Ex Parte LuDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 13, 201613324533 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/324,533 12/13/2011 111332 7590 06/15/2016 Intellectual Property Investment Law Group 3150 De La Cruz Blvd. Suite 206 Santa Clara, CA 95054 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ChunhuaLu 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 59-116 2836 EXAMINER SMITH, JELANI A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3662 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/15/2016 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): efs@ipinvestlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHUNHUA LU Appeal 2014-005151 1,2 Application 13/324,533 Technology Center 3600 Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. According to Appellant, the "invention relates generally to a navigation system, and[,] more particularly[,] to a navigation system with 1 Our decision references Appellant's Specification ("Spec.," filed Dec. 13, 2011), Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Sept. 23, 2013), and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Mar. 17, 2014), as well as the Final Office Action ("Final Action," mailed Apr. 22, 2013) and the Examiner's Answer ("Answer," mailed Jan. 15, 2014). 2 According to Appellant, "[t]he real party in interest is TeleNav, Inc." Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2014-005151 Application 13/324,533 map matching mechanism." Spec. ii 1. Independent claims 1, 6, and 11 are the only independent claims under appeal. We reproduce, below, independent claim 1, as representative of the appealed claims. 1. A method of operation of a navigation system compnsmg: receiving a current position for locating a device; adding a new edge from a road topology map to a topological tree based on the current position; removing an old edge outside of a termination condition with no descendant edges within the termination condition from the topological tree based on the current position; determining a matched edge of the topological tree based on the current position and the topological tree; and calculating an adjusted location based on the matched edge for a control unit to display the adjusted location on the device. Appeal Br., Claims App. REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9--11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chrysanthakopoulos (US 2010/0312386 Al, pub. Dec. 9, 2010), Hirose (US 2005/0099323 Al, pub. May 12, 2005), and Calisi et al., Autonomous Navigation and Exploration in a Rescue Environment, PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2005 IEEE INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON SAFETY, SECURITY AND RESCUE ROBOTICS (June 2005) ("Calisi"). The Examiner rejects claims 2 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chrysanthakopoulos, Hirose, Calisi, and Hunzinger (US 2005/0049783 Al, pub. Mar. 3, 2005). 2 Appeal 2014-005151 Application 13/324,533 The Examiner rejects claims 5 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chrysanthakopoulos, Hirose, Calisi, and Agrawal (US 2007/0275700 Al, pub. Nov. 29, 2007). The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chrysanthakopoulos, Hirose, Calisi, and Holster (US 2012/0023141 Al, pub. Jan. 26, 2012). See Answer 2-8. ANALYSIS Obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, and20 Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 9-11, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 Appellant argues together independent claims 1, 6, and 11, and their dependent claims 4, 7, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20. See Appeal Br. 13-16, 18-20. The Examiner relies on Calisi to teach "removing an old edge outside of a termination condition with no descendant edges within the termination condition from the topological tree based on the current position" as recited in independent claim 1, and to teach similar limitations in independent claims 6 and 11. See Final Action 4; see also Answer 3--4. Appellant argues that the rejection is in error because Calisi does not teach the above-discussed limitations. See Appeal Br. 15, 18. Based on our review of the record, we sustain the rejection. We conclude that the Examiner establishes a prima facie case of obviousness, based on the combination of Chrysanthakopoulos, Hirose, and Calisi. See Final Action 4; see also Answer 3--4. Appellant argues against the rejection, contending the following: Calisi instead only teaches pruning branches with collisions or that do not belong to the tree. Calisi['s] "branches 3 Appeal 2014-005151 Application 13/324,533 with collisions" cannot teach or suggest the claimed edge "with no descendant edges within the termination condition[,]" and Calisi['s] []branches that "do not belong [to] the tree" cannot teach or suggest the claimed edge "from the topological tree[.]" This is confirmed in Calisi [on] page 56, which states: "3) On-line pruning: ... we can keep a lot more information (i.e. the whole tree) and "prune" only branches that begin with a collision. Since the robot is moving, we