Ex Parte Mund et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 29, 201813977889 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/977,889 02/10/2014 75090 7590 08/31/2018 TOMTOM INTERNATIONAL B.V. IP Creation De Ruyterkade 154 AMSTERDAM, 1011 AC NETHERLANDS FIRST NAMED INVENTOR HeikoMund 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. 2251/US 1058 EXAMINER LIU,LI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2666 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/31/2018 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): tony@parklegal.com patents@tomtom.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte REIKO MUND and HANNES SCHARMANN Appeal2018-003124 Application 13/977,889 1 Technology Center 2600 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. HUME, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the non-final rejection of claims 2, 4--12, 14, 15, and 17-19. Appellants have previously canceled claims 1, 3, 13, and 16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is TomTom Global Content, B.V. App. Br. 1. Appeal2018-003124 Application 13/977,889 STATEMENT OF THE CASE2 The Invention Appellants' disclosed and claimed inventions relate to "digital maps of the type for displaying networks of roads and other features of geographical areas, and more specifically, toward a system and method for generating, extending, and revising networks of large geographical areas." Spec. 1. Exemplary Claim Claim 17, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal (emphases added to contested limitations): 1 7. A method of generating, revising, or extending a digital map, said digital map storing a plurality of line segments or features spatially associated within a coordinate system representing a network within a geographical area, comprising: separating the geographical area into a plurality of tiles having a boundaries there between; providing a plurality of probe traces, wherein each probe trace extends across at least one boundary between two tiles; identifying the tiles being extended across by one of the probe traces as associated tiles of the probe trace; and simultaneously employing probe traces having no associated tiles in common using a plurality of processing threads to generate and/or revise one or more line segments or features of the digital map, the simultaneously employing comprising preventing the processing threads from simultaneously employing probe traces having the same associated tiles. 2 Our Decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Aug. 14, 2017); Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Oct. 26, 2017); Non-Final Office Action ("Non-Final Act.," mailed March 14, 2017); and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed July 1, 2013). 2 Appeal2018-003124 Application 13/977,889 Prior Art The Examiner relies upon Rene Bruntrup et al., Incremental Map Generation with GPS Traces, IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (Sept. 13-16, 2005) ("Bruntrup") as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal. Re} ection on Appeal Claims 2, 4--12, 14, 15, and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bruntrup. Non-Final Act. 4. CLAIM GROUPING Based on Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 8-13), we decide the appeal of the rejection of independent claims 17, 18, and 19 on the basis of claim 17. We decide the appeal of separately argued dependent claims 6 and 7, on the basis of claim 6, infra. We address remaining dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 8-12, 14, and 15, not argued separately, infra. 3 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments Appellants could have made, but chose not to make in the Briefs so that we deem any such arguments as waived. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). 3 "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. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). In addition, when Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of dependent claims, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they depend. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986). 3 Appeal2018-003124 Application 13/977,889 We disagree with Appellants' arguments with respect to claims 6, 7, and 17-19 and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' arguments. We incorporate such findings, reasons, and rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise noted. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. 1. Rejection of Claims 17, 18, and 19 Issue Appellants argue (App. Br. 10-14) the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 17, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Bruntrup is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art teaches or suggests "simultaneously employing probe traces having no associated tiles in common using a plurality of processing threads to generate and/or revise one or more line segments or features of the digital map, the simultaneously employing comprising preventing the processing threads from simultaneously employing probe traces having the same associated tiles," as recited in claim 17? ( emphasis added.). Analysis Appellants contend regarding the disputed limitation of claim 17, "there is no description anywhere in Bruentrup of operations for controlling 4 Appeal2018-003124 Application 13/977,889 which probe traces are permitted to be processed based on tiles that are associated with the probe traces." App. Br. 11. Appellants further argue Bruntrup does not describe or suggest that the tiles are, in some way, used to control which trace processors and/or component modules are permitted to simultaneously process traces. App. Br. 12. Appellants argue: [D]ifferently than the Examiner's argument, Bruentrup's "reserving" of tiles could just as easily be a bookkeeping operation, so that tiles for which traces are being processed are known - there is no indication that Bruentrup's tiles could not be reserved multiple times simultaneously. There is particularly no support for the Examiner's assertion that "a tile cannot be simultaneously accessed by more than one processing thread" once reserved. App. Br. 14. The Examiner finds Bruntrup's probe traces are processed simultaneously using multiple processors only if their associated tiles do not overlap. Ans. 4. The Examiner further finds Bruntrup's reserving and releasing tiles teaches or at least suggests "preventing the processing threads from simultaneously employing probe traces having the same associated tiles," as recited in claim 17. Ans. 6. We find a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness. We find Bruntrup's parallel processing of traces, in which different trace processing threads execute concurrently, teaches, or at least suggests, the disputed limitation: "simultaneously employing probe traces having no associated tiles in common using a plurality of processing threads to 5 Appeal2018-003124 Application 13/977,889 generate and/or revise one or more line segments or features of the digital map, the simultaneously employing comprising preventing the processing threads from simultaneously employing probe traces having the same associated tiles." See Ans. 4, Bruntrup pp. 413, right col., second paragraph. 4 We also agree with the Examiner's finding that the tiles of a trace are reserved by one single processor at a time (Ans. 5), because Bruntrup's tile manager module, which maintains and propagates GPS traces, and which reserves the tile where the trace is located and releases the reserved tile when the traces processor has completed the trace, teaches or at least suggests the disputed limitation, "preventing the processing threads from simultaneously employing probe traces having the same associated tiles," as recited in claim 17. Ans. 4--5, Bruntrup p. 414, left col., para 5. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments because Appellants do not point to an explicit definition of the disputed claim terms that would render the Examiner's claim construction overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with their Specification. 5 Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Bruntrup's tiles being reserved when a trace is selected and released when the trace 4 Our reviewing court guides: "'the question under 35 USC 103 is not merely what the references expressly teach but what they would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made."' Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976)) (emphasis added); see also MPEP § 2123. 5 Because "applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee." In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ( citation omitted). 6 Appeal2018-003124 Application 13/977,889 processor has finished teaches or at least suggests the disputed "preventing" limitation of claim 17. 6 Ans. 7, Bruntrup pp. 413--414. We note, Appellants, having not filed a Reply Brief, do not respond to the Examiner's additional findings and clarifications in the Answer. Accordingly, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner's reading of the contested limitations on the cited prior art. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 17, and grouped claims 18 and 19, which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra. In view of the lack of any substantive or separate arguments directed to the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 8-12, 14, and 15 under§ 103(a) (see App. Br. 10), we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims, as they fall with their respective independent claims. See 37 C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )(1 )(iv). 2. Obviousness Rejection of Dependent Claims 6 and 7 Appellants contend the cited references do not teach or suggest the "blocking list" recited in claim 6 or the commensurate limitation recited in in claim 7. App. Br. 14--15. Appellants specifically argue: "[b ]ecause Bruentrup does not have a blocking list, Bruentrup cannot describe the numerous operations of dependent claim 6 that rely on/use the blocking list." App. Br. 15. We note the disputed claim term "the blocking list" has no 6 We give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 7 Appeal2018-003124 Application 13/977,889 antecedent basis in claim 6, 7 and also note Appellants' Specification does not disclose a "blocking list" as claimed, but instead describes a blocking table. We agree with the Examiner's clarification that, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, Bruntrup's reserving tiles teaches or at least suggests "placing in the blocking list" and Bruntrup's releasing tiles teaches or at least suggests "removing from the blocking list." Ans. 7, Bruntrup pp. 413--414. On this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner's claim interpretation is overly broad, unreasonable or inconsistent with Appellants' Specification. Again, Appellants, having not filed a Reply Brief, do not respond to the Examiner's additional findings and clarifications in the Answer. Accordingly, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner's reading of the contested limitations on the cited prior art. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of dependent claim 6, and grouped claim 7, which falls therewith. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err with respect to the obviousness rejection of claims 2, 4--12, 14, 15, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited prior art of record, and we sustain the rejection. 7 In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to consider a rejection under pre-AIA 35 USC§ 112, second paragraph, or AIA § 112(b). Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See MPEP § 1213.02. 8 Appeal2018-003124 Application 13/977,889 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2, 4--12, 14, 15, and 17-19. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±). AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation