Ex Parte Inukai

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 25, 2013

11661748 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte YU INUKAI
____________________

Appeal 2011-004120
Application 11/661,748
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-004120
Application 11/661,748

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-4 and 6-9.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The rejected claims are directed to a route guidance device that
acquires supplementary information to complete a route to a desired
destination (Spec., para. [0007]). Claim 1 is the only independent claim.
EXEMPLARY CLAIM
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A route guidance device, comprising:
an input unit for inputting information on a
destination;
a map information storage unit having map
information stored therein;
a supplementary route information storage
unit for storing supplementary route information
that represents information of a route which is
from a joint point on a road included in the map
information stored in said map information storage
unit to the destination whose coordinate set is not
included in the map information stored in said map
information storage unit and which is not

1 Our decision will refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.,” filed March
2, 2007), Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed August 25, 2010), and Reply Brief
(“Reply Br.,” filed December 13, 2010), as well as the Examiner’s Answer
(“Ans.,” mailed November 10, 2010).

Appeal 2011-004120
Application 11/661,748

3
searchable with a usage of the map information
stored in said map information storage unit;
a route information control unit for
determining whether or not a coordinate set of the
destination input by said input unit is included in
said map information storage unit, and for
determining whether or not the destination is
included in said supplementary route information
storage unit;
an external information acquisition unit for
acquiring external information that includes
supplementary route information to the destination,
when said route information control unit
determines that the destination is not included in
said map information storage unit and said
supplementary route information storage unit;
a joint point setting unit for setting a
coordinate set which is close to a start point
coordinate set of the route included in the
supplementary route information stored in said
supplementary route information storage unit and
which is on a road included in the map information
as a termination point of a route to be retrieved
based on the map information stored in said map
information storage unit;
a route search unit for searching for a route
to the termination point set by said joint point
setting unit based on the map information; and
a route guidance control unit for performing
route guidance based on the route retrieved by said
route search unit and performing route guidance
based on the supplementary route information
acquired by the supplementary route information
storage unit.
Appeal 2011-004120
Application 11/661,748

4
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Obradovich (US 2003/0158655 A1, pub. Aug. 21, 2003);
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Obradovich in view of LeFebvre (US 5,659,476, iss. Aug. 19, 1997);
and
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Obradovich in view of Sugiura (US 2004/0210388 A1, pub. Oct. 21, 2004).
ANALYSIS
Regarding independent claim 1, Appellant argues that Obradovich
does not teach the limitations of “a map information storage unit” and “a
supplementary route information storage unit” (App. Br. 5-10). Appellant
does not argue that Obradovich does not disclose a memory that stores both
map information as well as supplementary map information, as claimed.
Instead, Appellant’s only argument is that “the Examiner fails to recognize
the use of a separate and distinct ‘supplementa[ry] route information storage
unit[]’ [from the ‘map information storage unit,’] as recited in independent
claim 1” (App. Br. 6), and that “Obradovich fails to disclose or suggest a
separate and distinct ‘supplementary route information storage unit’ from the
‘map information storage unit’ . . . , as recited in independent claim 1” (App.
Br. 8). We agree with the Examiner, however, that claim 1 does not require
that the map information storage unit be separate or distinct from the
supplementary route information storage unit (Ans. 10), regardless of the
Appeal 2011-004120
Application 11/661,748

5
fact that Appellant’s Figure 1 and the accompanying description in the
Specification show and describe two different storage units 10 and 14 (Reply
Br. 3). As discussed above, Appellant does not argue against the Examiner’s
statements that memory 108 in Obradovich stores map and supplementary
map information. Moreover, separating memory 108 into discrete memories
that store map and supplementary map information, respectively, would
have been obvious. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523 (CCPA 1961). Thus,
we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument, and we sustain the rejection
of independent claim 1 as anticipated by Obradovich.
Appellant does not submit separate arguments regarding claims 2-4
and 6-9, which depend from independent claim 1. Thus, we also sustain the
rejections of the dependent claims.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-9 is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

hh