Ex Parte Rolf et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 29, 2019

15240710 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/240,710 08/18/2016
139885 7590 04/02/2019
HERE Global/ Alston & Bird
Bank of America Plaza
101 South Tryon Street, Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Daniel Rolf
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
064359/482026 1011
EXAMINER
TIM ORY, KABIR A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2019 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL ROLF, and RAUL CAJIAS
Appeal2018-006959
Application 15/240,710 1
Technology Center 2600
Before MARC S. HOFF, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER,
and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's Final
rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-13, 15-17, 21, 22, 26, and 27. 2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identity HERE Global B.V. as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 2.
2 Claims 4, 8-10, 14, 18-20, 23-25, and 28-30 stand objected to as being
dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in
independent form. App. Br. 8.
Appeal2018-006959
Application 15/240, 710
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' invention is a method, apparatus, and computer program
product for predicting parking availability for one or more road segments
based on map-matched probe data points. The method includes receiving
probe data points from a vehicle, each including a location; determining,
from the probe data points, a parking location of the vehicle on a road
segment, where the relative location along the road segment on which the
vehicle parked can be determined; and estimating availability of other
parking spaces along the road segment based on the relative location. Spec.
iT 4.
Claim 1 below is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A method for determining parking availability,
wherein the method is implemented by a processor
including memory and computer program code, the
method comprising:
receiving probe data points from a vehicle,
wherein each probe data point comprises a
location;
determining, from the probe data points, a
parking location of the vehicle on a road
segment, wherein a relative location along the
road segment on which the vehicle parked is
determined; and
estimating availability of other parking
spaces along the road segment based on the
relative location.
2
Appeal2018-006959
Application 15/240, 710
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Kaplan et al. US 2010/0318290 Al Dec. 16, 2010
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-13, 15-17, 21, 22, 26, and 27 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as being anticipated by Kaplan.
Throughout this decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed Jan. 1 7,
2018 ("App. Br."); the Reply Brief filed June 25, 2018 ("Reply Br."), and
the Examiner's Answer mailed May 9, 2018 ("Ans.") for their respective
details.
ISSUE
Appellants' arguments present us with the following issue:
Does Kaplan disclose receiving probe data points from a vehicle, each
probe data point comprising a location, and determining, from the probe data
points, a relative parking location of the vehicle along a road segment?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
"A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and
every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art
reference." See In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(quoting In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
ANALYSIS
Each of the independent claims under appeal ( 1, 11, 21, and 26)
recites receiving probe data points from a vehicle, and determining, from the
probe data points a parking location of a vehicle on a road segment, wherein
3
Appeal2018-006959
Application 15/240, 710
a relative location along the road segment on which the vehicle parked is
determined.
The Examiner finds that "probe data points" are disclosed in Kaplan
by historical parking availability information and real time parking
availability information. Final Act. 5; Kaplan Fig. 8. The Examiner then
finds that Kaplan discloses a determination, from the probe data points, of a
parking location of a vehicle on a road segment, including determinating a
relative location along a road segment, by Kaplan's discussion of parking
availability, which "may be represented [by] a number of parking spaces
available, an availability percentage ... occupancy percentage ... a word
rating occupancy ... or any other indication of parking availability." Final
Act. 6; Kaplan ,r 33. The Examiner does not explicitly identify the portion
of Kaplan corresponding to determinating "a relative location along the road
segment." Id. In the Response to Argument section of the Examiner's
Answer, the Examiner finds that "historic parking data" is "interpreted to be
a relative location." Ans. 4.
Appellants' Specification discloses that processing server may receive
probe data from a mobile device 114. Spec. ,r 36. The mobile device may
use detectors and sensors to provide data indicating a location of a vehicle.
Id. "More specifically, probe data (e.g., collected by mobile device 114)
may be representative of the location of a vehicle at a representative point in
time and may be collected while a vehicle is traveling along a route." Spec.
,r 3 7. "According to some embodiments, a greater portion of the road
segment traversed before finding a parking location relative to a total length
of the road segment may correspond to a lower estimated availability of
other parking spaces along the road segment." Spec. ,r 15. Reading
4
Appeal2018-006959
Application 15/240, 710
Appellants' claims in light of the Specification, we do not agree with the
Examiner's finding that Kaplan discloses receiving probe data points from a
vehicle, wherein each probe data point comprises a location. Because
Kaplan does not disclose probe data points received from a vehicle, we do
not agree with the Examiner's finding that Kaplan discloses determining,
from the probe data points, a parking location of the vehicle on a road
segment.
Further, we do not agree with the Examiner's finding that Kaplan's
historic parking data corresponds to determining a relative location along the
road segment on which the vehicle parked. Kaplan discloses historic
parking data associated with the parking facility. "The historic parking data
250(10) indicates parking availability for the parking facility based on past
occupancy of the parking facility." See App. Br. 9. Historic parking data
"may include parking availability based on the day of the week and the time
of the day. [It] may also include parking availability based on the time of
year and/or weather. [It] may further include parking availability based on
events such as sports, shows, conventions, etc." Kaplan ,r 33. Kaplan's
historic parking data does not include any data concerning, or any algorithm
for determining, a relative location along a road segment.
We find that Kaplan fails to disclose all of the elements of
independent claims 1, 11, 21, and 26. We do not sustain the Examiner's
§ 102(a) rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-13, 15-17, 21, 22, 26, and 27.
CONCLUSION
Kaplan does not disclose receiving probe data points from a vehicle,
each probe data point comprising a location, and determining, from the
5
Appeal2018-006959
Application 15/240, 710
probe data points, a relative parking location of the vehicle along a road
segment.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-13, 15-17, 21,
22, 26, and 27 is reversed.
REVERSED
6