Ex Parte Kuramochi

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 23, 2008

09970968 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 23, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SHINGO KURAMOCHI
____________

Appeal 2007-3475
Application 09/970,968
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: January 23, 2008
____________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2007-3475
Application 09/970,968

A. INVENTION
The disclosed invention is generally directed to managing objects
based on the position of the objects. More particularly, Appellant’s
invention provides for a system in which a host computer stores map data,
coordinates data, manages data of an object to be managed, and outputs the
database to a portable terminal machine. The portable terminal machine can
display the management information of the object to be managed such as
position or coordinate information based on the database received from the
host computer (Spec. 4).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1, which further illustrates the invention, follows:
1. A system for managing an object positioned in a
management area, the system comprising
a host computer for holding a database in which position data of
an object to be managed is stored in relation to attribute data of the
object to be managed used for identifying the object to be managed,
the position data including coordinate data comprising starting points
“x” and “Y” and end points “X” and “Y” for each object to be
managed;
a portable terminal machine configured to specify the object to
be managed, amount a plurality of objects to be managed;
data communication means for transferring only a selected
database from the host computer to the portable terminal machine so
that only information about the object to be managed and physical
surrounding attributes is transferred to the portable terminal; and
an editing means for editing the coordinate data of a new object
to be managed or when the object to be managed is being moved to a
new location,
2
Appeal 2007-3475
Application 09/970,968

wherein the portable terminal machine displays a position of the
object to be managed according to the coordinate data in the database
transferred from the host computer to the portable terminal machine
and the physical surrounding attributes.

C. REJECTION
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,867,110 (“Naito”), U.S. Patent No.
6,263,347 (“Kobayashi”), and U.S. Patent No. 5,835,916 (“Inaki”).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends
to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742 (2007). To be nonobvious, an improvement must be
“more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.” Id. at 1740. Appellant has the burden on appeal to
the Board to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an
applicant can overcome a rejection [under § 103] by showing insufficient
evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case
with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.”) (quoting In re
Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Therefore, we look to
Appellant’s Brief to show error in the proffered prima facie case.

3
Appeal 2007-3475
Application 09/970,968

II. CLAIM GROUPING
“When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are
argued as a group by appellant, the Board may select a single claim from the
group of claims that are argued together to decide the appeal with respect to
the group of claims as to the ground of rejection on the basis of the selected
claim alone. Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the
failure of appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped
together shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must
consider the patentability of any grouped claim separately.” 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2005).1
Here, Appellant argues independent claims 1, 6, 7, 10, 13, and 17 and
each of dependent claims 2-5, 9, 11, 12, 16, and 18-20 separately but does
not argue dependent claims 8, 14, and 15. Also, Appellant places claims 3
and 4 in different headings in the Appeal brief but relies on the same
arguments with respect to deficiencies in the cited references.
We consider dependent claim 8 with independent claim 7 from which
claim 8 depends, dependent claims 14 and 15 with independent claim 13,
and claims 3 and 4 as a group.
At the outset, we note that Appellant has presented no arguments
directed to the combinability of Naito, Kobayashi, and Inaki for claims 1-20.
Accordingly, Appellant has waived any such arguments, and the
combinability of the references will not be addressed here. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2006) (“any arguments or authorities not included in the

1 We cite to the version of the Code of Federal Regulations in effect at the
time of the Appeal Brief. The current version includes the same rules.

4
Appeal 2007-3475
Application 09/970,968

brief or a reply brief filed pursuant to Sec. § 41.41 will be refused
consideration by the Board, unless good cause is shown.”).

III. CLAIM 1
“Rather than reiterate the positions of parties in toto, we focus on the
issue therebetween.” Ex Parte Filatov, No. 2006-1160, 2007 WL 1317144,
at *2 (BPAI 2007).
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s finding that claim 1 is unpatentable
over Naito, Kobayashi, and Inaki and asserts that Naito fails to disclose
prompting “a user to specify a specific object to be managed from among the
plurality of objects to be managed” (App. Br. 10).
We find that claim 1 fails to recite prompting a user to specify a
specific object to be managed from among a plurality of objects to be
managed. “[L]imitations are not to be read into the claims from the
specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). Therefore, we are
unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument.
Appellant further asserts that Naito fails to disclose “a portable
terminal machine that specifies an object to be managed, among a plurality
of objects to be managed” (App. Br. 10). The Examiner finds that Naito
discloses a portable terminal machine configured to specify the object to be
managed (Ans. 4). We find the weight of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s position.
The Specification discloses an “object to be managed” (see, e.g.,
Spec. 3) and discloses examples of “objects” such as a computer (Spec. 1), a
machine, a collection of machines (Spec. 8), merchandise stock, information
5
Appeal 2007-3475
Application 09/970,968

