Ex parte Hijikata

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 27, 2002

09110397 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 27, 2002)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 30
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte MAKOTO HIJIKATA
________________
Appeal No. 2001-0027
Application 09/110,397
________________
HEARD: FEBRUARY 7, 2002
________________
Before JERRY SMITH, DIXON and SAADAT, Administrative Patent
Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 5, 7 through 9, 11, 12, 14, 16 and 17.
Claims 1 through 4 have been canceled while claims 6, 10, 13,
15 and 18 have been allowed by the Examiner.
We reverse.
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention is directed to an on-vehicle
navigation system that considers the user’s run experience
Appeal No. 2001-0027
Application 09/110,397
2
data indicating that the vehicle has previously driven on the
road, and selects a preferred guiding route. The run
experience data is obtained and stored for every road unit on
which the vehicle runs as the previously stored weight
corresponding with that road unit is adjusted (specification,
pages 3 & 4). A traveling route that has the minimum sum
value of road unit weights is selected among the plurality of
available traveling routes between the start point and the
destination (specification, page 5).
Representative independent claim 5 is reproduced as
follows:
5. A navigation apparatus for guiding a travel
route of a mobile vehicle, comprising:
storage means for storing data of road units;
position detection means for detecting a present
position of said mobile vehicle;
road unit determining means for determining a road
unit on which said mobile vehicle is running based on
said present position of said mobile vehicle detected by
said position detection means;
running road storing means operable to store running
experience data for said road unit determined by said
road unit determining means as said mobile vehicle
travels on said road unit determined by said road unit
determining means; and
Appeal No. 2001-0027
Application 09/110,397
3
a route searching means for searching for a
preferred travel route by using said present position of
said mobile vehicle detected by said position detecting
means, said data of road units stored in said storage
means, and said running experience data previously stored
in said running road storing means.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
Examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Ikeda et al. (Ikeda) 5,031,104 Jul. 9,
1991
Zechnall 5,146,219 Sep. 8,
1992
Braegas 5,406,490 Apr. 11,
1995
Maki 5,557,524 Sep.
17, 1996
(filed Sep. 30, 1993)
Hirota et al. (Hirota) 5,568,390 Oct. 22, 1996
(filed Dec. 29,
1995)
Claims 5 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Braegas in view of Zechnall and
Maki. Claims 7 through 9, 12 and 17 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Braegas in view of
Zechnall, Maki and Ikeda. Claims 11 and 16 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Braegas in
view of Zechnall, Maki and Hirota.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
Appeal No. 2001-0027
Application 09/110,397
4
by the Examiner and Appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 22,
mailed February 23, 2000) for the Examiner’s complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief
(Paper No. 21, filed January 28, 2000) and the reply brief
(Paper No. 24, filed April 24, 2000) for Appellant’s arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to Appellant’s specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by Appellant and the Examiner. After
careful review of the evidence before us, it is our conclusion
that the evidence provided by the Examiner is insufficient to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, we
will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 7 through 9, 11, 12, 14, 16
and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With respect to claims 5 and 14, Appellant argues that
Appeal No. 2001-0027
Application 09/110,397
5
the traffic report memory 4 of Braegas does not keep track of
the vehicle’s run experience data, rather, it merely stores
general broadcast traffic advisories from the radio traffic
service decoder 3. In particular, Appellant asserts that
neither this information nor the “route” stored in memory area
6a relates to the claimed “running experience data” obtained
as the vehicle travels on a road unit (brief, page 6 and reply
brief, page 2). Furthermore, Appellant argues that modifying
Braegas with Zechnall and Maki to coordinate traffic data with
vehicle’s present position on the road unit contradicts the
purpose of traffic advisories that would not be useful if
obtained as the vehicle travels through the traffic jam
(brief, page 7 and reply brief, page 3). Appellant also
indicates that neither Zechnall nor Maki teaches storing
running experience data as the vehicle travels on the road
unit and using the data in route selection as both references
consider road information and pre-prepared maps from stored
memory (brief, page 8 and reply brief, page 4).
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner
equates the claimed “run experience data” to traffic data of
Braegas and states that such data is specific to the present
Appeal No. 2001-0027
Application 09/110,397
6
location of the vehicle since route changes are provided
shortly before another route is to be abandoned (answer, page
6). Furthermore, the Examiner indicates that Zechnall obtains
“run experience data” using a test vehicle that records the
data while running on roads. With regard to Maki, the
Examiner states that travel route data is recorded manually in
a record book based on the odometer input as a vehicle travels
on a road (answer, page 7).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The conclusion that the
claimed subject matter is obvious must be supported by
evidence, as shown by some objective teaching in the prior art
or by knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill
in the art that would have led that individual to combine the
relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed
invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Furthermore, to reach a
conclusion of obviousness under § 103, the examiner must also
Appeal No. 2001-0027
Application 09/110,397
7
produce factual basis supported by teaching in a prior art
reference or shown to be common knowledge of unquestionable
demonstration, consistent with the holding in Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). Our reviewing court requires
this evidence in order to establish a prima facie case. In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed.
Cir. 1984); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ 268, 271-
72 (CCPA 1966).
After a review of Braegas, we find that the reference
relates to a vehicle navigation system that takes broadcast
traffic advisories into consideration when searching for a
route (col. 1, lines 60-66). Braegas further discloses
receipt of such advisories in decoder 3 that evaluates traffic
reports and stores traffic advisories in traffic report memory
4 (the drawing figure and col. 2, lines 58-62). The
advisories that are relevant to the planned route are then
checked against the stored information related to the type of
road and the traffic obstruction to determine the route that
takes the vehicle to its destination as quickly as possible
(col. 3, lines 56-67). Thus, to propose a preferred route,
Braegas takes into account only pre-stored road-type
Appeal No. 2001-0027
Application 09/110,397
8
information and traffic advisories related to the upcoming
road sections.
Zechnall, on the other hand, is related to a navigation
system that provides to the driver safety-related road
information, such as location of schools and highway danger
signs (col. 1, lines 11-13 & 28-34). Furthermore, Zechnall
uses previously stored road network data, which had been
empirically determined by test vehicles, in combination with
corresponding safety-related data to provide directional and
driving instructions to the driver (col. 3, lines 13-44).
Therefore, no new information in the form of “running
experience data” is stored as the vehicle travels on each road
section. Instead, both mapping and safety-related data of
Zechnall are initially determined and stored before the
navigation system becomes available to the driver.
Additionally, a review of Maki shows that the reference
relates to providing travel route map components such as
travel route terrain and velocity plots (col. 2, lines 46-53).
Other provided travel information may relate to the usage of
the vehicle on the recommended routes such as mileage and
business travel tax deduction or the en route geological
Appeal No. 2001-0027
Application 09/110,397
9
information (col. 2, lines 60-67). Contrary to the Examiner’s
assertion related to manually recording travel route data, we
find that Maki indeed uses route map data stored in a storage
media to automate real time displaying of travel route map and
recording of vehicle use information (col. 2, lines 29-43).

