Ex Parte Ng et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 21, 2013

11472622 (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/472,622 06/21/2006 Brian Ng 11150/98 5406
26646 7590 05/22/2013
KENYON & KENYON LLP
ONE BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10004
EXAMINER
KISWANTO, NICHOLAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3664
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/22/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BRIAN NG, THOMAS CHAN, CHU HEE LEE,
DANIEL ROSARIO, and ARNE STOSCHEK
____________

Appeal 2011-004595
Application 11/472,622
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and
NEIL A. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Brian Ng et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 19, 24-26, and 31-34 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Foo (US 2006/0074553 A1; pub.
Appeal 2011-004595
Application 11/472,622

2
Apr. 6, 2006) and Park (US 2004/0249565 A1; pub. Dec. 9, 2004). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention “relates to a navigation system for a
motor vehicle.” Spec. 1, ll. 18-19. Claim 19 is the sole independent claim
and is reproduced below.
19. A motor vehicle, comprising:
an interface for a wireless communication connection for
time-staggered reception of a first navigation information item
and a second navigation information item, the first navigation
information item having a first priority level and the second
navigation information item having a second priority level, a
sequence of the reception of the first navigation information
item and the second navigation information item being a
function of the respective priority level of the first navigation
information item and the second navigation information item;
and
a man-machine interface adapted to output the first
navigation information item and the second navigation
information item to an operator of the motor vehicle;
wherein the priority of a navigation information item is
settable by an operator of the motor vehicle as a function of at
least one of:
(a) an update rate;
(b) a usual update rate;
(c) a size;
(d) a distance to a position of the motor vehicle;
(e) a distance to a suggested route for the motor vehicle;
Appeal 2011-004595
Application 11/472,622

3
(f) a recognition value;
(g) a safety relevance; and
(h) a user profile.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner found that while Foo discloses a motor vehicle having
an interface for time-staggered reception of first and second navigation
information items having different priorities where the sequence of reception
of the items is a function of the priorities of the items, “Foo is silent as to the
specifics of priority levels.” Ans. 4. As to Park, the Examiner determined:
Park teaches a telematics unit which assigns explicit
priority levels to various data and provides time-staggered
reception according to the priority levels [0090], settable by an
operator of the motor vehicle [0007]. Park teaches that priority
levels allow proper presentation of data when bandwidth is
limited [0092].
Id. (emphasis added). The Examiner determined that “[i]t would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Foo with [P]ark in order
to allow proper presentation of data when bandwidth is limited, as taught by
[P]ark.” Id.
Appellants argue that “[t]he combination of Foo et al. and Park does
not disclose, or even suggest, a priority of a navigation information item that
is settable by an operator of the motor vehicle.” App. Br. 3. In particular,
Appellants contest the Examiner’s findings as to the scope and content of
Park, arguing that “Park only discloses that a node is selected, or it is not
selected – there is no priority between nodes, settable by an operator.”
Reply Br. 2.
Appeal 2011-004595
Application 11/472,622

4
Park discloses “a need for a navigation system that allows the user to
select intended nodes and transmit image information about the surroundings
of the nodes to the user.” Park, para. [0007]. Park discloses that the user
sets a point of departure and a destination, the navigation system determines
a route to the destination, and the user can select nodes1 in the route so that
the image data of the selected nodes are displayed. Id. at paras. [0044]-
[0045].
One object of the invention is to transmit to a mobile terminal
panoramic images of selected nodes along a route, so that the mobile
terminal displays the panoramic images according to its direction of travel.
Id. at para. [0012]. Park discloses that when the system transmits an entire
panoramic image of a node, it is transmitted and reproduced selectively in
segments according to priority levels in the direction of travel, so that
significant views are displayed earlier than others according to the direction
of travel. Id. at para. [0090]. Park refers to this type of transmission as
“priority-based transmission and reproduction.” Id. at para. [0091]. Park
describes that the panoramic image information is transmitted and
reproduced in segments according to their priority levels “due to limitations
in data transmission bandwidth and processing speed.” Id. at para. [0092].
Thus, while the operator in Park is able to select nodes for display of
panoramic images, the operator does not set the priority of a navigation

1 “A node is a waypoint of which the image data is to be displayed on the
mobile terminal in a route that the mobile terminal takes.” Park,
para. [0046].
Appeal 2011-004595
Application 11/472,622

5
information item. Rather, contrary to the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 4), the
time-staggered reception of the segments of the panoramic images based on
priority levels is not settable by an operator of the motor vehicle. Rather,
Park’s system sets the priority levels internally based on the availability of
data and direction of travel of the vehicle to control the sequence of
transmission and reproduction of the segments. As such, the Examiner’s
determination of obviousness of the subject matter of claim 19 is based on
an erroneous finding as to the scope and content of Park. For this reason, we
do not sustain the rejection of claim 19, or its dependent claims 24-26 and
31-34, based on unpatentability over Foo and Park.
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 19, 24-
26, and 31-34.
REVERSED

mls