provides the user with the ability to track the expected path
of a weather phenomenon. Thus, the alleged benefit provided by the
Examiner’s proposed modification is already present in Daly’s existing
system. We, therefore, conclude a person of ordinary skill in the art would
not have sought to improve Daly in the manner proposed by the Examiner,
and we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11. For the
same reasons, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 2—10 and 12—20
which depend therefrom.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 is reversed.
REVERSED
5