Ex Parte Prestor et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 15, 2017

13632090 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 15, 2017)

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.
13/632,090 09/30/2012 Uros Prestor 337722-337802/P15390US1 1723
133036 7590 08/17/2017
DLA Piper LLP (US)
2000 University Avenue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2215
EXAMINER
WEEKS, MARTIN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/17/2017 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):
ApplePros Admin @ dlapiper.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte UROS PRESTOR and J. PAUL MCCABE
Appeal 2016-003792
Application 13/632,0901
Technology Center 3600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1—34, which are all of the pending claims. See App. Br.
2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application relates to “a mapping application that includes
several novel techniques to provide traffic data.” Spec. 9:6—7. Claims 1,16,
1 The real party in interest is identified as Apple Inc. See App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-003792
Application 13/632,090
24, and 31 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference
(emphases added):
1. A non-transitory machine readable medium storing a
mapping program for execution by at least one processing unit,
the program comprising sets of instructions for:
in a first data structure that defines traffic segments for
an area of a map for display, selecting a particular traffic
segment;
in a second data structure that defines a plurality of
roads in the map area, identifying a portion of a road in the map
area that corresponds to the particular traffic segment, said
identifying comprising using a third data structure that stores
linking data to correlate the particular traffic segment that is
defined in the first data structure to the road portion that is
defined in the second data structure; and
rendering the particular traffic segment on the map with
the identified road portion.
References and Rejections
The following is the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
Fuchs US 2004/0001114 A1 Jan. 1, 2004
Nagda US 6,862,524 B1 Mar. 1,2005
Stehle US 2007/0293958 A1 Dec. 20, 2007
Soulchin US 2009/0262117 A1 Oct. 22, 2009
Swope US 2010/0225644 A1 Sept. 9, 2010
Fujiwara US 2010/0328100 A1 Dec. 30, 2010
Iwuchukwu US 2011/0207446 A1 Aug. 25, 2011
Couckuyt US 8,060,297 B2 Nov. 15,2011
Abdo US 2012/0082395 A1 Apr. 5, 2012
2
Appeal 2016-003792
Application 13/632,090
Claims 1—3, 8—10, and 13—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Stehle and Couckuyt. Final Act. 4.
Claims 16—21, 23—25, and 30-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Iwuchukwu and Abdo. Final Act. 10.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Stehle,2 Couckuyt, and Fujiwara. Final Act. 16.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Stehle, Couckuyt, Fujiwara, and Fuchs. Final Act. 18.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Stehle, Couckuyt, Fujiwara, Fuchs, andNagda. Final Act. 19.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Stehle, Couckuyt, and Nagda. Final Act. 21—22.3
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Stehle, Couckuyt, and Swope. Final Act. 22.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Iwuchukwu, Abdo, and Soulchin. Final Act. 24.
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Iwuchukwu, Abdo, and Fujiwara. Final Act. 25.
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Iwuchukwu, Abdo, and Nagda. Final Act. 26.
2 We note the Examiner incorrectly refers to the Stehle reference as “U.S.
Patent Publication No. US 2011/0106592” in the Final Action rejection of
dependent claim 4. See Final Act. 16. In the Answer, the Examiner
correctly identifies US Patent Publication No. US 2007/0293958 as the
Stehle reference used in the rejection of dependent claim 4. See Ans. 2;
Final Act. 4.
3 Although the Examiner separately lists claim 7 as rejected in view of only
Stehle and Nagda, we note the body of the rejection refers to Stehle,
Couckuyt, and Nagda.
3
Appeal 2016-003792
Application 13/632,090
Claims 28 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Iwuchukwu, Abdo, and Swope. Final Act. 27.
ANALYSIS
A. Independent Claim 1
Appellants argue the Examiner’s rejection is in error because the cited
references contain “no mention of any specific data structures” as required
by claim 1 (App. Br. 18), nor do the references teach the particular claimed
use of the first, second, and third data structures (App. Br. 16—18).
Appellants contend that, for example, “[bjased on the claim language, the
term ‘linking data’ must be interpreted to include at least the requirement
that it be data in a third data structure which correlates traffic segments in a
first data structure to road portions in a second data structure.” Reply Br. 13
(emphasis added).
We are persuaded the Examiner erred. “All words in a claim must be
considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art.” In
re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). Claim 1 recites first, second,
and third data structures, and the Examiner does not identity, nor do we find,
that the references teach or suggest all three structures. Rather, the
Examiner states that “it is not clear” what is meant by the data structures,
without mapping the construed limitations to particular teachings in the
references. Ans. 4. For example, the Examiner’s reliance on Couckuyt’s
disclosure that “generally, program modules include . . . data structures,”
(Couckuyt 13:20-21), does not teach the claimed third data structure that
stores linking data to correlate data in the first and second data structures, as
claimed. Ans. 3^4; see also Reply Br. 13. Stehle also does not teach three
4
Appeal 2016-003792
Application 13/632,090
data structures, including a third data structure that stores linking data to
correlate data in the first and second data structures, within the meaning of
the claim. See Final Act. 6.
