Ex Parte Mays

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 6, 2012

10390838 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte MICHAEL F. MAYS
____________________

Appeal 2010-006990
Application 10/390,838
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: NEAL E. ABRAMS, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
REMY J. VANOPHEM, Administrative Patent Judges.

GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006990
Application 10/390,838
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 7-
15, 19, 23, and 26-34. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

The claims are directed to a method for guiding a traveler. Claim 7,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
7. A method of guiding a traveler, comprising the activities
of:
from a predetermined network-connected server
computer, in response to a traveler's selection of a first
destination and a selection by said traveler of a first starting
point from a predetermined set of predetermined starting points
rendered to said traveler, automatically providing to said
traveler predetermined information, said predetermined
information comprising:
a predetermined route;
an advertisement; and
a predetermined sequential set of visual images
arranged in a sequential order, a practicality of said
predetermined route verified by a human who physically
traversed said predetermined route according to said sequential
order, said predetermined information provided to said traveler
based on said verified practicality, each visual image from said
set of visual images representing a photograph of a unique
predetermined way point along said route, each of said
predetermined way points lacking said advertisement, said
predetermined route comprising, serially, said first starting
point, said set of unique way points per said sequential order of
said visual images, and said first destination.

Appeal 2010-006990
Application 10/390,838
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kishi
Kondou
Gold
Walker
Rychlak
US 5,452,217 A
US 6,073,075 A
US 6,151,081 A
US 6,199,014 B1
US 6,889,137 B1
Sep. 19, 1995
Jun. 6, 2000
Nov. 21, 2000
Mar. 6, 2001
May 3, 2005

REJECTIONS
Claims 7-15, 19, 23, 28, 30, 31, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Walker and Kondou. Ans. 3.
Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Walker, Kondou, and Kishi. Ans. 7.
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Walker, Kondou and Rychlak. Ans. 8.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable
over Walker, Kondou and Gold. Ans. 9.

OPINION
The Examiner contends that:
In the abstract, Walker et al. teaches that the starting point,
destination points, geographic information and photographic are
processed to determine a route for traveling to the destination
point. Thus, Walker et al. certainly teaches a practicality when
providing the user such the travel route, and that the route is
both determined and verified in terms of user’s input request for
navigating from a starting point to said destination.
Ans. 4.
Appeal 2010-006990
Application 10/390,838
4
The fact that Appellant may obtain photographs during traversal of the
route (Ans. 10 citing Spec. 2:13-16) does not necessarily mean that just
because Walker obtained photographs, Walker must have traversed the route
(contra Ans. 10-11) as required by claim 7, the sole independent claim
involved in this appeal. One can obtain photographs along a route for
compilation in a database simply by being located at points along that route
in no particular order and/or while traversing other routes. Thus, as
Appellant correctly points out, Walker’s photographs of points along a route
are not necessarily obtained by traversing that route. Reply Br. 1-2. Since
this erroneous factual determination forms the basis for all of the Examiner’s
rejections, the Examiner’s rejections cannot be sustained.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.

REVERSED

mls