Ex Parte KimDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 29, 201412197829 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 12/197,829 08/25/2008 Jong-Hyun KIM 678-3562 3058 66547 7590 12/30/2014 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER KRYCINSKI, STANTON L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3631 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/30/2014 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 JONG-HYUN KIM ____________ Appeal 2012-011846 Application 12/197,829 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before JOHN C. KERINS, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Jong-Hyun Kim (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–11 and 13–21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2012-011846 Application 12/197,829 2 THE INVENTION Appellant’s invention is directed to a method for displaying, in a navigational device, an optimal path of an object. Independent claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method for displaying, in a navigational device, an optimal path of an object, the method comprising the steps of: setting and displaying an optimal path according to a destination of the object; detecting a current position of the object traveling along the optimal path; determining, while the object is stopped on the optimal path, whether a traveling-stopped time of the object is at least equal to a predetermined time; and displaying, upon determining that the traveling-stopped time is at least equal to the predetermined time, a forward path for the detected current position of the object, wherein the forward path is an optimal path in a forward area that excludes an area within a first predetermined scope from the current position of the object. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner has rejected: (i) claims 7, 9, 14–17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), as being anticipated by, or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as being unpatentable over, Kaufman (US 2006/0089798 A1, published Apr. 27, 2006); Appeal 2012-011846 Application 12/197,829 3 (ii) claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaufman in view of Kawasaki (US 2004/0181337 A1, published Sept. 16, 2004); (iii) claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaufman in view of Kawasaki and Nimura (US 6,202,026 B1, issued Mar. 13, 2001); and (iv) claims 11 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaufman in view of Nimura. A rejection of claims 14–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, has been withdrawn on appeal. Ans. 2. ANALYSIS Claims 7, 9, 14–17, and 19--Anticipation/Obviousness--Kaufman Claim 7 The Examiner cites to paragraph 33 of Kaufman as teaching the claim limitation directed to “determining whether a user input for display of a forward path is received, while the object is stopped on the optimal path.” Final Action 3.1 In particular, the Examiner states that lines 9–11 thereof teach that the speed of the vehicle is matched to the playback speed of a route simulation, and that lines 16–19 teach matching the playback of the simulation to a current vehicle position by having a user perform the operation manually. Ans. 2. According to the Examiner, these disclosures result in a scenario in which “if a travelling vehicle stops, the display of the 1 The Examiner’s Answer does not include the grounds of rejection, therefore, citation is to the Final Office Action mailed November 7, 2011. Appeal 2012-011846 Application 12/197,829 4 forward path will correspond to the stopped vehicle, and the option for a user to manually display the forward path by using the interface will also correspond to the stopped vehicle.” Id. The Examiner characterizes the two approaches for matching the simulation data to the actual vehicle location as being either separate or corresponding functions. Id. at 2–3. Appellant maintains that the two disclosed approaches for matching the route simulation to the actual vehicle location are alternative, separate approaches to obtaining a desired result. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant argues that it is not proper to rely on a combination of the two alternative approaches in finding that the limitation at issue is disclosed by Kaufman. Id. Appellant also argues that the passage at lines 16–19 of paragraph 33 of Kaufman, which discusses the approach to matching by user input, does not teach or suggest determining whether a user input for display of a forward path is received while the object is stopped on the optimal path, as required by claim 7. Id. Appellant has the better position here. To the extent that the Examiner finds it necessary to combine aspects of the two alternative approaches to obtaining a matching of simulation data to actual vehicle location, this violates the principle that anticipation requires every element of the claimed invention to be literally present, and arranged as in the claim. Perkin–Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 894 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 857 (1984); Kalman v. Kimberly–Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 771–72 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984). The Examiner further has not established that either of the two approaches individually meets the claim limitation at issue. Appeal 2012-011846 Application 12/197,829 5 Further, the Examiner’s alternative rejection based on obviousness appears to rely on the statement that persons of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the two approaches “could be performed as . . . corresponding functions of the navigation system.” Ans. 2–3. We, like Appellant, are uncertain as to what the Examiner means by “corresponding functions.” Reply Br. 2. In any event, the Examiner’s position is conclusory in nature and lacks rational underpinnings. The two matching approaches are clearly identified by Kaufman as alternative approaches, and not ones that would somehow be combined. The rejection of claim 7 as anticipated by, or as being unpatentable over, Kaufman is not sustained. Claim 9 depends from claim 7 and is subject to the same rejection. The rejection is not sustained as to claim 9. Claim 14 The Examiner maintains that paragraph 43 of Kaufman discloses displaying first and second intersections that are within first and second scopes (distances) in a forward path for the current object (vehicle) position, when the object is stopped, wherein the forward path is an optimal path in a forward area from the current object position. Final Action 4–5. More specifically, the Examiner finds that this paragraph in Kaufman, as well as Figure 7, evidence that, while the object/vehicle is on road segment 212[,] rendering for segments 214, 216 and 218 occurs (see Fig[.] 