Ex Parte Himebaugh

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 24, 2006

10292721 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 24, 2006)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte DAVID N. HIMEBAUGH
__________

Appeal No. 2006-0165
Application 10/292,721
___________

ON BRIEF
___________

Before OWENS, GROSS and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal is from a rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-10.
Claim 4 has been canceled.

Appeal No. 2006-0165
Application 10/292,721

2

THE INVENTION
The appellant claims a method and system for providing
combined dispatching, mapping and metering data to a mobile unit
such as a taxicab. Claims 1 and 10 are illustrative:
1. A method to provide combined dispatching, mapping and
metering for a mobile unit comprising:

(a) receiving a request from a customer for a mobile unit
with a driver to take the customer from an origination
point to a destination point;

(b) storing the request in the form of request data in a
web server that is remote from the mobile unit, the
request data includes pick up and destination points;

(c) providing a computer processing unit located in the
mobile unit, the computer processing unit;

(i) receives the request data;
(ii) processes the request data into request
processed information that includes address
information turned into a mapping solution;

(iii) receives metering data; and
(iv) processes the metering data into metering
information;

(d) transmitting the request data from the web server to
the computer processing unit; and

(e) transmitting the request processed information that
includes address information turned into a mapping
solution and the metering information from the computer
processing unit to a driver interface module located in
the mobile unit.

Appeal No. 2006-0165
Application 10/292,721

3

10. A system for use in providing a combined dispatching,
mapping, metering and advertising comprising:

(a) a mobile unit for a driver and a passenger;
(b) a computer processing unit in the mobile unit;
(c) a first screen display in the mobile unit and coupled
to the computer processing unit;

(d) a second screen display in the mobile unit and a
coupled to the computer processing unit;

(e) means transmitting global positioning navigational data
to the computer processing unit; and

(f) a web server remote to the mobile unit and wirelessly
coupled to the computer processing unit.
THE REFERENCES
Suarez et al. 6,212,393 Apr. 3, 2001
(Suarez)
Tamam 6,347,739 Feb. 19, 2002
Fan 6,664,922 Dec. 16, 2003
(filed Aug. 2, 1999)
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows:
claim 1 over Suarez in view of Tamam; claims 2 and 3 over Suarez
in view of Fan; claims 5-9 over Suarez in view of Fan and Tamam;
and claim 10 over Suarez.

Appeal No. 2006-0165
Application 10/292,721

4

OPINION
We affirm the aforementioned rejections.
Claim 1
Suarez discloses a system and method for communication
between a dispatch center (16) and wireless communication
devices (36) in vehicles (14) such as taxicabs and delivery
trucks (col. 2, line 66 - col. 3, line 33). The input to the
dispatch center is from a message input device (24) via a
communication means which can be the Internet (col. 3,
lines 1-10). The dispatch center includes a dispatch controller
(18) that “encodes inbound requests for dispatch 28 into outbound
assignment messages 32, and decodes inbound replies 38 from the
vehicles 14 for matching of a request for dispatch 28 with a
vehicle 14 that affirmatively replies” (col. 3, lines 21-25).
The dispatch center sends the assignment message to an assignment
manager (58) in the wireless communication device, and a
processor (60) coupled to the assignment manager stores the
assignment message in a memory (54) (col. 3, lines 61-62; col. 4,
lines 32-44). “The driver then chooses to review the data 52 of
the assignment message 32 on a display screen in the case of data
messages or play the recorded voice message in the case of voice
Appeal No. 2006-0165
Application 10/292,721

5

messages” (col. 4, lines 53-56). The assignment manager
preferably is programmed to include a criteria parameter (62) for
comparing a location parameter (50), which identifies the
geographical location of the transmitted assignment, with a
current vehicle location (56) stored in the processor’s memory
(col. 5, lines 7-10). The criteria parameter may be a
calculation, equation, function or comparison value, and when the
criteria parameter is satisfied, for example when the vehicle is
within a specified perimeter, driving distance or driving time
from the assignment, the assignment message is sent to the
assignment manager’s processor for further processing (col. 5,
line 36 - col. 6, line 31). The wireless communication device
includes a global positioning system for determining the
vehicle’s location (col. 7, line 54 - col. 8, line 13).
Tamam discloses a taxicab on-board system which permits
passengers to pay their fares by credit card wirelessly over the
Internet, displays the fares and tips for verification by the
passengers, and permits taxicabs to communicate over the Internet
with each other and with the fleet owners (col. 2, lines 38-56;
col. 4, lines 29-34; col. 5, line 57 - col. 6, line 2).

Appeal No. 2006-0165
Application 10/292,721

6
The appellant argues that Suarez does not disclose turning
address information into a mapping solution but, rather,
calculates criteria parameters for limiting receipt of assignment
messages by drivers (brief, page 12).
Suarez discloses that the wireless communication device
preferably uses a navigation program to calculate whether the
vehicle meets the criteria parameters by being within a specified
driving distance or driving time of the assignment, and that
program takes traffic conditions into account (col. 5, line 7 -
col. 6, line 31; col. 11, line 57 - col. 12, line 38). That
disclosure at least would have fairly suggested, to one of
ordinary skill in the art, processing the assignment address and
vehicle location into a mapping solution in order to determine,
taking into account traffic conditions, the driving distance or
driving time. Suarez would have fairly suggested, to one of
ordinary skill in the art, displaying the mapping solution to the
driver when the criteria parameters are met to provide the driver
with the shortest or quickest route from the vehicle’s location
to the assignment address.

Appeal No. 2006-0165
Application 10/292,721

7
The appellant argues that Suarez does not disclose
processing metering data into metering information or
transmitting metering information to a driver interface module
(brief, page 12).
We take official notice that it was notoriously well known
in the art to process taxicab metering data into metering
information such as the cost of the trip and to display that
information. For example, Tamam discloses displaying fare
information for verification by passengers (col. 4, lines 33-34).
Suarez’s disclosure of displaying the assignment message to the
driver on a display screen (col. 4, lines 53-56; col. 4,
line 64 - col. 5, line 4) would have fairly suggested, to one of
ordinary skill in the art, displaying the metering information on
the same display screen to provide the driver with that
information without the expense or space requirement of a
separate screen.
The appellant argues that Suarez does not store request data
in a web server that is remote from the vehicle (brief, pages 12-
13).

Appeal No. 2006-0165
Application 10/292,721

8
Suarez discloses that the dispatch center includes a
dispatch controller that encodes passengers’ inbound dispatch
requests into outbound assignment messages, and decodes inbound
replies from the vehicles for matching a request for dispatch
with a vehicle that affirmatively replies (col. 3, lines 13-14
and 21-25). That disclosure would have fairly suggested, to one
of ordinary skill in the art, storing, at the dispatch center,
the requests and replies so that they can be matched. Suarez’s
disclosures that the requests can be received over the Internet
and that the dispatch center communicates with the vehicle
wirelessly (col. 3, lines 6-10 and 31-32) would have fairly
suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, storing the data
in a web server and transmitting the matched requests and replies
to the vehicles over the Internet.
Claim 2
Fan discloses a method for distributing location relevant
information including advertising of local interest, discount
coupons accepted by local businesses, and addresses of local
points of interest, to data receivers in mobile units which can
be taxicabs (col. 1, lines 63-67; col. 2, line 55 - col. 3,
line 1).

Appeal No. 2006-0165
Application 10/292,721

9

The appellant argues that there is no motivation in Suarez
or Fan to merge the two technologies, and that it is unclear how
Suarez would be modified by one of ordinary skill in the art to
incorporate Fan’s disclosure (brief, page 16).
The motivation would have been to provide the taxicab
passengers with Fan’s location relevant information, and Suarez
would have been modified by programming the wireless
communication device’s processor to receive the data and display
it to the passengers.
Claims 3 and 5-9
Regarding claims 3 and 5-9 the appellant relies upon the
arguments set forth with respect to claims 1 and 2 (brief,
pages 16-19).1 Those arguments are not persuasive for the
reasons given above regarding the rejections of claims 1 and 2.
Claim 10
The appellant argues that there is no suggestion in Suarez
to add a second screen display coupled to the processor (brief,
page 20).

1 The appellant recites the limitations of claims 3 and 5-9 (brief, pages 17-19), but
that is not a substantive argument for the separate patentability of those claims.
Appeal No. 2006-0165
Application 10/292,721

10

Suarez would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill
in the art, coupling both the assignment message display and a
metering display to the same processor to avoid the expense of a
second processor for displaying the metering data.
Unexpected results
The appellant argues (brief, pages 21-26) that the
declaration of John L. Lu (signed November 23, 2004) points out
that the reference would not have suggested, to one of ordinary
skill in the art, the claim limitations argued in the appellant’s
brief. Lu’s arguments are essentially a repeat of the
appellant’s arguments discussed above, and are not convincing for
the reasons given with respect to the appellant’s arguments.
The appellant argues that the declarations of James D.
Campolongo (signed December 8, 2004) and the inventor, David N.
Himebaugh (signed November 23, 2004), indicate a long felt need
to accomplish what the appellant’s invention accomplishes, and
show that noone has combined all of the technologies encompassed
by the appellant’s claims (brief, pages 27-28). The need was
long felt because the computer technology had not been developed
sufficiently to carry out the requirements those claims. Once
the computer technology was developed, using it to carry out the
Appeal No. 2006-0165
Application 10/292,721

11

requirements of the appellant’s claims would have been fairly
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art by the applied
references as discussed above.
Conclusion
For the above reasons we are not convinced of reversible
error in the examiner’s rejections. Accordingly, we affirm those
rejections.
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 1 over Suarez
in view of Tamam, claims 2 and 3 over Suarez in view of Fan,
claims 5-9 over Suarez in view of Fan and Tamam, and claim 10
over Suarez, are affirmed.
Appeal No. 2006-0165
Application 10/292,721

12
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

)
TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )

TJO/ki

Appeal No. 2006-0165
Application 10/292,721

13

Paul A. Beck & Associates
Suite 100
1575 McFarland Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15216-1808