Ex Parte Imler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2013

11590943 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2013)

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.
11/590,943 11/01/2006 Sean Michael Imler 12729/189 (Y01512US01) 7194
56020 7590 02/27/2013
BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE / YAHOO! OVERTURE
P.O. BOX 10395
CHICAGO, IL 60610
EXAMINER
LE, THU NGUYET T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2162
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SEAN MICHAEL IMLER and KEVIN CHENG
____________________

Appeal 2010-008331
Application 11/590,943
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JASON V. MORGAN, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008331
Application 11/590,943

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
1

The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 1-13 and 15-26, the only claims pending in the
application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

The Appellants invented a system and method for dynamically
retrieving data specific to a region of a layer or a map. Specification 0001.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added]:
1. A computer implemented method for retrieving data from a
data source by querying the data source with data points of a
layer, the data points being encompassed within a determined
region of the layer, comprising:
[1] determining, by a processor, the region of the layer, the
region being displayed in accordance with a first scale and the
layer being displayed in accordance with a second scale,
wherein the second scale of the layer remains fixed when the
first scale of the region changes and the first scale of the region
changes proportionally to a change in the second scale of the
layer;
[2] dynamically querying the data source, by the processor,
with one or more data points of the layer encompassed within
the region upon determining the region; and
[3] receiving, by the processor, the data from the data source.

1
Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Nov. 23, 2009) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Apr. 16,
2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Feb. 19, 2010), and Final
Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed May 12, 2009).
Appeal 2010-008331
Application 11/590,943

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Rasmussen
Shoemaker
US 2005/0270311 A1
US 2007/0064018 A1
Dec. 8, 2005
Mar. 22, 2007

REJECTIONS
2

Claims 1-13 and 15-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Shoemaker and Rasmussen.

ISSUES
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-13 and
15-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shoemaker and
Rasmussen turns on whether the combination of Shoemaker and Rasmussen
teaches or suggests “the second scale of the layer remains fixed when the
first scale of the region changes and the first scale of the region changes
proportionally to a change in the second scale of the layer.”

ANALYSIS
The Appellants contend that the combination of Shoemaker and
Rasmussen fails to teach or suggest “the second scale of the layer remains
fixed when the first scale of the region changes and the first scale of the
region changes proportionally to a change in the second scale of the layer,”
as recited in independent claim 1 and as similarly recited in independent
claims 16 and 23. App. Br. 4-7 and Reply Br. 2-3.

2
The Examiner’s previously submitted rejections of 2 and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with written description
requirement and 23-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed towards non-
statutory subject matter have been withdrawn. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2010-008331
Application 11/590,943

4
We agree with the Appellants. We agree with the Examiner that
Shoemaker describes a map or layer that includes a lens/magnifying glass to
view a region and the area within the selected region can be changed
according to a first scale. Ans. 10-11 (citing Shoemaker Figs. 4-5 and
¶¶ 0052 and 0075). We also agree with the Examiner that Rasmussen
describes a layer or map that can be changed according to a second scale.
Ans. 11 (citing Rasmussen ¶ 0059). However, we disagree with the
Examiner that Shoemaker suggests a combination of a layer with a second
scale and a region with a first scale of Shoemaker with the changes in the
second scale of the layer in Rasmussen such that “the second scale of the
layer remains fixed when the first scale of the region changes and the first
scale of the region changes proportionally to a change in the second scale of
the layer.” We find no evidence in Shoemaker or Rasmussen, or in the
combination thereof, that suggests the first scale of the region changes
proportionally to a change in the second scale of the layer.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-
13 and 15-26. Since this issue is dispositive as to the rejection of these
claims, we need not reach the remaining arguments presented by the
Appellants.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-13 and 15-26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Shoemaker and Rasmussen.

Appeal 2010-008331
Application 11/590,943

5
DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows.
 The rejection of claims 1-13 and 15-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shoemaker and Rasmussen is not sustained.

REVERSED

ELD