can also prune the root and all branches that do not belong to the current tree of possibilities." Calisi further teaches removing nodes that cannot see each other. Calisi['s] "nodes cannot see each other, and remove them" cannot teach the claimed edge "from the topological tree[.] This is confirmed in Calisi page 57, which states: "The few nodes in the topological map make it easy to move them to different positions as topology modifies and check, at each cycle, if some edges are no longer valid, i.e. two nodes cannot see each other, and remove them." Appeal Br. 15; see also id. at 18. The portions of Calisi which Appellant reproduces are among the portions of Calisi the Examiner cites and reproduces in each of the Final Action and Answer. See Final Action 4; see also Answer 3--4. It is not apparent to us, and Appellant does not otherwise establish persuasively, that these portions of Calisi fail to support the Examiner's findings and conclusions. For example, Appellant fails to establish that "Calisi['s] 'branches with collisions' cannot teach or suggest the claimed edge 'with no descendant edges within the termination condition."' Appeal Br. 15. Further, Appellant does not establish that the discussion of "prun[ing] ... branches that do not belong to the current tree" in Calisi prevents Calisi from teaching the claim limitation at issue. Additionally, we note that the quoted portion of Calisi refers to "the current 4 Appeal 2014-005151 Application 13/324,533 tree of possibilities," which appears to be different than (and a subset of) the whole tree. See Answer 9-10. As stated above, Appellant's further arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error. Thus, based on the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 9-11, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20. Claims 3 and 13 With respect to dependent claims 3 and 13, which rely respectively on independent claims 1 and 11, Appellant argues that the rejection is in error because Calisi does not teach "adding the new edge based on a density of edges in the road topology map near the current position" as recited by each dependent claim. See Appeal Br. 16-17, 19-20. Based on our review of the record, we sustain the rejection. Specifically, Appellant argues the following: Chrysanthakopoulos teaches only identifying the location of an agent, such as a robot, a vehicle, a human carried or operated device, using a probability density function. Chrysanthakopoulos['s] locating the agent cannot teach adding a new edge to the topological map. This is confirmed in Chrysanthakopoulos['s] paragraphs [0051] and [0055], which state: "[0051]. . . In one case, the agent 100 corresponds to any type of robot or automated vehicle for performing any task in any context. ... In another case, the agent 100 may correspond to a device that can be carried by a human or otherwise operated by a human. For example, the agent 100 may correspond to a location-finding device that identifies a probable location of a human within an environment. [0055] ... This means that, at any given time, the LN module 108 can identify the location of the agent using a probability density function, rather 5 Appeal 2014-005151 Application 13/324,533 than specifying the physical coordinates (e.g., Cartesian coordinates) of the agent 100 within the environment. Further, the LN module 108 can use probabilistic techniques to assess the location of the agent along a particular transition path." Appeal Br. 16-17; see also id. at 19--20 (citing Chrysanthakopoulos if 127). Appellant's arguments do not persuasively rebut the Examiner's rejection, by persuasively showing error in the Examiner's reliance on Chrysanthakopoulos's paragraph 55 to show the claim limitation at issue. More specifically, Appellant does not establish persuasively that Chrysanthakopoulos's paragraph 55 fails to teach adding a new edge based on density of edges in the road topology map near the current position. Thus, we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 3 and 13. Obviousness rejection of claims 2 and 12 Appellant argues that "these dependent claims stand or fall with independent claims 1 and 11." Appeal Br. 21. Thus, inasmuch as we sustain the rejection of the independent claims, we also sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 12. Obviousness rejection of claims 5 and 15 Appellant argues that "these dependent claims stand or fall with independent claims 1 and 11." Appeal Br. 21. Thus, inasmuch as we sustain the rejection of the independent claims, we also sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 15. Obviousness rejection of claims 8 and 18 Appellant argues that "these dependent claims stand or fall with independent claims 1 and 11." Appeal Br. 22. Thus, inasmuch as we sustain the rejection of the independent claims, we also sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 18. 6 Appeal 2014-005151 Application 13/324,533 DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-20. 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 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation