Ex Parte Meschenmoser et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 21, 2016

12514021 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/514,021 08/16/2010
24972 7590 06/23/2016
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
666 FIFTH A VE
NEW YORK, NY 10103-3198
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Reinhard Meschenmoser
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.
1019115960 7215
EXAMINER
LE, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/23/2016 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):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte REINHARD MESCHENMOSER and DIRK LUEDTKE
Appeal2015-000384
Application 12/514,021
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN A. EVANS, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
YAP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 6--10. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Robert Bosch GmbH.
(App. Br. 2.)
2 Claims 1-5 were previously cancelled.
Appeal2015-000384
Application 12/514,021
STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention relates to "a method for updating a database by
transmitting a version of database segments." (Spec. 1.) Claim 6 is
illustrative of Appellants' invention, and is reproduced below:
6. A method for updating a database, comprising:
dividing the segments into segments to be updated
explicitly and segments to be updated implicitly, wherein each
segment to be updated implicitly is assigned a relationship with
at least one segment to be updated explicitly;
transmitting a new version of at least one of the segments
to be updated explicitly to the database;
at the database, explicitly updating the at least one of the
segments to be updated explicitly using the new version; and;
at the database, implicitly updating each segment to be
updated implicitly which has an assigned relationship with any
of the segments to be updated explicitly for which a new
version was transmitted;
wherein each implicitly updated segment is updated as a
function of changes made to a respectively assigned explicitly
updated segment, without using a new version of the implicitly
updated segment.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 6-8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Knockeart et al. (US 2003/0055555 Al; pub. Mar. 20, 2003)
("Knockeart"). (See Final Office Action (mailed October 9, 2013) ("Final
Act.") 5-7 .)
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Knockeart in view of Du (US 6,732,120 Bl; issued May
4, 2004) ("Du"). (See Final Act. 7.)
2
Appeal2015-000384
Application 12/514,021
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
positions.
Argument One -Implicitly Updating
Appellants contend that Knockeart fails to disclose "wherein each
implicitly updated segment is updated as a function of changes made to a
respectively assigned explicitly updated segment," as recited in independent
claim 6. (App. Br. 5.) We understand the Examiner's rejection to be based
on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term "implicitly updated
segment is updated as a function of changes made to a respectively assigned
explicitly updated segment" to mean "updated as a result of [] relationships
with other segments, which are designated as segments to be updated
explicitly." (Ans. 3.) The specification discusses the claimed invention as
follows:
The core idea of the present invention is that a database is
divided, in a manner known per se, into smaller parts, units or
segments, and that the individual segments of the database are
differentiated as to whether they are to be categorized as
segments to be updated explicitly or implicitly. Segments to be
updated implicitly will be updated only in [sic] together with the
segments to be updated explicitly since relations exist from the
implicit segments to the explicit segments. This means that a
change of an explicit segment directly requires or entails
updating a segment to be updated implicitly.
(Spec. 3--4, emphasis added.) Appellants contend that the Examiner's
construction is incorrect because the Examiner is improperly "equating
'implicitly' /'indirectly' /'as a function of to have the same meaning."
(Reply 2.) Appellants further argue that the implicit updating of an implicit
3
Appeal2015-000384
Application 12/514,021
segment "requires actual use of changes made to an explicitly updated
segment [and not just] based on the updating of the explicitly updated
segment." (App. Br. 4.) We are not persuaded that the Examiner's
interpretation is either overbroad or unreasonable. As discussed above, "a
change of an explicit segment directly requires or entails updating a segment
to be updated implicitly" because "relations exist from the implicit segments
to the explicit segments." (Spec. 3--4.) Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner's finding that implicit segments are "updated as a result of[]
relationships with other segments, which are designated as segments to be
updated explicitly." (Ans. 3.)
Appellants further contend that even if the Examiner's construction is
correct, "Knockeart would still be insufficient to disclose the claimed
'implicit' updating" limitation. (Reply 2.) The Examiner finds that
Knockeart discloses explicit segments ("typically travelled routes") and
implicit segments ("typically requested routes") and "typically travelled
[routes] (i.e., implicitly updated segments) are indirectly updated ... when
less traveled or other segments [i.e., typically requested routes], related to
the typically traveled [routes], are explicitly downloaded and updated."
(Ans. 3; see Knockeart i-fi-f 132-136, 272.) Appellants disagree and argue
that Knockeart "does not suggest that existing segments of the typically
traveled routes are updated implicitly" and that the Examiner's "relianc[ e]
on the existence of a relationship between segments for sufficiency of
enablement with respect to implicit updating [] is incorrect." (Reply 3--4,
emphasis in original.) We are not persuaded by Appellants' contentions.
