Ex Parte Obradovich

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 21, 2008

09699031 (B.P.A.I. May. 21, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL L. OBRADOVICH
____________

Appeal 2008-0370
Application 09/699,031
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: May 21, 2008
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JAY P. LUCAS, and STEPHEN C.
SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 and 2. Claims 3-29 were cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.
Appeal 2008-0370
Application 09/699,031

2
A. INVENTION
The invention at issue involves a navigation system in which a server
calculates the position of a personal computer device and transmits the
position information to the device (Spec. 5). If the personal computer device
has stopped, the position of the device is determined and the position
information is transmitted to the server (id. 10). The server returns
information to the device on the location at which the device is stopped such
as address information or other pertinent information (id.).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1, which further illustrates the invention, follows:
1. A method, using a personal computer device having a GPS
receiver, of populating a database comprising:
determining, by the personal computer device using its GPS receiver,
a location at which the personal computer device becomes relatively
immobile;
transmitting, by the personal computer device, the location at which
the personal computer device becomes relatively immobile to a server;
receiving, by the personal computer device, information regarding the
location from the server; and
requesting, by the personal computer device, that the server store the
information in a database associated with a user of the personal computer
device.

Appeal 2008-0370
Application 09/699,031

3
C. REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,680,694 (“Knockeart”).

II. ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that Knockeart “does not disclose or suggest
determining . . . a location at which the personal computer device becomes
relatively immobile” (App. Br. 4).
Knockeart discloses an in-vehicle system that “determines the
vehicle’s initial location or data related to the vehicle’s initial location” (col.
21, ll. 32-33). Using a broad but reasonable interpretation, we construe
determining an initial location of the vehicle of Knockeart to include
determining the location at which the vehicle becomes relatively immobile
because the “initial location” would be an indeterminately long area unless
the vehicle was relatively immobile. Thus in order for there to be an “initial
location” the vehicle must be assumed to be relatively immobile. Because
the system determines the vehicle’s initial location when the operator
specifies the desired destination, and the vehicle is not moving while the
operator inputs data into the system (because otherwise there is no single
initial location), the vehicle must be “relatively immobile” (i.e., not moving)
and the “initial location” is determined at that location (when not moving or
“relatively immobile”). “[T]he PTO gives claims their 'broadest reasonable
Appeal 2008-0370
Application 09/699,031

4
interpretation.’” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting
In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
Appellant further argues that Knockeart fails to disclose a system that
“receives information regarding the location at which the . . . system
becomes relatively immobile from the server system” (App. Br. 6).
Knockeart discloses that the server system “receives the location data and
the destination specification” from the in-vehicle system (col. 21, l. 55) and
“determines the vehicle’s location” (col. 21, ll. 59-60). The server system
then “determines a route . . . (and) . . . a spot map around the vehicle’s
location that it will download to the vehicle” (col. 22, ll. 33-37). Knockeart
discloses downloading the route and spot map information to the in-vehicle
system. We find that the route and spot map information includes
information “regarding the location” of the in-vehicle system. Therefore, we
find that Knockeart discloses that the in-vehicle system receives information
regarding the location (i.e., route and spot map information) from the server
as recited in claim 1.
It follows that Appellants have failed to demonstrate that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of
claim 1.
Claim 2 recites evaluating the position of the personal computer
device, waiting a preselected time, reevaluating the position of the personal
computer and determining if the position is substantially the same. The
Examiner finds that Knockeart discloses that “the in-vehicle sends the
Appeal 2008-0370
Application 09/699,031

5
estimate position from one of the stopping location along the road (to) the
server, the (server) determines the stopping location and plans the new route
based on the stopping location which is different from the original position
and stopping location” (Ans. 11). Although the Examiner finds that the in-
vehicle system determines an estimated location of the vehicle, the Examiner
does not demonstrate that Knockeart also discloses that the in-vehicle
system also waits a preselected time period, re-evaluates the position, and
determines if the positions before and after the preselected time period are
substantially the same.
“[A]nticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found only if the prior
art reference discloses every element of the claim. . . .” In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
“[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed element negates anticipation.”
Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir.
1986). The absence of the in-vehicle system reevaluating the position of the
device and determining if the positions before and after the preselected time
period are substantially the same negates anticipation. Therefore, we reverse
the anticipation rejection of claim 2.

IV. ORDER
In summary, the rejection of claim 1 under § 102(e) is affirmed and
the rejection of claim 2 under § 102(e) is reversed.
Appeal 2008-0370
Application 09/699,031

6
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

pgc

CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP
PO BOX 7068
PASADENA CA 91109-7068