Ex parte ODAGAWA

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 22, 1997

08137267 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 22, 1997)

Application for patent filed October 18, 1993.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 16
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte SATOSHI ODAGAWA
__________
Appeal No. 96-2418
Application 08/137,2671
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before JERRY SMITH, FLEMING and TORCZON, Administrative Patent
Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 10, all of the claims present in the
Appeal No. 96-2418
Application 08/137,267
2
application.
The invention relates to a method and apparatus for
correcting a distance error of a navigation apparatus which
corrects the shift between a measured present position and an
actual position on a road on which the movable body is
travelling, so as to improve the accuracy of the present position
on an electronic map.
The independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A method of correcting a distance error of a navigation
apparatus for displaying at least a present position and an
advance direction of a movable body on map information including
road position information, said apparatus including a measuring
means for detecting a travelling distance and the advance
direction and periodically measuring an advanced position, to
which the movable body is assumed to have advanced from the
present position, to update the present position by the advanced
position,
said method comprising the steps of:
setting the present position as a first present
position candidacy;
positioning a plurality of second present position
candidacies on positions corresponding to the road forward and
backward of the first present position candidacy;
measuring the advanced position with respect to each of
the first and second present position candidacies as a standard
position, on the basis of the detected travelling distance and
advance direction;
calculating a correction amount of each measured
advanced position, to correct each measured advanced position
onto a position corresponding to the road according to the road
Appeal No. 96-2418
Application 08/137,267
Appellant filed an appeal brief on September 29, 1995. We2
will refer to this appeal brief as simply the brief. Appellant
filed a reply appeal brief on April 4, 1996. We will refer to
this reply appeal brief as the reply brief. The Examiner stated
in the Examiner’s letter dated April 26, 1996 that the reply
brief has been entered and considered but no further response by
the Examiner is deemed necessary.
3
position information;
selecting one of the first and second present position
candidacies, which calculated correction amount is the minimum;
and
updating the present position by the corrected advanced
position of the selected one candidacy.
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Thoone et al. (Thoone) 4,758,959 Jul. 19, 1988
Honey et al. (Honey) 4,796,191 Jan. 3, 1989
Tenmoku et al. (Tenmoku) 4,807,127 Feb. 21, 1989
Claims 1 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Honey. Claims 2, 3 and 8 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Honey and Tenmoku.
Claims 4 through 7 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Honey and Thoone.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answer for the2
respective details thereof.
OPINION
Appeal No. 96-2418
Application 08/137,267
4
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case.
It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one having
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed
invention by the express teachings or suggestions found in the
prior art, or by implications contained in such teachings or
suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6
(Fed. Cir. 1983). "Additionally, when determining obviousness,
the claimed invention should be considered as a whole; there is
no legally recognizable 'heart' of the invention." Para-Ordnance
Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d
1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert denied, 117 S.Ct. 80 (1996)
citing W. L. Gore, 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309.
The Examiner rejects Appellant’s only two independent
claims, claims 1 and 9, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Honey. The Examiner reasons that because Honey
teaches the use of dead reckoned positioning (DRP) and contour of
equal probability (CEP), those skilled in the art would have been
motivated to use travel points along the road segment as data for
correcting navigational vehicle position by selecting minimum
Appeal No. 96-2418
Application 08/137,267
5
error distance or least mean square criteria to reduce
computation complexity to obtain Appellant’s invention as recited
in Appellant’s claims 1 and 9.
Appellant argues on pages 12 and 13 of the brief that the
Honey system determines which segments intersect the CEP and
determines whether there exists a segment intersecting
the CEP that corresponds to the initial position DRP . 0
Appellant’s invention as recited in the independent claims sets
second position candidacies forward and backward of the present
position candidacy on the road in which the vehicle is currently
travelling. Appellant argues that this is not taught or
suggested by Honey. Similarly, Appellant argues that Honey does
not teach or suggest any controlling means for setting the first
present and second present position candidacies on positions
corresponding to the road forward and backward of the first
present position candidacy as recited in Appellant’s claim 9.
Upon a closer inspection, we find that Honey teaches in
column 3, line 44, through column 4, line 25, a method for
providing information to improve the accuracy of tracking a
vehicle comprising the step of deriving any of a plurality of
parameters to determine if a more probable current position
Appeal No. 96-2418
Application 08/137,267
6
exists. In column 18, lines 15-51, Honey discloses that Figure 8
is a flow chart illustrating the overall vehicle navigational
algorithm. In block 8C, a multi-parameter evaluation is
performed by computer 12 to determine if a segment S in the
navigation neighborhood contains a point which is more likely
than the current dead reckoned position DRP . In column 20,c
lines 23-60, Honey discloses that Figure 14 shows the flow chart
of the subroutine for determining the most probable line segment
S. First, the X,Y coordinate data of a line segment S are
fetched by computer 12 from the navigation neighborhood of the
map. Then, the computer 12 determines if this line segment S is
parallel to the heading H of the vehicle within a threshold. If
the segment S is parallel, then the computer 12 determines if
this line segment S intersects the contour of equal probability,
CEP. However, Honey does not teach setting second position
candidacies forward and backward of the present position
candidacy on the road in which the vehicle is currently
travelling.
In addition, Appellant argues on page 2 of the reply brief
that the mere assertion by the Examiner that use of contours of
equal probability would have provided the motivation for those
Appeal No. 96-2418
Application 08/137,267
7
skilled in the art to obtain Appellant’s invention does not
establish a suggestion to make such a modification. Appellant
argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have no
motivation or incentive to make the Examiner’s proposed
modification.
The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact that the
prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner
does not make the modification obvious unless the prior art
suggested the desirability of the modification." In re Fritch,
972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir.
1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125,
1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). "Obviousness may not be established using
hindsight or in view of the teachings or suggestions of the
inventor." Para-Ordnance Mfg., 73 F.3d at 1087, 37 USPQ2d at
1239, citing W. L. Gore, 721 F.2d at 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ at
311, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Upon reviewing Honey, we fail to find any suggested desirability
of modifying Honey to obtain Appellant’s invention as recited in
Appellant’s claims 1 and 9.
Appeal No.96-2418
Application 08/137,267
8
We note that the remaining claims depend from either claim 1
or claim 9. The above rationale thereby applies to these claims
as well.
We have not sustained the rejection of claims 1 through 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, the Examiner's decision is
reversed.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
RICHARD TORCZON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Young & Thompson
Ste. 200
745 S. 23rd Street
Arlington, VA 22202