Ex Parte Kolodziej

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2017

12870460 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2017)

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.
12/870,460 08/27/2010 Kris Kolodziej 20100923 9860
25537 7590
VERIZON
PATENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
EXAMINER
SUAREZ, ERNESTO A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3653
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
patents @ verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KRIS KOLODZIEJ
Appeal 2015-003582
Application 12/870,460
Technology Center 3600
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, JILL D. HILL, and GORDON D. KINDER,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1—30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The Real Party in Interest in this matter is Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon
Wireless.
Appeal 2015-003582
Application 12/870,460
The claims are directed to a system for automatically recording
parking space location following detected arrival at a navigated destination.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). Claims 1 and 13 are the only independent
claims. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter and is reproduced
below.
1. A mobile navigation system comprising:
a navigation computer configured to receive a destination
to which a user of the mobile navigation system wishes to travel
in a vehicle and to provide guidance to the user about how to
navigate to the destination;
an arrival detection system configured to automatically
detect when the vehicle has arrived within a predetermined range
of the destination;
a parking detection system configured to detect when the
vehicle has parked in a parking space;
a location recordation system configured to record a
current location of the vehicle in the parking space, upon
command in a format that the navigation computer can later
provide guidance to the user about how to navigate back to the
location of the vehicle in the parking space;
a location recordation trigger system configured to
command the location recordation system to record the current
location of the vehicle in the parking space as a result of:
the arrival detection system detecting arrival of the vehicle
within the predetermined range of the destination; and
the parking detection system subsequently detecting that
the vehicle has parked in the parking space; and
a notification system configured to, in response to
detection of the arrival of the vehicle within the predetermined
range of the destination by the arrival detection system,
wirelessly transmit an arrival notice to one or more entities
providing services to the user, wherein the arrival notice
indicates that the user has arrived within the predetermined range
of the destination.
2
Appeal 2015-003582
Application 12/870,460
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Aito US 5,991,689 Nov. 23, 1999
Clapper US 6,147,624 Nov. 14, 2000
Browne US 7,834,778 Nov. 16,2010
Baker US 2006/0111835 A1 May 25, 2006
Barnes US 2012/0089470 A1 Apr. 12,2012
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claims 1—4, 6—8, 10-15, 19—22, and 26—29 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baker and Barnes.
2. Claims 5, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Baker, Barnes, and Clapper.
3. Claims 9, 16, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Baker, Barnes, and Aito.
4. Claims 11, 12, 17, 18, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Baker, Barnes, and Browne.
OPINION
Rejection 1
Appellant argues claims 1 and 13 as a group. Appeal Br. 4—8. We
select claim 1 as representative, and claim 13 stands or falls with claim 1.
37C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Baker teaches a device for recording parking
location. Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner also finds that Baker does not
disclose a navigation system that is configured to receive a proposed
3
Appeal 2015-003582
Application 12/870,460
destination, assist in navigating to the destination and automatically detect
when a vehicle is within a prescribed distance of the destination. Final Act.
3^4. The Examiner finds that Barnes teaches the limitations of claim 1 that
are not found in Baker. Final Act. 4. Based on his findings, the Examiner
concludes:
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify Baker’s disclosed mobile navigation system and
computer such that the navigation computer is configured to
receive a destination to which a user of the mobile navigation
system wishes to travel in a vehicle and to provide guidance to
the user about how to navigate to the destination, and provide an
arrival detection system configured to automatically detect when
the vehicle has arrived within a predetermined range of the
destination, and a notification system configured to, in response
to detection of the arrival of the vehicle within the predetermined
range of the destination by the arrival detection system,
wirelessly transmit an arrival notice to one or more entities
providing services to the user, wherein the arrival notice
indicates that the user has arrived within the predetermined range
of the destination, as taught by Barnes, for the purpose of
remotely offering and providing services to the user relating to
the intended destination thereby saving a user of the mobile
navigation system valuable time.
Final Act. 5—6.
Appellant argues:
Baker does not teach navigating to a particular destination, Baker
is not concerned with detecting arrival within a predetermined
range of such a destination, and Baker does not condition
recording the vehicle location parked in a parking space on such
arrival detection or on parking detection subsequent to such
arrival detection.
4
Appeal 2015-003582
Application 12/870,460
Appeal Br. 4. Appellant then argues the combination of Baker and Bams
does not result in a system that records a parking event only if it has been
preceded by an arrival event. Reply Br. 1. Specifically, Appellant argues:
Appellant submits that combining a parking event recorder (as
taught by Baker) with an arrival detection system (as taught by
Bames) does not teach a mobile navigation system comprising:
a navigation computer; an arrival detection system; a parking
detection system; a location recordation system; and a location
recordation trigger system configured to command the location
recordation system to record the current location of the vehicle
in the parking space as a result of the arrival detection system
detecting arrival of the vehicle within the predetermined range of
the destination and the parking detection system subsequently
detecting that the vehicle has parked in the parking space, as
recited in claim 1.
Id. Appellant also discusses each of the references individually, pointing out
what features each does not have. Appeal Br. 4—6. Appellant states that
these arguments are made because any combination cannot be greater than
the sum of its parts. Reply Br. 2.
Appellant’s approach could be convincing only if the argument is
commensurate with what the cited references actually disclose. Baker, for
example, discloses a concern for what may be termed “false positives,” that
is, events that are recorded as parking events, but turn out not to be. Baker |
32. This is the same motivation that Appellant discloses as an advantage to
enabling a parking event to be recorded only if it occurs after an arrival
event. Spec. 1 60. What the Appellant terms a “leap of faith” (Appeal Br. 6)
in combining Baker and Bames, being foreshadowed by Baker’s concern for
false positives, is an obvious combination.
Appellant also argues that “Bames, at most, teaches detecting arrival
within a predetermined range of a destination and taking action based solely
5
Appeal 2015-003582
Application 12/870,460
on such arrival detection. Barnes does not condition taking action on arrival
detection AND subsequent parking detection, in contrast to the explicit
recitation [in claim 1].” Appeal Br. 5. Appellant has not considered the full
scope of the disclosure of Barnes. The Final Action cited, inter alia, Barnes
1361. Final Act. 4. There Barnes discloses that his “device 101 includes
programming to take an action when the location data and one or more
sensed inputs satisfy predetermined criteria.” Barnes 1361. Thus, Barnes
does condition taking action (e.g., recording a parking event) on arrival
detection (i.e., location data satisfying predetermined criteria) and
subsequent parking event (i.e., detecting parking as taught by Baker).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding one of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that:
the combination of Baker in view of Barnes suggests that the
location recordation trigger system of Baker commands the
location recordation system to record the current location of the
vehicle as a location of the vehicle in the parking space as a
result of the arrival detection system detecting the arrival of the
vehicle within a predetermined range of the destination (taught
by Barnes) and that the parking detection system subsequently
detecting that the vehicle has parked in the parking space
(taught by Baker).
Final Act. 6.
The Appellant argues the limits of the cited references, Baker and
Barnes, separately (Appeal Br. 4—6), that Baker and Barnes together do not
teach all the limitations of claim 1 (Appeal Br. 6—7), and that the Examiner
has failed to provide rational underpinning for the finding that it would be
obvious to combine Baker and Barnes to arrive at the limitations of claim 1
(Appeal Br. 7—8). In light of the discussion above concerning the
disclosures of Baker and Barnes, Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us
6
Appeal 2015-003582
Application 12/870,460
that the Examiner’s findings and reasoning concerning claim 1 are in error,
and we sustain the rejection of claim 1. For the same reasons we sustain the
rejection of claim 13.
Rejection 2
Appellant argues claims 2—4, 6—8, 10-12, 14—15, 19-22 and 26—29
are patentable for the same reasons as claims 1 and 13. Appeal Br. 8—9. For
the reasons stated above. We sustain the rejection of these claims.
Rejection 3
Appellant argues that claims 5, 23, and 24 are patentable over the
combination of Barnes, Baker and Clapper because Clapper does not make
up for the deficiencies of Barnes and Baker. Appeal Br. 9. As we find no
deficiency in the Baker-Bames combination, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of these claims.
Appellant argues for the patentability of claims 9, 16, and 30. Appeal
Br. 9. Appellant’s argument is premised on the proposition that “Aito is
relied upon for teaching a global user setting of the location recordation
trigger system.” Id. Appellant goes on to argue that Aito “teaches a global
setting allowing for or preventing an automatic recalculation of a route by a
navigation system, but such route recordation is not the same as recording
the current location of a vehicle on parking space after arrival.” Id.
However, Appellant has misstated the purpose for which Aito was cited.
The Examiner finds that “Aito teaches one of various implementations of a
global user setting which a user may set to automatically cause or not
automatically cause a navigation system to perform an action.” Final Act.
20. Thus the Examiner cites Aito for a different, broader proposition than
7
Appeal 2015-003582
Application 12/870,460
that argued by Appellant. Accordingly, Appellant’s argument is not
persuasive of examiner error.
Appellant also argues that Aito does not overcome the asserted
deficiencies of Baker and Barnes. Appeal Br. 9. As we find no such
deficiencies, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 16, and 30.
Rejection 4
Appellant argues that claims 11, 12, 17, 18, and 25 are patentable
because they depend from one or the other of claims 1 and 13. Appeal Br.
10. These claims are rejected over the combination of Baker and Barnes and
further in combination with Browne. Final Act. 23. Appellant argues that
Browne does not make up for the deficiencies of Baker and Barnes.
Because we find no deficiencies in the combination of Baker and Barnes, we
sustain the Examiner’s findings in connection with claims 11, 12, 17, 18,
and 25.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—30 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). See 37 C.F.R. §
1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8