Ex Parte Otani

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 2, 2015

12075978 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2015)

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.
12/075,978 03/14/2008 Kazuoki Otani 11123.1042US 5137
52558 7590 02/02/2015
PANASONIC AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEM
COMPANY OF AMERICA
776 HWY 74 SOUTH
PEACHTREE CITY, GA 30269
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, CHUONG P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2015 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 KAZUOKI OTANI
____________________

Appeal 2012-009972
Application 12/075,978
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: MICHAEL W. KIM, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1–11, 13–15, and 17–22, which are all of the pending claims.1 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 Appellant states that the real party in interest is Panasonic Automotive
Systems Company of America, a division of Panasonic Corporation of North
America. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2012-009972
Application 12/075,978
2
Claimed Subject Matter
The claims are directed to a vehicle navigation method. Claims 1, 9,
and 14 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An automotive vehicle navigation
method, said method comprising the steps of:
obtaining electronic textual navigation
information;
converting the textual navigation
information into audio data;
storing the audio data within the vehicle;
and
playing back the audio data within the
vehicle in sequential increments that correspond to
respective legs of a trip being made by the vehicle.
Appeal Br., Claims App.
Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
Alumbaugh US 6,266,614 B1 July 24, 2001
Fuchs
Moran
Hashizume
US 2002/0165666 A1
US 2006/0029109 A1
US 2006/0069500 A1
Nov. 7, 2002
Feb. 9, 2006
Mar. 30, 2006
Claims 1–4, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Moran. Ans. 4.
Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Alumbaugh. Ans. 6.
Appeal 2012-009972
Application 12/075,978
3
Claims 5–8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Moran and Fuchs. Ans. 7.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Alumbaugh and Moran. Ans. 10.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Alumbaugh, Moran, and Fuchs. Ans. 11.
Claims 14 and 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fuchs and Hashizume. Ans. 12.
Claims 15 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fuchs, Hashizume, and Alumbaugh. Ans. 14.

ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claims 1–4, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Claim 1
Appellant argues that the Examiner adopted an unreasonably broad
construction of the claim term “navigation information.” Appeal Br. 10.
The Examiner finds that the broadest reasonable interpretation of navigation
information includes “for example, traffic information / congestion, point-
of-interest, landmark, terrain, [and] weather data, [all of which] can affect
the conditions of traveling.” Ans. 17. Appellant argues that navigation
information is limited to information that “describes a series of specific
roads and turns that the vehicle should take in order to reach an identified
destination from its present location” (i.e., driving directions). Appeal Br.
10. However, Appellant does not cite any intrinsic or extrinsic evidence in
support of this proposed construction, nor does it identify any lexicographic
definition or disclaimer that might limit the scope of this claim term.
Appeal 2012-009972
Application 12/075,978
4
Moreover, the Examiner’s construction is reasonable on its face because
traffic information, congestion information, points of interest, landmarks,
terrain, and weather data are all types of information that relate logically to
navigation. Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
construing the claim term “navigation information.”
Appellant also argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Moran
describes “converting the textual navigation information into audio data,” as
required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis omitted). However, Moran
describes a method of playing audio content wherein digital text content is
selectively downloaded and stored to a memory device, and the memory
device is connected to a car radio that is “capable of transforming the digital
text content to transformed audio content.” See, e.g., Moran ¶¶ 21–22.
Moran describes several types of content that can be used with the disclosed
method, including, traffic information, weather information, and
downloaded traffic information. See, e.g., id. ¶ 17. Thus, Appellant’s
argument is unpersuasive.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Moran
describes playing back the audio data “in sequential increments that
correspond to respective legs of a trip being made by the vehicle,” as
required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 11. This argument is also unpersuasive.
Moran describes an embodiment of the invention in which the user provides
a specific driving route to content provider 100 (depicted in Fig. 1A), and a
content server 102 accesses localized servers “in order to retrieve localized
information necessary for providing localized audio content.” Moran Fig.
1A, Fig. 2, ¶ 90. The localized audio content may include navigation
information stored in, for example:
Appeal 2012-009972
Application 12/075,978
5
a map server including a map database; a traffic condition[]
server including data about local traffic conditions [that has
been] entered into a database, or data automatically retrieved
from roadside sensors . . .; a directions server which provides
directions in accordance to data from the map server and
optionally in accordance with the traffic conditions server; and
a commercial content server which provides commercial
content in accord with points-of-interest in proximity to the
driving route.
Id. ¶ 90. This content is transferred from content server 102 to non-volatile
memory device 112. Id. Fig. 1A, ¶ 42. The user then “listens to the digital
audio content using a playback device,” such as car radio 156. Id. Fig. 1B,
¶ 53. In order to be played back on a car radio, the information stored in the
traffic condition server, the direction server, and the commercial content
server must necessarily have been converted into audio data from textual
form in which it was previously stored, a process disclosed at paragraphs 21
and 22 of Moran. Moran additionally discloses that the car radio may be
connected to an onboard navigation device such as a Global Positioning
Device, and that the Global Positioning Device may trigger the playback of
the localized audio content in accordance with the location of the vehicle.
See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 56, 66, 90–94. Content played back in in segments
according to the location of a vehicle along a pre-determined driving route,
as described in Moran, is inherently played back in “sequential increments
that correspond to respective legs of a trip being made by the vehicle,” as
required by claim 1.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1.
Appeal 2012-009972
Application 12/075,978
6
Claim 4
Appellant argues that dependent claim 4 is separately patentable
because the prior art of record does not disclose “audio data [that] is stored
on a portable personal electronic device connected to a navigation system of
the vehicle,” as required by that claim. Appeal Br. 12. The Examiner finds
that the non-volatile memory device of Moran, which may be a USB flash
disk, corresponds to the “portable personal electronic device” of claim 4.
Ans. 18 (citing Moran ¶ 39); see also Moran ¶ 16. Appellant argues that a
USB flash disk is not a “personal electronic device.” Appellant’s argument
is unpersuasive.
Appellant does not point to any lexicographic definition or disclaimer
that might limit the scope of the claim term “portable personal electronic
device.” Instead, Appellant cites a dictionary definition that defines
“personal electronic device” as “a piece of electronic equipment, such as a
laptop computer or a mobile phone, that is small and easy to carry. App. Br.
30; Ex. A of Evid. App. However, the plain and ordinary meaning of
“electronic equipment” is equipment that relates to or uses a computer or
other electrical system.2 A USB Flash drive is a portable storage device that
is designed to be used with a computer.3 Thus, Appellant’s dictionary
definition is not contrary to the Examiner’s claim construction.

2 See, e.g., “Electronic” in The Penguin English Dictionary (2007), retrieved
from http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/penguineng/electronic/0
(last visited January 29, 2015) (defining “electronic” as “relating to,
involving, or using computers or other electronic systems).
3 See, e.g., “Flash Drive” in A-Z Guide to Personal Technology (2006),
retrieved from
http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/hmhighdef/flash_drive/0 (last
visited on January 29, 2015) (defining “flash drive” as “[a] portable storage

Appeal 2012-009972
Application 12/075,978
7
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in determining that the USB flash disk of Moran is a portable personal
electronic device of the type required by claim 4. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 4.
Claim 21
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in determining that Moran
discloses “using the personal electronic device to download the navigation
information from a web-based source,” as required by claim 21. Appeal Br.
13. The Examiner finds that Moran teaches that traffic reports can be
downloaded from the Internet and stored on the non-volatile memory device.
Ans. 12. Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred is based on its
position that the claim term “navigation information” should be construed as
limited to information that describes a series of specific roads and turns that
the vehicle should take in order to reach an identified destination from its
present location. See Reply Br. 8. Appellant’s claim construction argument
is unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 21.
Claims 2, 3, and 22
Appellant does not make any separate patentability arguments with
respect to claims 2, 3, and 22, which depend from independent claims 1 and
21. Instead, Appellant relies on its arguments with respect to claims 1 and
21. These arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above. Thus,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, and 22.

