Ex Parte Machino

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 22, 2016

12442035 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/442,035 03/19/2009
127226 7590 02/24/2016
Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP
P.O. Box 747
Falls Church, VA 22040-0747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hiroshi Machino
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.
l l 63-0702PUS 1 7325
EXAMINER
LEVINE, ADAM L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/24/2016 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):
mailroom@bskb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HIROSHI MACHINO
Appeal2013-008072
Application 12/442,035 1
Technology Center 3600
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY,
and BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's Final rejection of claims 1, 3, and 6-9. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Mitsubishi Electric
Corporation. (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal2013-008072
Application 12/442,035
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's claimed invention "relates to a navigation system
providing route guidance from a current position of a vehicle to the
destination." (Spec. i-f 1.)
Claim 1 is the sole independent claims on appeal. It is reproduced
below (emphasis added):
1. A navigation system comprising:
a map data memory that stores map data;
a control processor configured to
calculate a current position of a vehicle;
detect a moving direction of the vehicle based on
map data acquired from the map data memory and the
current position of the vehicle;
retrieve map data corresponding to the current
position of the vehicle from the map data memory;
display a current position screen, including the
retrieved map data with superimposed vehicle position
mark, user menu display information, current position
message display information, an intersection
information map corresponding to a fore intersection in
the detected moving direction, the intersection
information map including road information, destination
directional information, and famous facility or scenic
spot directional information about an intersection, and
intersection information maps corresponding to
intersections further beyond the fore intersection in the
moving direction;
automatically update the intersection information
maps based on the current position and detected moving
direction, the updated intersection information maps
including the road information, the destination
directional information, and the famous facility or scenic
spot directional information about the corresponding
intersection;
identify intersections further beyond the fore
intersection in the moving direction based on exits on an
2
Appeal2013-008072
Application 12/442,035
extension line of the road on which the vehicle is
currently traveling, on a road branching to the side of the
road having a higher road type classification condition
when the road is bifurcated, or on a road branched to the
side of a vehicle passing traffic lane if the road type
classification condition is the same;
and
automatically alter the display of the current
position screen when the vehicle approaches a fore
intersection in the detected moving direction by reducing
the scale of the retrieved map and magnifj;ing the scale
of the intersection information map.
REJECTION2
Claims 1, 3, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hamada (US 2003/0195700 Al, pub. Oct. 16, 2003) and
Moroto (US 5,121,326, iss. June 9, 1992).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Hamada "does not disclose automatically
altering the display of the current position screen when the vehicle
approaches a fore intersection in the detected moving direction by reducing
the scale of the retrieved map and magnifying the scale of intersection
information map." (Final Action 9.) The Examiner also finds that Moroto
teaches automatically altering the display of the current position
screen when the vehicle approaches a fore intersection in the
2 The rejection of claims 1, 3, and 6-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, was withdrawn. (Answer 7.) Further, because only claims 1, 3,
and 6-9 were pending, we treat the reference in the Final Action to a
rejection of claims 1-10, ratherthan claims 1, 3, and 6-9, under§ 112,
second paragraph, as inadvertent. (See Final Action 1, and 3-5).
3
Appeal2013-008072
Application 12/442,035
(Id.)
detected moving direction by reducing the scale of the retrieved
map and magnifying the scale of intersection information map
(see at least abstract, figs. 8, 18-20, 32-33, 39; column 2 lines 40-
54, column 3 lines 1-51 ).
Appellant argues that "nowhere in Moroto is there any disclosure or
suggestion of reducing the scale of the retrieved map and magnifying the
scale of the intersection information map as claimed." (Appeal Br. 4.)
In response, the Examiner finds that "[ t ]he prior art [Moroto]
discloses magnifying the scale as the distance to the destination decreases,
as noted by appellant. This disclosure includes the magnification of the
intersection information map as the intersection is approached (i.e., the
distance to the destination decreases, with the intersection being the
destination)." (Answer 8, emphasis added.) But the claim requires both
"reducing the scale of the retrieved map and magnifying the scale of the
intersection information map." (Emphasis added.) The Examiner does not
indicate what in Moroto would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art to
"automatically alter the display of the current position screen when the
vehicle approaches a fore intersection in the detected moving direction by
reducing the scale of the retrieved map," as recited in claim 1. (Emphasis
added.)
Thus, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
and dependent claims 3 and 6-9.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, and 6-9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
4
Appeal2013-008072
Application 12/442,035
REVERSED
5