in a library, or books (Spec. 24). However, the Specification fails to provide
an explicit definition of the term “object to be managed” or extrinsic
evidence demonstrating how one of ordinary skill in the art would have
defined the term. In the absence of such guidance, we construe the term
“object” using a standard definition as any entity that is tangible or
perceptible. “[T]he PTO gives claims their ‘broadest reasonable
interpretation.’” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting
In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
Naito discloses a “portable terminal 12” (col. 4, l. 38) containing a
“current position detecting unit 28” (col. 5, l. 29, Fig. 1) that “generates
position information data indicative of the current position of the portable
terminal . . . and sends the data” (col. 5, ll. 29-32). This position information
data is disclosed by Naito as being received at a host database (col. 6, ll. 6-7)
and corresponding to position data stored in the host database of “disaster
information data to be reported to the user of a portable terminal 12 who is at
the position concerned upon occurrence of a disaster” (col. 6, ll. 8-12).
Also, the disasters reported may include multiple types of disasters “such as
an earthquake, a tidal wave, an explosion, pollution” (col. 7, ll. 34-36). We
find that “objects” such as any entity that is tangible or perceptible include
such disasters because disasters are tangible and/or perceptible. We therefore
find that the portable terminal of Naito specifies, among a plurality of
disasters (i.e., objects to be managed) stored in the host database, a disaster
corresponding to position data of the portable terminal. Hence, we agree
with the Examiner that Naito discloses that the position detecting unit 28 (of
the portable terminal 12) specifies the object to be managed (i.e., a disaster)
among a plurality of objects to be managed, as recited in claim 1.
6
Appeal 2007-3475
Application 09/970,968

Appellant also argues that Naito does not disclose “an editing means
for editing the coordinate data of a new object to be managed or when the
object to be managed is being moved to a new location” (App. Br. 10). The
Examiner asserts that Naito discloses “means for updating the content of the
database based on the received information (data); see col. 12, lines 35-41”
(Ans. 16) and further equates the means for updating of Naito with the
editing means recited in claim 1. The portion of Naito cited by the Examiner
discloses that “the host computer 50 . . . receives the disaster information
data . . . [and] . . . updates the contents of the database 52 based on the
received information” (col. 12, ll. 34-37). We agree with the Examiner that
Naito discloses editing coordinate data of a disaster (i.e., object to be
managed) when the object is new or moving to a new location as recited in
claim 1.
Appellant also asserts that although Naito “discusses how a database
can be updated, this is not the same as an editing means for editing the
coordinate data of a new object” (Reply Br. 2). We adopt the standard
definition of the term “update” as meaning modifying information with more
recent information. “[T]he PTO gives claims their 'broadest reasonable
interpretation.’” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In
re Hyatt, 211 F.3d at 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Based on the plain meaning of
the terms, we find that updating (or modifying) a database is equivalent to
editing data in the database. Appellant fails to provide a rationale supporting
the contention that a means for updating a database as disclosed by Naito “is
not the same as an editing means for editing” (Reply Br. 2). As such, we are
unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments.
7
Appeal 2007-3475
Application 09/970,968

Appellant asserts that Naito fails to disclose “a database in which
position data of an object to be managed is stored in relation to attribute data
of the object to be managed” (App. Br. 10). The Examiner finds that Naito
discloses the database storing position data of an object to be managed at
column 1, line 67 – column 2, line 2. In addition, the database of Naito
stores “position information data corresponding to current positions of the
portable terminal 12 and disaster information data to be reported to the user”
(col. 6, ll. 8-10). We find the weight of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s position. Naito discloses a “host apparatus including a database
storing a plurality of data sets each concerning a predetermined position”
(col. 1, l. 67 – col. 2, l. 2), including position information “and disaster
information data to be reported to the user” (col. 6, ll. 8-10). We find that
the database in the host apparatus of Naito that stores position information
equates with the database of the host computer of claim 1 that stores position
data. Appellant has failed to provide logical reasoning regarding the alleged
difference(s) between the storing of position information of Naito and the
recitation in claim 1 of a database in which position data is stored. We
therefore are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments.
Appellant asserts that Naito fails to disclose “coordinate data
comprising starting points ‘X’ and ‘Y’ and end points ‘X’ and ‘Y’ for each
object to be managed” (App. Br. 11). The Examiner finds that Inaki
discloses “data on the coordinates start points X and Y and data on the
coordinates for the end X and Y (see Inaki, col. 4, lines 40-46).” (Ans. 17).
In addition, Naito discloses position data of a terminal that includes “data
indicative of longitude and latitude of [a] point” (col. 7, ll. 18-20). After
reviewing the record before us, we find the weight of the evidence supports
8
Appeal 2007-3475
Application 09/970,968

the Examiner’s position. Naito discloses position data including longitude
and latitude information of a location. Such information provides
geographical placement of the location at an “X” coordinate (i.e., latitude)
and a “Y” coordinate (i.e., longitude). Inaki further emphasizes this point by
disclosing locating objects by coordinates for points X and Y. Appellant has
failed to provide a rationale regarding any proposed difference(s) between
the recited X and Y coordinates and the X and Y coordinates of Inaki or the
latitude and longitudinal data of Naito. Therefore, we are unpersuaded by
Appellant’s argument.
Appellant asserts that Naito fails to disclose a data communication
means which transfers only a selected database from the host computer to
the portable terminal machine so that only information about the object to be
managed and surrounding environment attributes is transferred to the
portable terminal (App. Br. 11). The Examiner finds that Naito discloses a
data communication means at column 2, lines 25-28, including a
“communication host apparatus” (col. 2, ll. 25-26) that “transmits
appropriate data to the portable terminal” (col. 2, ll. 26-27). The
“appropriate data” includes, for example, “disaster news indicative of the
kind of disaster which occurred, the scale of the disaster . . . impassable road
section information data . . . shelter route information . . .” (col. 6, ll. 46-55).
We therefore agree with the Examiner that Naito discloses transfer of data
from a host computer to a portable terminal of information about an object to
be managed (i.e., “disaster news”) and surrounding environment attributes
(e.g., “road section information” or “shelter route information”).
Appellant further argues that “Kobayashi does not compensate for or
cure these deficiencies of NAITO” because “KOBAYASHI does not . . .
9
Appeal 2007-3475
Application 09/970,968

suggest a system that is designed to maintain or manage objects, as defined
in the claimed invention” (App. Br. 11). However, as set forth above, we
find that Naito discloses a system that manages objects to be managed.
Appellant also argues that “INAKI fails to cure . . . [the] deficiencies
of NAITO and KOBAYASHI” (App. Br. 13) because “[t]his document
(Inaki) has nothing whatsoever to do with a system that is designed to
maintain or manage objects or with regard to linking terminals to a host
computer in order [to] generate a map indicating terminal locations and fixed
items” (App. Br. 13).
“In order to rely on a reference as a basis for rejection of the
applicant's invention, the reference must either be in the field of the
applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular
problem with which the inventor was concerned.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436 (Fed.
Cir. 1986); In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“A reference is
reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that
of the inventor's endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which
it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in
considering his problem.”); Wang Laboratories Inc. v. Toshiba Corp.,
993 F.2d 858 (Fed. Cir. 1993); and State Contracting & Eng'g Corp. v.
Condotte America, Inc., 346 F.3d 1057, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (where the
general scope of a reference is outside the pertinent field of endeavor, the
reference may be considered analogous art if subject matter disclosed therein
is relevant to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved).
The present invention relates to a computer system that stores data
pertaining to objects to be managed in a host database. Inaki discloses a
10
Appeal 2007-3475
Application 09/970,968

computer system for storing and managing data (e.g., text data) in a table
(Inaki Abstract). We find that Inaki’s disclosure of storing and managing
text data in a table is reasonably pertinent to storing data pertaining to
objects to be managed in a database. Therefore, we disagree with Appellant
that Inaki has “nothing whatsoever to do with” the present invention.
In addition, as set forth above, Naito discloses a system for storing
and reporting data to a user based on a location. Ordinary design or market
forces would have prompted predictable variations to the Naito system.
Such design or market forces, for example, would have prompted one of
ordinary skill in the art to determine location information by identifying X
and Y coordinates as disclosed by Inaki to achieve a predictable variation
with expected results. Thus, even if Appellant is correct that Inaki “has
nothing whatsoever to do with” Naito or Kobayashi, we agree with the
Examiner that identifying location data using X and Y coordinates as
disclosed by Inaki would have been within the technical grasp of and
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art given market or design pressures
even assuming that Inaki’s disclosure is of a different field. “When a work
is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market
forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one.
If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727,
1740 (2007) (emphasis added).
Appellant further argues that Inaki fails to disclose “the recited data
coordinate points” (App. Br. 13). The Examiner states that Inaki discloses
“data on the coordinates start points X and Y and data on the coordinates for
the end X and Y (see Inaki, col. 4, lines 40-46)” (Ans. 17). We agree with
11
Appeal 2007-3475
Application 09/970,968

the Examiner that Inaki discloses “coordinates for the start points X and Y
and data on the coordinates for the end points X and Y” (col. 4, ll. 44-45).
Appellant fails to establish that the Inaki disclosure is not equivalent to the X
and Y coordinates recited in claim 1.
Because Appellant has failed to demonstrate the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1, we affirm the rejection of claim 1.

IV. CLAIM 6
Appellant argues that Naito fails to disclose prompting “a user to
specify a specific object to be managed from among the plurality of objects
to be managed.” (App. Br. 15). We find that claim 6 does not recite
prompting a user to specify a specific object to be managed from among the
plurality of objects to be managed. We are, therefore, unpersuaded by
Appellant’s argument.
Appellant further argues that Naito fails to disclose “a portable
terminal machine that specifies an object to be managed, among a plurality
of objects to be managed” (App. Br. 15); that Kobayashi fails to “cure these
deficiencies of NAITO” (App. Br. 15); and that “INAKI fails to cure the
above-noted deficiencies of NAITO and KOBAYASHI” (App. Br. 17). We
are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments for the reasons set forth above.
Because Appellant has failed to demonstrate the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 6, we affirm the rejection of claim 6.

V. CLAIMS 7 AND 8
We select claim 7 as the sole claim on which to decide the appeal of
the group. Appellant argues that Naito fails to disclose “searching the
12
Appeal 2007-3475
Application 09/970,968

database stored in the data storing unit according to the retrieval condition to
identify a match between the attribute data and the retrieval condition and
consequently to identify position data of the object to be managed
independent of the portable position display apparatus’s position” (App. Br.
18).
Naito discloses the host receiving “position information data from the
portable terminal 12” (col. 9, ll. 50-51) and referring “to the retrieval key
table 201 in the database 52” (col. 9, ll. 51-52) to define “an area in which
the position corresponding to the received position information data falls”
(col. 9, ll. 53-54). The data set identified corresponds to attributes of a
disaster such as “the impassable road section” or “disaster point information
. . . disaster area information data . . . and the disaster classification
information data . . .” (col. 9, ll. 61-65). Naito also does not disclose that
searching the database or identifying position data of the disaster is
dependent on portable position display apparatus position, i.e., searching and
identifying is independent of the portable position display apparatus position
as claim 7 recites. Because we find that Naito discloses searching the
database (i.e., referring to the retrieval key table in the database) to identify a
match (i.e., disaster area information, etc.) and identifying position data of
the object to be managed (i.e., position corresponding to a disaster)
independently of the position of a portable apparatus, we are unpersuaded by
Appellant’s argument.
Appellant further argues that “KOBAYASHI does not compensate for
or cure these deficiencies of NAITO” (App. Br. 19) and “INAKI fails to cure
the above-noted deficiencies of NAITO and KOBAYASHI” (App. Br. 20).
13
Appeal 2007-3475
Application 09/970,968

However, as set forth above, Appellant has failed to establish deficiencies of
Naito.
Appellant also argues that “there is no apparent basis or motivation
for modifying NAITO in view of the teachings of KOBAYASHI” because
“NAITO requires the information to be dependent on the position of the
remote terminal” (App. Br. 21). However, as set forth above, we do not find
that Naito discloses that disaster information stored in the host database is
dependent on the position of the remote terminal. Although Appellant
asserts that such information in Naito is dependent on the position of a
remote terminal, Appellant fails to provide specific support for this
assertion. Therefore, we are unconvinced by Appellant’s argument.
Because Appellant has failed to demonstrate the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 7, we affirm the rejection of claim 7, and of claim 8, which
falls therewith.

VI. CLAIM 10
Appellant argues that Naito fails to disclose “a database in which
position data of an object to be managed is stored in relation to attribute data
of the object to be managed” or “the database outputting unit outputs only a
selected portion of the database to a portable terminal machine so that only
information about the object to be managed and physical attributes of a
surrounding environment is transferred to the portable terminal” (App. Br.
22).
As set forth above, we find that Naito discloses storing disaster
information and position information corresponding to the disaster, which
are encompassed by the claimed attribute data and position information of an
14
Appeal 2007-3475
Application 09/970,968

“object to be managed.” Therefore, we find that Naito discloses a database
storing position data of an object to be managed in relation to attribute data
of the object to be managed.
In addition, Naito discloses transmitting “to the appropriate portable
terminal 12 . . . the retrieval data set including the text information data 205
to the disaster classification information data 210 read out in STEP 703
(STEP 704 . . .” (col. 9, l. 66 – col. 10, l. 5). We find that Naito’s disclosure
of transmitting disaster information to the portable terminal is encompassed
by the database outputting unit recited in claim 10. Therefore, we are
unconvinced by Appellant’s argument.
Appellant further argues that “KOBAYASHI does not compensate for
or cure these deficiencies of NAITO” and “INAKI fails to cure the above-
noted deficiencies of NAITO and KOBAYASHI” (App. Br. 23). However,
Appellant fails to establish specific “deficiencies” of Naito.
Because Appellant has failed to demonstrate the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 10, we affirm the rejection of claim 10.

VII. CLAIMS 13, 14, AND 15
We select claim 13 as the sole claim on which to decide the appeal of
the group. Appellant argues that Naito fails to disclose “displaying the
position of the specific object to be managed in the area on the map
according to the map data and the position data read from the database”
(App. Br. 24).
Naito discloses a data processing unit of a portable terminal that
indicates “the disaster point information data 208 and the like to specify an
area in the map to be displayed on the screen of the display unit 22 so as to
15
Appeal 2007-3475
Application 09/970,968

read out appropriate map data from the map database” (col. 10, ll. 23-27).
We find that Naito’s disclosure of displaying map data corresponding to
disaster point information data encompasses displaying a position of an
object (i.e., a disaster) to be managed in the area on the map, as recited in
claim 13. Therefore, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument.
Appellant further argues that “KOBAYASHI does not compensate for
or cure these deficiencies of NAITO” (App. Br. 24). However, Appellant
fails to establish specific “deficiencies” of Naito.
Appellant also argues that Inaki is “entirely unrelated to the subject
matter of the instant invention” (App. Br. 25). For reasons set forth supra,
we disagree with Appellant’s assertion.
Because Appellant has failed to demonstrate the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 13, we affirm the rejection of claim 13, and of claims 14 and
15, which fall therewith.

VIII. CLAIM 17
Appellant argues that Naito fails to disclose “drawing on a map a
display mark of the object to be managed according to an input from a user
that specifies the object to be managed from among a plurality of objects to
be managed” (App. Br. 26).
Naito discloses a display unit that “displays on the screen thereof a
text corresponding to the text information data, and, based upon the supplied
intersection position data, displays on the screen thereof an image of a map
in which the impassable road sections and the route toward the shelter are
specified” (col. 10, ll. 45-49). We find that Naito’s disclosure of displaying
an image of a map including an indication of a specific disaster (i.e., one
16
Appeal 2007-3475
Application 09/970,968

object to be managed) based on location of the user is encompassed by
“drawing a display mark of the object to be managed according to an input
from a user that specifies the object to be managed from among a plurality
of objects to be managed” as recited in claim 17.
Appellant further argues that “KOBAYASHI does not compensate for
or cure these deficiencies of NAITO” (App. Br. 27). However, Appellant
fails to establish specific “deficiencies” of Naito.
Appellant also argues that Inaki is “entirely unrelated to the subject
matter of the instant invention” (App. Br. 28). For reasons set forth supra,
we disagree with Appellant’s assertion.
Because Appellant has failed to demonstrate the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 17, we affirm the rejection of claim 17.

IX. CLAIM 2
Appellant argues that Naito fails to disclose “searching the database
according to the retrieval condition to obtain the position data from the
database when the attribute data of the object to be managed matches the
retrieval condition” (App. Br. 28).
However, Naito discloses the host receiving “position information
data from the portable terminal 12” (col. 9, ll. 50-51) and referring “to the
retrieval key table 201 in the database 52” (col. 9, ll. 51-52) to define “an
area in which the position corresponding to the received position
information data falls” (col. 9, ll. 53-54). The data set identified corresponds
to attributes of a disaster such as “the impassable road section” or “disaster
point information . . . disaster area information data . . . and the disaster
classification information data . . .” (col. 9, ll. 61-65). Appellant, while
17
Appeal 2007-3475
Application 09/970,968

asserting that Naito does not disclose claim 2, nevertheless, fails to provide a
logical basis to establish that Naito’s disclosure of searching the database
(i.e., referring to the retrieval key table in the database) to identify position
data of a disaster area (object to be managed) is not encompassed by the
searching recited in claim 2.
Because Appellant has failed to demonstrate the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 2, we affirm the rejection of claim 2.

X. CLAIMS 3 AND 4
We select claim 3 as the sole claim on which to decide the appeal of
the group. Appellant argues that the Examiner “has failed to explain how
such language [at col. 10, ll. 44-55] even remotely discloses or suggests that
the portable terminal includes a synchronization unit for synchronizing data
in the database stored in the data storing unit of the portable terminal
machine with data in the database held in the host computer” (App. Br. 30).
Naito discloses that information from the host database is supplied to
the portable terminal and displayed on a display unit in the portable terminal
(col. 10, ll. 44-46). “The portable terminal 12 has received the retrieval data
set via the communication network system 14” and “the data processing unit
24 reads out the second text information data 302 from the first database in
the database 32, based upon the disaster classification information data 210
in the retrieval data set (col. 10, ll. 6-15). Naito therefore discloses the host
database sending stored disaster information to the portable terminal and the
portable terminal reading out the information from “database 32.” Hence,
we find that the disaster information in the host database is synchronized
with the disaster information in database 32. Although Appellant asserts
18
Appeal 2007-3475
Application 09/970,968

that Naito fails to disclose synchronizing data in the database, Appellant
fails to provide a rationale supporting non-equivalence of Naito with claim
3.
Because Appellant has failed to demonstrate the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 3, we affirm the rejection of claim 3, and of claim 4, which
falls therewith.

XI. CLAIM 5
Appellant argues that the Examiner “has failed to explain how such
language [Naito, col. 1, l. 65 – col. 2, l. 20] even remotely discloses or
suggests that the object to be managed is a computer” (App. Br. 32).
As set forth above, the Specification fails to provide an explicit
definition of the term “object to be managed” or extrinsic evidence as to how
one of ordinary skill in the art would have defined the term. “[T]he PTO
gives claims their 'broadest reasonable interpretation.’” In re Bigio,
381 F.3d at 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d at 1372
(Fed. Cir. 2000)). Applying a broad but reasonable interpretation, we find
that “objects to be managed” include any entity that is tangible or
perceptible, such as a portable terminal disclosed by Naito.
Naito discloses that the host computer is in communication with “at
least one portable terminal” (i.e., an object to be managed) via a
“communication network” and contains a database. The host database
contains “position information indicative of the current position of the
portable terminal detected by the current position detecting means” (col. 2,
ll. 21-25). Hence, the host computer of Naito holds “a database in which
19
Appeal 2007-3475
Application 09/970,968

position data” of the portable terminal (corresponding to position data of a
disaster) is stored.
We also apply a broad but reasonable interpretation to the term
“computer” to include any device that processes data. We find that the
portable terminal of Naito process data and is therefore encompassed by the
claimed “computer” of claim 5. Therefore, we find that Naito discloses the
features of claim 5.
Appellant, while asserting that Naito does not “remotely disclose[s]”
claim 5, nevertheless, fails to provide a logical basis to establish specific
differences between the Naito disclosure and claim 5.
Because Appellant has failed to demonstrate the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 5, we affirm the rejection of claim 5.

XII. CLAIM 9
Appellant argues that “[t]he Examiner has failed to explain how such
language [Naito, col. 10, ll. 44-55] even remotely discloses or suggests that
the portable display apparatus of claim 7 [from which claim 9 depends]
further includes a management information display unit for displaying
management information of the object to be managed according to the
attribute data in the database when the searching unit identifies the match”
(App. Br. 34).
Naito discloses that “the display unit 22” of the portable terminal
“displays on the screen thereof a text corresponding to the text information
data . . . [and] . . . displays . . . an image of a map in which the impassable
road sections and the route toward the shelter are specified” (col. 10, ll. 45-
49). Also, Naito discloses that the host apparatus receives “position
20
Appeal 2007-3475
Application 09/970,968

information data from the portable terminal 12 . . . refers to the retrieval key
table 201 in the database 52 to determine . . . the position corresponding to
the received position information . . .” (col. 9, ll. 46-54). Hence, Naito
discloses that position and attribute information corresponding to a disaster
(object to be managed) is identified in a host database via identifying a
match and this information is displayed “on the screen” of a portable
terminal. Appellant asserts that Naito does not “even remotely disclose[s]”
claim 9 but fails to provide a logical rationale as to how the disclosure of
Naito differs from claim 9.
Appellant further argues that “dependent claim 4 is allowable at least
for the reason that this claim [claim 9] depends from allowable claim 7”
(App. Br. 34). We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument in support of
claim 4 because claim 4 depends from independent claim 1 while claim 9
depends from independent claim 7. Also, claim 4 and claim 9 recite
different features. Therefore, we disagree that arguments presented for
claim 9 are applicable to claim 4.
Because Appellant has failed to demonstrate the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 9, we affirm the rejection of claim 9.

XIII. CLAIM 11
Appellant argues that the Examiner “has failed to explain how such
language [Naito, col. 4, l. 55 – col. 5, l. 3] even remotely discloses or
suggests that the apparatus of claim 10 further includes, among other things,
a mark drawing unit for enabling a user to draw a display mark on the map
displayed by the map display unit” (App. Br. 35).
21
Appeal 2007-3475
Application 09/970,968

Naito discloses a touch panel and an input device that “detects the
operation and provides the data processing unit 24 with instructions or data
input by the user” (col. 4, ll. 65-67). Therefore, Naito discloses a user
inputting data via an input device on a touch panel. In addition, Naito
discloses a display unit that “displays . . . an image of a map in which the
impassable road sections and the route toward the shelter are specified” (col.
10, ll. 45-49). We find that Naito’s disclosure of a user input device and
displaying an image of a map including an indication of a specific disaster
(i.e., one object to be managed) based on location of the user is encompassed
by “enabling a user to draw a display mark on the map displayed by the map
display unit” as recited in claim 11. Appellant, while asserting that Naito
does not “remotely disclose[s]” claim 11, nevertheless, fails to provide a
logical basis to establish that the user input device and display of an image
map and an indication of a disaster differs from claim 11.
Because Appellant has failed to demonstrate the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 11, we affirm the rejection of claim 11.

XIV. CLAIM 12
Appellant argues that the Examiner “has failed to explain how such
language [Naito, col. 9, ll. 51-54] even remotely discloses or suggests that
the apparatus of claim 10 further includes, among other things, that when the
display mark is drawn by the mark drawing unit, the map display unit
displays a reference line created on the map in response to a fixed item in the
area in which the object to be managed is positioned” (App. Br. 36).
Naito discloses determining “the position corresponding to the
received position information” of a portable terminal (col. 9, ll. 53-55),
22
Appeal 2007-3475
Application 09/970,968

displaying “on the screen” of a display unit of the portable terminal
information corresponding to a matching disaster, and a “route towards [a]
shelter” . . . assigned to the current position of the portable terminal or
position near thereto based of [sic, on] the shelter route information data
207” (col. 10, ll. 44-54).
The Specification fails to provide an explicit definition of the claim
term “reference line” and Appellant fails to provide extrinsic evidence
indicating how one of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted the
term. We therefore adopt a standard definition of the term “reference line”
based on the plain meaning of the individual terms as referring to an
elongated marking or indication that is of relevance to an entity. “[T]he
PTO gives claims their 'broadest reasonable interpretation.’” In re Bigio,
381 F.3d at 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d at 1372
(Fed. Cir. 2000)).
As set forth above, Naito discloses displaying a “route towards [a]
shelter.” We find that the displayed route is encompassed by an elongated
marking or indication that is of relevance to an entity (e.g., a disaster).
Appellant, while asserting that Naito does not “remotely disclose[s]” claim
12, nevertheless, fails to provide a logical basis to establish that the
displayed information of Naito differs from claim 12.
Because Appellant has failed to demonstrate the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 12, we affirm the rejection of claim 12.

XV. CLAIM 16
Appellant argues that the Examiner “has failed to explain how such
language [Naito, col. 2, ll. 39-41] even remotely discloses or suggests that
23
Appeal 2007-3475
Application 09/970,968

the host computer updates the database at predetermined times” (App. Br.
37).
Naito discloses that the portable terminal “includes a timer which
outputs a time-up signal at predetermined intervals, and the communication
means is responsive to the time-up signal to transmit the position
information data . . .” (col. 2, ll. 36-41). We disagree with Appellant that
Naito fails to “even remotely disclose[s]” updating a database at
predetermined times. Naito discloses a timer for managing position
information at specific times (i.e., responsive to a time-up signal).
Appellant, while asserting that Naito does not “remotely disclose[s]” claim
16, nevertheless, fails to provide a logical basis to establish that the timer
communicating via the communication means responsive to a “time-up
signal” of Naito differs from claim 16.
Because Appellant has failed to demonstrate the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 16, we affirm the rejection of claim 16.

XVI. CLAIM 18
Appellant argues that the Examiner
has failed to explain how such language [Naito, col. 1, l. 67 –
col. 2, l. 3 and col. 10, ll. 26-28] even remotely discloses or
suggests that the program further enables the computer to
execute a process for presenting a list of objects to be managed,
read from the database, so as to prompt the user to specify a
particular object to be managed and to be stored in relation to
the coordinate data in the fourth process.

(App. Br. 38-39).

24
Appeal 2007-3475
Application 09/970,968

As set forth above, Naito discloses storing information corresponding
to disasters (i.e., plurality of disasters), including position and/or coordinate
data, and displaying the disaster information on a user’s portable terminal
based on matching of position data received from portable terminal with
position data of the stored disaster information. We find that the Naito
disclosure, as outlined supra, is encompassed by claim 18. Appellant, while
asserting that Naito does not “remotely disclose[s]” claim 18, nevertheless,
fails to provide a logical basis to establish specific differences between the
Naito disclosure and claim 18.
Because Appellant has failed to demonstrate the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 18, we affirm the rejection of claim 18.

XVII. CLAIM 19
Appellant argues that the Examiner “has failed to explain how such
language [Kobayashi, col. 5, ll. 6-40] even remotely discloses or suggests
that the portable terminal machine is configured to input object information
for managing the object to be managed independent of the position of the
portable terminal machine ad the object to be managed” (App. Br. 40).
The cited portion of Kobayashi discloses object data being “brought
out into the portable remote terminal which is selected from the host data
base” and “creating, on the portable remote terminal, an item definition data
base which defines a record attribute” (col. 5, ll. 6-11). Hence, Kobayashi
discloses a portable terminal configured to receive object data of a record
attribute (i.e., “input object information”) from a host database and the
portable terminal defining the record attribute based on the received object
data from the host database. Also, Kobayashi does not disclose or suggest
25
Appeal 2007-3475
Application 09/970,968

that the portable terminal defining the record attribute (i.e., manages the
object to be managed) is dependent on either the position of the portable
terminal or the object to be managed. Therefore, we find that the portable
terminal of Kobayashi manages objects to be managed independently of the
position of the portable terminal and the object to be managed as recited in
claim 19.
Appellant, while asserting that Kobayashi does not “remotely
disclose[s]” claim 19, nevertheless, fails to provide a logical basis to
establish specific differences between the Kobayashi disclosure and claim
19.
Because Appellant has failed to demonstrate the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 19, we affirm the rejection of claim 19.

XVIII. CLAIM 20
Appellant argues that the Examiner “has failed to explain how such
language [Naito, col. 2, ll. 28-34 and col. 10, ll. 26-28] even remotely
discloses or suggests that the user specifies an object to be managed
independent of the user’s position relative to the object to be managed”
(App. Br. 41-42).
Naito discloses the host receiving “position information data from the
portable terminal 12” (col. 9, ll. 50-51) and referring “to the retrieval key
table 201 in the database 52” (col. 9, ll. 51-52) to define “an area in which
the position corresponding to the received position information data falls”
(col. 9, ll. 53-54). The data set identified corresponds to attributes of a
disaster such as “the impassable road section” or “disaster point information
. . . disaster area information data . . . and the disaster classification
26
Appeal 2007-3475
Application 09/970,968

information data . . .” (col. 9, ll. 61-65). Naito also does not disclose that the
portable terminal providing position information to the host database is
dependent on the user’s position relative to the object be managed, i.e., the
portable terminal provides position information to the host database
independent of the user’s position relative to the object to be managed as
claim 20 recites.
Appellant, while asserting that Naito does not “remotely disclose[s]”
claim 20, nevertheless, fails to provide a logical basis to establish specific
differences between the Naito disclosure and claim 20.
Because Appellant has failed to demonstrate the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 20, we affirm the rejection of claim 20.

IX. ORDER
In summary, the rejection of claims 1-20 under § 103(a) is affirmed.
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

clj

ANDREW M. CALDERON, ESQ.
GREENBLUM AND BERSTEIN, P.L.C.
1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
RESTON, VA 22102

27