Based on the record before us, we find the limitations of claim 1 are
not taught or suggested by Stehle and Couckuyt, alone or in combination.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, or the
claims depending thereon.
B. Independent Claims 16 and 31
Independent claim 16 recites a “traffic tile linked to road data stored
in a road tile through linking data stored in a linking tile.” The Examiner
finds the combination of Iwuchukwu and Abdo teaches or suggests this
recitation: Iwuchukwu teaches traffic tiles (Ans. 5) and Abdo’s disclosure
that an “encoding system may include a tiling system with a tiling module
that initially divides source image data into data tiles” teaches or suggests
the linking tile for linking road and traffic tiles (Ans. 6, emphasis omitted).
See Iwuchukwu H 31, 46, 49; Abdo ]Hf 66, 82. The Examiner finds
Iwuchukwu as modified by Abdo is “a combination of old elements, and in
the combination, each element would merely have performed the same
function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.” Final Act.
11; Ans. 6.
Appellants argue the Examiner’s combination of Iwuchukwu with
Abdo does not teach the claim limitations, because “Abdo discloses no such
linking process. Nor does Abdo discuss any traffic application. Abdo
merely discloses breaking up individual images into tiles for reducing
5
Appeal 2016-003792
Application 13/632,090
resource use over a network by transmitting only tiles in which changes have
been detected,” and therefore, the Examiner “shows no disclosure or
suggestion as to how to modify Iwuchukwu to render the limitations of
claim 16 unpatentable.” App. Br. 23—24.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Abdo is directed to an
entropy coder for image compression. See Abdo, title. Abdo is silent with
respect to mapping or traffic, as the terms are used in the present application.
Compare Abdo 145 (describing computer network traffic); claim 16
(reciting traffic along roads in a map); see also Fig. 2. Thus, we agree with
Appellants that the Examiner’s combination of Iwuchukwu and Abdo is in
error, as one of ordinary skill would not combine Iwuchukwu’s traffic
mapping with Abdo’s data encoding system in the manner claimed. See
App. Br. 23—24. Further, we find Abdo’s broad disclosure of dividing data
into tiles does not teach the claimed linking tile storing linking data that links
traffic segments data and road data stored in respective tiles. See Reply Br.
14—15.
Based on the record before us, we find the Examiner has not shown
the linking tile limitation of claim 16 is taught or suggested by the
combination of Iwuchukwu and Abdo. Independent claim 31 similarly
recites “linking tiles for associating the road and traffic tiles,” which we
similarly find are not taught or suggested by Iwuchukwu in view of Abdo.
See Reply Br. 18. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claims 16 and 31, or the claims dependent thereon.
6
Appeal 2016-003792
Application 13/632,090
C. Independent Claim 24
Independent claim 24 recites “rendering a traffic congestion
representation at different positions on the map relative to the identified road
portion.” The Examiner finds this limitation taught or suggested by Abdo’s
disclosure of encoding for computer network transmissions, because “claim
24 recites ‘rendering’, not displaying. Under a broadest reasonable
interpretation, rendering a traffic congestion representation is interpreted to
include encoding data, as taught by Abdo.” Ans. 7 (citing Abdo 1 82). The
Examiner finds the claim to thus be obvious in view of Abdo and
Iwuchukwu, as “the claimed invention is merely a combination of old
elements, and in the combination, each element would merely have
performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in
the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were
predictable.” Final Act. 14.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred, because “Abdo’s discussion of
‘congestion’ relates to network bandwidth congestion, not road traffic. Thus,
the Office Action shows no disclosure or suggestion as to how to modify
Iwuchukwu to render the limitations of claim 24 unpatentable.” App. Br.
27. Appellants further contend that, even assuming Abdo teaches
“rendering” as claimed, the Examiner’s rejection “omits the claim language
that recites that the rendering is done ‘at different positions on the map
relative to the identified road portion’ and that it be ‘based on a definition of
the identified road portion and a traffic data set received for the traffic
segment.’” Reply Br. 16.
We are persuaded of Examiner error. Claim 24 recites “rendering . . .
on the map,” and Appellants’ Application clearly discloses such rendering is
7
Appeal 2016-003792
Application 13/632,090
to visually depict maps. See, e.g., Spec. 3:1—5; Fig. 8B. We find the
Examiner erred in determining Abdo’s data encoding teaches rendering a
traffic congestion representation on a map, as claimed. See In re Man Mach.
Interface Techs. LLC, 822 F.3d 1282, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“the proper
BRI construction is not just the broadest construction, but rather the broadest
reasonable construction in light of the specification.'1'’). Further, as similarly
discussed above with respect to independent claim 16, we do not find one of
ordinary skill would combine Iwuchukwu with the data compression
teachings of Abdo as claimed. Thus, we agree with Appellants that the
combination of Iwuchukwu and Abdo “omits the claim language that recites
that the rendering is done ‘at different positions on the map relative to the
identified road portion.’” Reply Br. 16. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 24, or the claims dependent
thereon.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—34 is reversed.
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).
REVERSED
8