Ex Parte Schmidt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 14, 2014

11975459 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte HAUKE SCHMIDT, TUOLIN CHEN,
and AARON LEE
____________________

Appeal 2011-008638
Application 11/975,459
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before DAVID M. KOHUT, ERIC B. CHEN, and JEREMY J. CURCURI,
Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-11.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

1 Claims 12-21 were previously cancelled. Claims 22-31 were previously
withdrawn from consideration.
Appeal 2011-008638
Application 11/975,459

2
INVENTION
The invention is directed to computer-readable media having stored
thereon a hierarchical data structure for accessing geographic object data to
permit on-demand loading of the data. Spec. 3. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
invention and is reproduced below:
1. A hardware computer-readable medium having stored
thereon a hierarchical data structure arranged for access thereto
by a computer processor, the hierarchical data structure
comprising:
a resource-index format to store meta data of a system;
and
a level-of-detail format to store actual data of the system,
the actual data being loadable on demand;
wherein the resource-index format includes a file location
field, a bounding box field, a tiles field, and a number of
children field; and
wherein the number of children field is recursive, each
child including a further bounding box field, a further tiles field
and a further number of children field.

REFERENCE
Lampert US 5,953,722 Sep. 14, 1999

REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 1-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Lampert.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that Lampert discloses “a number of
children field . . . wherein the number of children field is recursive, each
Appeal 2011-008638
Application 11/975,459

3
child including a further bounding box field, a further tiles field and a further
number of children field,” as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
We select claim 1 as representative of the group comprising claims 1-
11 since none of these claims were separately argued with particularity. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). The Examiner finds Lampert discloses a number
of children fields that are recursive, as required by claim 1, because Lampert
discloses a kd-tree (Fig. 15) that shows the relationship between parent and
child nodes and because each of the nodes contains the fields indicated in
Figure 16, which includes listing the right and left descendent child nodes (if
present) associated with the node. Ans. 6, 17-18. Thus, because these fields
are repeated in every node of the tree, they are recursive. Ans. 6, 18.
Appellants argue the cited portions of Lampert disclose that each node
includes only pointers to child nodes, with each child merely including
pointers to further left and right children. App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2.
Therefore, Appellants contend that providing pointers to children in each
node does not constitute a recursive number of children field provided in a
parent node. Reply. Br. 2-3. We disagree.
Appellants’ Specification does not provide a specific definition for a
recursive number of children field but generally describes the number of
children field as a recursive (i.e., repeating) sequence of bounding boxes,
tiles, and number of children fields for each child. See Spec. 17-18. We
find the Examiner’s interpretation of the disputed limitation as indicating the
left and right child nodes associated with each parent node to be reasonable
and consistent with the Specification. See Ans. 17-18. Thus, we agree with
Appeal 2011-008638
Application 11/975,459

4
the Examiner’s finding that Lampert’s number of children field is recursive
because the child node field is repeated by each node in the tree structure.
Ans. 6, 17-18.
Regardless of our analysis above, we note that claim construction is
an issue of law that we review de novo. Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific
Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Claims are not to be read in a
vacuum, but must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light
of the Specification as it would be interpreted by ordinary artisans. Phillips
v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). As such, we
find that the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 only requires a
computer-readable medium with data stored on it. The Examiner finds that
Lampert discloses a hardware computer-readable medium containing
geographic data, and therefore the Examiner properly rejected claim 1.
Ans. 4.
Thus, for the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1-11.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in finding that Lampert discloses “a number
of children field . . . wherein the number of children field is recursive, each
child including a further bounding box field, a further tiles field and a further
number of children field,” as recited in claim 1.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-11 is affirmed.
Appeal 2011-008638
Application 11/975,459

5
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) (2010).

AFFIRMED

bab