Ex Parte Schr¿der et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 20, 2016

12967457 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/967,457 12/14/2010
69590 7590 05/24/2016
International IP Law Group
P.O. BOX 691927
HOUSTON, TX 77269-1927
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.
11847-PT-US (JOST:OlOl) 1643
EXAMINER
LANG, MICHAEL DEAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3667
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/24/2016 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):
docketing@iiplg.com
barry.blount@iiplg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAN SCHRODER, TYSON CHIHA YA, and MAY A WISEMAN
Appeal2014-003253
Application 12/967,457
Technology Center 3600
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, JILL D. HILL, and LISA M. GUIJT,
Administrative Patent Judges.
GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jan Schroder et al. ("Appellants")1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4, 6-8, and 10-15. Claim 9
is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Final Act. 5.
Claim 5 is cancelled.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Vodafone Holding GmbH.
Appeal Br. 2.
2 See Amendments dated May 2, 2012.
Appeal2014-003253
Application 12/967,457
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A method for assisting a user in arnvmg at a
destination point within a time limit, the method
compnsmg:
receiving, by a computer processor, a starting
position and the destination point;
estimating, by the computer processor, an
accessible geographic area which can be traversed by the
user with a predetermined speed before reaching the
destination within the time limit, when starting from the
starting position;
providing, by the computer processor, information
on the estimated accessible area for presentation to the
user; and
updating, by the computer processor, the accessible
area at predetermined time intervals based on an updated
position and/or a remaining portion of the time limit, such
that during travelling no defined route but a plurality of
possible routes to the destination point are presented to the
user.
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Coughlin (US 2008/0167937 Al; pub. July 10, 2008)
and Hirota (US 5,568,390; iss. Oct. 22, 1996).
ANALYSIS
Regarding independent claims 1, 11, and 12, the Examiner finds, inter
alia, that Coughlin discloses "updating ... the accessible area at
predetermined time intervals based on an updated position and/or a
remaining portion of the time limit" (Final Act. 2-3 (citing Coughlin i-f 91)),
2
Appeal2014-003253
Application 12/967,457
and that "a plurality of possible routes are presented to the user" (Ans. 2-3
(citing Coughlin i-fi-192, 93)). The Examiner determines that "Coughlin fails
to explicitly disclose ... that during travelling no defined route but a
plurality of possible routes to [a] destination point are presented to the user,"
and the Examiner relies on Hirota for disclosing this claim limitation. Final
Act. 3 (citing Hirota, col. 8, 11. 4-20, Figs. 3, 4). In support, the Examiner
finds that "Hirota discloses multiple routes to multiple destinations" and
determines that "a method capable of presenting multiple routes to multiple
destinations is certainly capable of presenting multiple routes to a single
destination." Ans. 4. The Examiner reasons that it would have been
obvious ... to modify Coughlin's method in view of Hirota "to provide the
user with the opportunity of selecting a travel route from the various travel
routes made available." Final Act. 3.
Appellants argue, inter alia, that "[t]he routes displayed in Hirota are
calculated prior to selecting a destination point," and "[a ]s such, Hirota does
not present a plurality of routes to a destination point but multiple routes to
multiple destination points." Id. at 8-9 (citing Hirota, col. 10, 11. 5-17, Fig.
9). Regarding the Examiner's determination that "a method capable of
presenting multiple routes to multiple destinations is certainly capable of
presenting multiple routes to a single destination," Appellants contend that
as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, the combination
of one starting point with a number of potential different
destination points necessarily provides as many routes as
destination points. This condition is not fulfilled if there is only
one starting point and one destination point. In this condition,
there is only one route needed to travel from the starting point to
the destination point.
Reply Br. 3. Appellants submit that
3
Appeal2014-003253
Application 12/967,457
Hirota presents a number of potential defined routes to different
destination points. The user selects prior to traveling to a
destination point one of the destination points, and the defined
route to the respective destination point is presented to the user.
Thus, Hirota fails to disclose, alone or ... in combination with
Coughlin, "during travelling no defined route but a plurality of
possible routes to the destination point are presented to the user,"
as recited in the independent claims.
Id. at 3.
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument, in that the Examiner
failed to support the finding that Hirota discloses a plurality of possible
routes to a (single) destination point. See Final Act. 3 (citing Hirota, col. 8,
lines 4-20, Figs. 3, 4). At column 8, lines 4-20, Hirota discloses a
"reachable area," dependent on a time or fuel input, which includes
"reachable nodes," and Hirota's Figures 3 and 4 depict routes (without
defining a specific route) in the reachable range. However, the Examiner
does not provide evidence that Figures 3 and 4 depict more than one route to
a single reachable node (which Hirota more generally refers to also as
"reachable places" (see, e.g., col. 2, 1. 5 (emphasis added)), nor does the
Examiner rely on Coughlin for disclosing the single destination requirement.
Rather, the Examiner finds that "a method capable of presenting multiple
routes to multiple destinations is certainly capable of presenting multiple
routes to a single destination." See Ans. 4. The Examiner's finding that
Hirota may be programmed to be capable of presenting a plurality of
undefined routes to a single destination is speculative, and thus, the
Examiner's reliance on Hirota for disclosing claimed subject matter that the
Examiner found missing from Coughlin, which is also used as a teaching to
modify Coughlin, lacks factual underpinning.
4
Appeal2014-003253
Application 12/967,457
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1, 11, and 12, and claims 2--4, 6-8, 10, and 13-15,
depending therefrom.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 6-8, and 10-
15.
REVERSED
5