device that is small enough to fit in a pocket and can be connected to the
USB port of a computer or other device. . . . Also called flash disk . . . .”)
Appeal 2012-009972
Application 12/075,978
8
Rejection of Claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Alumbaugh
discloses playing back “audio navigation data” of the type required by
independent claim 9 and dependent claim 10. Appeal Br. 14. The Examiner
finds that the point-of-interest (POI) narrations of Alumbaugh correspond to
the audio navigation data of the claims. Ans. 19. Appellant’s argument that
the Examiner erred is based on its position that the claim term “navigation
information” should be construed as limited to information that describes a
series of specific roads and turns that the vehicle should take in order to
reach an identified destination from its present location. See Appeal Br. 14.
Appellant’s claim construction argument is unpersuasive for the reasons set
forth above. Thus, we are not persuaded as to error in the Examiner’s
rejection.
Appellant also argues that Alumbaugh does not disclose playing back
audio navigation data “in sequential increments in association with
respective legs of a trip being made by the vehicle,” as required by claims 9
and 10. Appeal Br. 14. The Examiner finds that that the POI narrations of
Alumbaugh are played back in sequential increments in association with
respective legs of a trip. Ans. 19. Appellant argues that “[t]he POI
narrations of Alumbaugh do not correspond to respective legs of a trip,” but
“[r]ather, several different sets of POI narrations may be played back by
Alumbaugh on the same leg of a trip.” Appeal Br. 15. This argument is
unpersuasive because claims 9 and 10 do not require that only one sequential
increment of navigation data be played on any given leg of a trip, nor do
they require that each the sequential increment of navigation data
“correspond” to a trip leg. The claims merely require that the sequential
increments of audio navigation data be played “in association with
Appeal 2012-009972
Application 12/075,978
9
respective legs of a trip being made by the vehicle.” Appeal Br., Claims
App. Appellant also argues that the driver of Alumbaugh “may not have
planned any trip and may be driving around more or less randomly,”
resulting in “POI narrations [being] played back repeatedly and randomly,
rather than in sequential increments, as required by claim 9.” Appeal Br. 15.
This argument is unpersuasive. The claims do not require that a trip be
preplanned. Appellant does not dispute that the POI narrations of
Alumbaugh are played back according to the position of a vehicle during the
course of a trip. See Appeal Br. 14–16. Thus, the route chosen by the driver
determines the sequence in which the POI narrations of Alumbaugh are
played back. Therefore, there is ample evidence to support the Examiner’s
finding that the POI narrations of Alumbaugh are played back “in sequential
increments in association with respective legs of a trip being made by the
vehicle,” as required by claims 9 and 10.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 9 and 10. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 9 and 10.
Rejection of Claims 5–8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 5–7
Appellant does not make any separate patentability arguments with
respect to claims 5–7. Rather, Appellant relies on its arguments with respect
to independent claim 1, from which claims 5–7 depend. These arguments
are unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection or claims 5–7.
Appeal 2012-009972
Application 12/075,978
10
Claim 8
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Fuchs
discloses “selectively switching between the playing back of the electronic
textual navigation information and the playing back of the electronic
graphical navigation information,” as required by claim 8. Appeal Br. 16.
The Examiner finds that Paragraphs 26–27 and Figure 2 of Fuchs disclose
this claim limitation. Ans. 19. Appellant contends that these portions of
Fuchs merely disclose that “both textual and graphical information may be
displayed at the same time,” and do not disclose switching between the
playing of textual and graphical information. Appeal Br. 16. Appellant’s
argument is persuasive. The portions of Fuchs cited by the Examiner do not
teach or suggest switching between textual and graphical navigation
information. While the Examiner finds that the playback of navigational
information is controlled by control buttons 18, the Examiner does not
provide any persuasive evidence or technical reasoning that one of ordinary
skill would have understood that control buttons 18 could be used to switch
between textual and graphical navigation information. Thus, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8.
Rejection of Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellant does not make any separate patentability arguments with
respect to claim 11. Rather, Appellant relies on its arguments with respect to
independent claim 9, from which claim 11 depends. These arguments are
unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 11.
Appeal 2012-009972
Application 12/075,978
11
Rejection of Claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Moran
discloses storing audio navigation data on “on a portable personal electronic
device connected to a navigation system of the vehicle,” as required by
claim 13. Appeal Br. 17. The Examiner finds that the non-volatile memory
device of Moran (e.g., a USB flash disk, Moran ¶ 16) satisfies this claim
limitation. Ans. 11. Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred is based
on its position that the claim term “personal electronic device” should be
construed to exclude USB flash disks. Appeal Br. 17–18. This claim
construction argument is unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above. Thus,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13.
Rejection of Claims 14 and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Hashizume
teaches or suggests the following limitations of independent claim 14, and
dependent claims 18–20: “receiving direction data from a wheel sensor, the
direction data specifying a direction in which [the] wheels of the vehicle are
turned; receiving speed data from a speed sensor,” and “analyzing the
direction data and the speed data to thereby determine a change in heading
direction of the vehicle . . . .” Appeal Br. 18–19. The Examiner cites
Paragraphs 28 and 29 of Hashizume, which disclose a position detector 1
that includes geomagnetism and gyro sensors, and which may also include a
“steering rotation sensor” and “a vehicle speed sensor.” Ans. 13, 20;
Hashizume ¶¶ 28–29. Appellant argues that the Examiner is relying solely
on “geomagnetism sensor 2 and gyro sensor 3 of Hashizume,” but that these
sensors do not indicate the direction in which the wheels are pointed.
Appeal Br. 19. This argument is unpersuasive because it ignores the
Appeal 2012-009972
Application 12/075,978
12
steering rotation sensor of Hashizume. See Hashizume ¶ 29. The Examiner
clarifies in the Answer that it is this steering rotation sensor that indicates the
direction in which the wheels of the vehicle are turned. Ans. 20.
Appellant’s Reply Brief does not dispute the Examiner’s finding regarding
the steering rotation sensor. Thus, Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive as
to error in the Examiner’s rejection. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 14 and 18–20.
Rejection of Claims 15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 15
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15
because the cited prior art references do not teach or suggest a navigation
system that textually or audibly states a “relative direction of the destination
relative to the changed heading direction of the vehicle, the relative direction
being stated in terms of cardinal directions,” as required by claim 15.
Appeal Br. 22. Appellant’s argument is persuasive.
Although the Examiner relies on Alumbaugh with respect to this
limitation, the Examiner concedes that the navigation system of Alumbaugh
does state a direction in terms of cardinal directions, but instead states
directions in terms of “right-hand and left-hand directions.” Ans. 15. In
support of the rejection, the Examiner finds that the use of cardinal
directions is “an obvious matter of design choice, since Applicant has not
disclosed that cardinal directions . . . solve any stated problem,” and that the
invention “would perform equally well with the right-hand and left-hand
directions stated.” Id. But even if we accept the Examiner’s premise that
the invention would perform equally well with right and left-hand directions
Appeal 2012-009972
Application 12/075,978
13
because the use of cardinal directions does not solve any problems, this
would not establish it would have been obvious to use cardinal directions.
The Examiner does not provide any persuasive evidence or technical
reasoning that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to state the relative direction of the destination in terms of cardinal
directions, rather than using the left and right-hand directions of Alumbaugh.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15.
Claim 17
Appellant does not set forth any separate patentability arguments with
respect to claim 17. Instead, Appellant relies on its arguments with respect
to independent claim 14, from which claim 17 depends. Appeal Br. 22.
These arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above. Thus, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17.

DECISION
For the above reasons, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1–7, 9–11, 13, 14, and 17–22, and REVERSE the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 8 and 15.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
llw