Based on the findings above, we cannot agree with the
Examiner that the traffic advisories of Braegas in combination
with the travel route data display of Zechnall and Maki would
result in the claimed navigation apparatus that uses stored
running experience data. In that regard, while Braegas
selects a route based on the road type and the obstruction
determined by stored traffic advisories, no “running
experience data” is stored and used in searching for the
preferred route as the vehicle travels on the road.
Consistent with Appellant’s arguments, neither sources of data
in Braegas (traffic reports and road types) are stored for any
specific road unit as the vehicle travels on that road unit.
Additionally, Braegas does not search for the preferred route
using the previously stored “running experience data.”
Rather, the selection is made based on fixed pre-stored road
Appeal No. 2001-0027
Application 09/110,397
10
type information and the traffic data related to distant
sections of the proposed routes other than the one actually
being traveled by the vehicle. Furthermore, we find that
Zechnall and Maki, at the best, store road information in a
storage device to be later retrieved and used in a vehicle
navigation system. Therefore, Zechnall and Maki neither
overcome the deficiencies discussed above with respect to
Braegas nor provide any teachings or suggestions to
realistically modify Braegas and store “running experience
data” each time the vehicle travels on the road unit which is
used in searching for the preferred route.
Thus, we find no teachings related to storing “running
experience data” as the vehicle travels on the road unit or
any reason for combining various teachings in these
references to arrive at the claimed invention. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Braegas in view of Zechnall and Maki.
With respect to the rejection of claims 7 through 9, 12
and 17 over Braegas in view of Zechnall, Maki and Ikeda and
the rejection of claims 11 and 16 over Braegas in view of
Zechnall, Maki and Hirota, Appellant argues that Ikeda and
Appeal No. 2001-0027
Application 09/110,397
11
Hirota do not make up for the deficiencies of the combination
of Braegas, Zechnall and Maki (brief, pages 9 & 10).
Furthermore, Appellant reasons that Ikeda and Hirota do not
teach storing “running experience data” as the vehicle travels
on the road unit and using such data in searching for a
preferred route.
Initially, we note that independent claims 11 and 12,
similar to claim 5, include the limitations related to storing
“running experience data” as the vehicle travels on the road
unit and using such data in searching for a preferred route.
After reviewing the references, we find that while Ikeda
teaches stored route conditions and Hirota discloses fuel
consumption based on speed as the basis for selection of a
preferred route, neither references teach collecting and
storing “running experience data” as the vehicle travels on
each road unit. Moreover, each reference provides route
selection merely based on some sort of fixed pre-stored
information other than the vehicle’s “running experience
data.” Therefore, Ikeda and Hirota neither overcome the
deficiencies discussed above in Braegas and other references
nor suggest any reason to one of ordinary skill in the art to
Appeal No. 2001-0027
Application 09/110,397
12
reasonably modify the combination of Braegas, Zechnall and
Maki. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 7 through 9, 11,
12, 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 cannot be sustained.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner to
reject claims 5, 7 through 9, 11, 12, 14, 16 and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
Appeal No. 2001-0027
Application 09/110,397
13
)
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2001-0027
Application 09/110,397
14
Mary M. Lee
Dunlap, Codding & Lee
9400 North Broadway, Suite 420
Oklahoma City, OK 73114
MDS:caw