Knockeart clearly discloses that typically travelled routes are periodically
updated to reflect the changes to typically requested routes:
4
Appeal2015-000384
Application 12/514,021
predefined sequences of road segments [i.e. typically travelled
routes or implicit segments] that are stored in the in-vehicle
systems [and these] typically travelled routes [i.e., implicit
segments] ... do not have to be downloaded explicitly. The server
system can periodically update the stored sequences in the
vehicles to reflect the typically requested routes [i.e., explicit
segments] by those vehicles.
(Knockeart i-f 272, emphasis added.) We also agree with the Examiner's
findings that Knockeart discloses that "updating [of] one segment would
indirectly update its related segment." (Ans. 4; see also Knockeart i-fi-1132-
3 6. 3) Because Knockeart discloses a relationship between typically travelled
routes (implicit segments) and typically requested routes (explicit segments),
typically travelled routes (implicit segments) would therefore be updated
when there is a change to the typically requested routes (explicit segments).
(Ans. 3--4; Knockeart i-f 272.) Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred.
Argument Two-Without Transmitting New Version
Claim 6 recites that "each implicitly updated segment is updated ...
without using a new version of the implicitly updated segment." Appellants
contend that Knockeart does not disclose this limitation because "new
versions of the segments associated with typically traveled routes are in fact
transmitted for storage in the vehicle." (App. Br. 5.) However, Knockeart
discloses that "typically travelled routes ... do not have to be downloaded
explicitly. The server system can periodically update the stored sequences
in the vehicles to reflect the typically requested routes by those vehicles."
(Knockeart i-f 272, emphasis added.) Similarly, Appellants' contention that
3 Appellants do not appear to address paragraphs 132 to 136 of Knockeart
directly in its Reply. (Reply 2--4.)
5
Appeal2015-000384
Application 12/514,021
"[t]he conclusion that periodic updating does not require downioading is
pure conjecture since Knockeart never actually explains how the stored
sequences [(i.e., typically travelled routes)] are periodically updated" is not
persuasive. (Reply 4.) We agree with the Examiner's findings that "a new
version of the stored sequences is not downloaded (i.e., without using a new
version of the implicitly updated segment) [because] the stored sequences
are updated based on the changes to the typically requested routes." (Ans.
4--5.)
Argument Three -Dividing The Segments
Claim 6 recites "dividing the segments into segments to be updated
explicitly and segments to be updated implicitly." Appellants contend that
Knockeart does not disclose dividing segments into segments to be updated
explicitly and segments to be updated implicitly. (App. Br. 6.) Specifically,
Appellants argues that paragraph 272 "refers to the designation of typically
traveled routes, which are periodically updated. Designating typically
traveled routes does not divide stored segments into ones to be updated
explicitly and ones to be updated explicitly." (App. Br. 6.) We agree with
the Examiner's findings that
[ t ]he limitation does not require a specific portion of division of
segments and merely requires that some segments be designated
as implicitly updated and others be designated as explicitly
updated. As such, Knockeart discloses that typically traveled
routes are not downloaded explicitly (i.e., designated as
segments to be implicitly updated). Knockeart at para. 0272.
Therefore, a division of segments is performed.
(Ans. 5---6.)
Appellants further contend that "Knockeart's alleged
designation is purely conceptual and does not involve an actual
6
Appeal2015-000384
Application 12/514,021
dividing of a database into segments designated for either one of
implicit and explicit updating" because the Examiner "ignores the
dividing requirement in claim 6, according to which[,] the segments
must exist together in a database before being divided into segments
to be updated explicitly and segments to be updated implicitly."
(Reply 4--5.) First, this is a new argument that is raised in reply. In
re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (noting that an
argument not first raised in the brief to the Board is waived on
appeal); Ex parte Nakashima, 93 USPQ2d 1834, 1837 (BPAI 2010)
(informative) (explaining that arguments and evidence not timely
presented in the principal Brief, will not be considered when filed in
a Reply Brief, absent a showing of good cause explaining why the
argument could not have been presented in the Principal Brief); Ex
parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1477 (BPAI 2010) (informative)
("[p ]roperly interpreted, the Rules do not require the Board to take up
a belated argument that has not been addressed by the Examiner,
absent a showing of good cause."). Moreover, we are also not
persuaded that "Knockeart's alleged designation is purely
conceptual" nor that claim 6 should be limited to "an actual dividing
of a database into segments designated for either one of implicit and
explicit updating." Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
CONCLUSION
As discussed herein, Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us
that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 6. Appellants do not
make any separate, substantive patentability arguments regarding
7
Appeal2015-000384
Application 12/514,021
independent claim l 0 and dependent claims 7-9, but instead rely solely on
their arguments with respect to claim 6. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejections of claims 6--8 and 10 and the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 9.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 6--10 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8