7), which all intersect at 213 (the first intersection), thus there is a determination that intersection 213 is within the scope of road segment 212. . . . Therefore, while the vehicle is stopped on road segment 212, rendering would still occur for the road segments and corresponding intersections. . . . The second intersection is either of the intersections beyond Appeal 2012-011846 Application 12/197,829 6 213 that are at the end of road segments 214, 216 and 218. Rendering of road segments 214, 216 and 218 occurs while the object is on road segment 212 (to include when the speed is matched to the simulation), where each road segment includes the first intersection 213 and the ending intersection (not numbered; see Fig[.] 7 and the legend showing each “O” as an intersection). Ans. 3. The Examiner concludes, in the alternative, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, by matching the speed of the vehicle in Kaufman to the simulation speed (Kaufman, para. 33), “the navigation device would determine the object speed as zero when the object is stopped and display the forward path simulation based on the current position.” Id. at 5. Appellant argues that, contrary to the Examiner’s finding that road segments 214, 216, and 218 are rendered while the object/vehicle is on road segment 212, paragraph 43 of Kaufman discloses that, although map data that may be used for rendering segments 214, 216, and 218 is accessed and stored while the object is on segment 212, there is no rendering of segments 214, 216, and 218 into map images at that point. Reply Br. 2–3. Appellant points out that Kaufman discloses that rendering is performed only after the navigation system 10 (object/vehicle) moves past intersection 213, when the navigation system determines onto which of segments 214, 216, or 218 the object/vehicle has moved. Id. at 3. Appellant further notes that Figure 7 of Kaufman does not support the Examiner’s position regarding the rendering of road segments 214, 216, and 218 while the object/vehicle is on segment 212, in that Figure 7 does not illustrate how intersections are rendered on a display, but merely shows a schematic road network in order to aid in Appeal 2012-011846 Application 12/197,829 7 describing the relationships between the road segments identified and described in paragraph 43. Id. at 2. As noted by Appellant, the Examiner’s position is not supported, and is indeed contradicted, by the disclosure in paragraph 43 of Kaufman. That paragraph states that [w]hen the portable navigation system 10 moves past the intersection 213 [i.e., is no longer on road segment 212], its position is determined. The portable navigation system is located on either the road segment 214, 216 or 218. When it is determined on which of these road segments the portable navigation system is located, the previously stored data simulating travel along the road segment is used to render a map image on the display of the portable navigation system [10]. Kaufman, para. 43 (emphasis added). The Examiner states that “this does [sic, not?] exclude a determination of when the system is on road segment 212.” Ans. 4. However, the Examiner has failed to point to any other teaching in Kaufman in support of the position that any of road segments 214, 216, or 218 are rendered into images while the object/vehicle is on road segment 212. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 14 as being anticipated by, or as being unpatentable over, Kaufman, is not sustained. Claims 15–17 and 19 depend from claim 14 and are subject to the same rejection. The rejection is not sustained as to claims 15–17 and 19. Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 20, and 21--Obviousness--Kaufman/Kawasaki The Examiner finds that Kaufman discloses all limitations present in claim 1, with the exception of “determining, while the object is stopped on Appeal 2012-011846 Application 12/197,829 8 the optimal path, whether a traveling-stopped time of the object is at least equal to a predetermined time and displaying, upon determining that the travelling-stopped time is at least equal to the predetermined time, the forward path for the detected current position of the object.” Final Action 6. The Examiner cites to Kawasaki as disclosing “a method of displaying an optimal path of an object in a navigation device which determines a traveling-stopped time equal to a predetermined time (i.e.; when the vehicle is stopped at an intersection) on the optimal path and displays the forward path at the predetermined time (Para 136).” Id. at 7. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Kaufman in view of Kawasaki, to include the claim limitation found to be missing from Kaufman “for the purpose of eliminating the need for a user to manually operate the navigation device interface,” in that paragraph 33 of Kaufman and paragraph 136 of Kawasaki each “recognize different situations in which the forward path of the object can be presented to the user.” Id. The Examiner further, in response to Appellant’s position (see, e.g., Appeal Br. 18) that, although Kawasaki describes that the system therein determines when a user stops at an intersection, Kawasaki makes no reference to the amount of time that the user is stopped, states that “the examiner believes that in determining when the object is stopped at an intersection would require the navigation device to measure a time period in order to distinguish from the object passing through the intersection as opposed to being stopped.” Final Action 13. Appellant characterizes the passage quoted immediately above as a taking of Official Notice by the Examiner, that Appellant timely traversed the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice, and that the Examiner failed to Appeal 2012-011846 Application 12/197,829 9 come forth with documentary evidence supporting the asserted well-known facts. Appeal Br. 18–20. Appellant further argues that “a determination that an object is stopped does not require an additional determination of whether an object is stopped for a predetermined period of time.” Id. at 20. Thus, according to Appellant, Kawasaki does not teach or disclose this additional determination, nor does Kawasaki teach or suggest “displaying, upon determining that the traveling-stopped time is at least equal to the predetermined time, a forward path for the detected current position of the object.” Id. Appellant points out that paragraph 136, relied upon by the Examiner, teaches that the determination that a user is stopped is used only for determining whether to perform another search for a route to a destination. Id. Appellant again has the better position here. The Examiner’s position that determining whether a vehicle is stopped at an intersection would require the navigation device to measure a time period in order to distinguish whether an object is moving or is stopped is not supported by rational underpinnings. In attempting to explain how this assertion is little more than “common sense,” the Examiner states that, “[i]n order to determine if the object is stopped at an intersection, there would have to be a measured velocity of 0 mph[,] for example, which is calculated based on a time measurement (i.e. a predetermined time).” Ans. 5. The Examiner fails to take into account that the determination that the object is stopped could be made by a sensor as opposed to performing a calculation. Even were a calculation performed, there is no indication in Kawasaki that a cumulative traveling-stopped time is compared to a predetermined time in order to determine whether and when the two are at least equal, as required by claim Appeal 2012-011846 Application 12/197,829 10 1, and then using that determination to further determine whether to display a forward path for the current position of the stopped object. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Kaufman in view of Kawasaki is not sustained. The rejection is also not sustained as to claims 2, 3, 5, and 6, which depend from claim 1 and are subject to the same rejection. Independent claim 21 contains limitations similar to those discussed above, which the combination of Kaufman and Kawasaki is seen as being deficient in rendering claim 1 obvious. The rejection of claim 21 is thus also not sustained. Claim 8 depends from claim 7, and claims 10 and 13 depend from claim 8, and these claims are subject to this rejection as well. Appellant states that these claims stand or fall with claim 7. Appeal Br. 2. Although the claims cannot technically stand or fall with claim 7, in that they are subject to a different ground of rejection, the Examiner does not rely on Kawasaki in any manner that remedies the deficiencies of Kaufman pertaining to claim 7. Further, claim 8 contains limitations similar to those discussed above with respect to claim 1, for which the combination of Kaufman and Kawasaki is found to be deficient. The rejection of claims 8, 10, and 13 as being unpatentable over Kaufman and Kawasaki, is thus not sustained. Claim 20 depends from claim 14, and is also subject to this ground of rejection. Appellant does not separately argue for the patentability of claim 20, instead stating that claim 20 stands or falls with claim 14. Appeal Br. 2. As above, although claim 20 cannot technically stand or fall with claim 14, in that it is subject to a different ground of rejection, the Examiner does not Appeal 2012-011846 Application 12/197,829 11 rely on Kawasaki in any manner that remedies the deficiencies of Kaufman pertaining to claim 14. The rejection of claim 20 is thus not sustained. Claim 4--Obviousness--Kaufman/Kawasaki/Nimura Claim 4 depends from independent claim 1. The Examiner does not rely on Nimura in any manner which overcomes the deficiencies in the combination of Kaufman and Kawasaki discussed above with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 4 as being unpatentable over Kaufman, Kawasaki, and Nimura is not sustained. Claims 11 and 18--Obviousness--Kaufman/Nimura Claims 11 and 18 depend, respectively, from independent claims 7 and 14. The Examiner does not rely on Nimura in any manner which overcomes the deficiencies in the Kaufman disclosure discussed above with respect to claims 7 and 14. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 11 and 18 as being unpatentable over Kaufman and Nimura is not sustained. DECISION The rejection of claims 7, 9, 14–17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by, or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaufman, is reversed. The rejection of claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaufman in view of Kawasaki is reversed. The rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaufman in view of Kawasaki and Nimura is reversed. Appeal 2012-011846 Application 12/197,829 12 The rejection of claims 11 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaufman in view of Nimura is reversed. REVERSED llw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation