Ex Parte Shibata

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 10, 2017

13800753 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 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.
13/800,753 03/13/2013 Tadao Shibata 9333/721 8512
74989 7590
BGL/Alpine
P.O. Box 10395
Chicago, IL 60610
EXAMINER
CHOWDHURY, RAYEEZ R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/10/2017 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 TAD AO SHIBATA
Appeal 2016-003813
Application 13/800,753
Technology Center 2100
Before THU A. DANG, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—22, which are all of the pending claims. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellant, the invention relates to “a method for
displaying a name or the like of an establishment or a road in an electronic
device which includes a navigation function” (Spec. 12).
Appeal 2016-003813
Application 13/800,753
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. An electronic device including a navigation
function, the electronic device comprising:
a display unit configured to display road map data on a
display screen;
a scroll unit configured to scroll a road map screen display
on the display screen in response to a user input;
a determination unit configured to determine if the
scrolling has stopped;
an identification unit configured to identify, when it is
determined that the scrolling has stopped, a search object
candidate specified by a position at which the scrolling has
stopped;
a selection unit configured to select a search object
candidate being the same type as that of the search object
candidate identified by the identification unit and being included
in the road map screen displayed when the scrolling has been
stopped;
an acquisition unit configured to acquire name data of the
search object candidate selected by the selection unit; and
a synthesis and display unit configured to synthesize and
display the name data acquired by the acquisition unit onto the
road map data, the scrolling of which has stopped.
C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Claims 1—4, 9—14, and 17—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the teachings of Schaaf (US 2009/0088964
Al; pub. Apr. 2, 2009), and Ise (US 6,240,361 Bl; iss. May 29, 2001).
2
Appeal 2016-003813
Application 13/800,753
Claims 5—8, 15, 16, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the teachings of Schaaf, Ise, and Asano (US
5,587,911; iss. Dec. 24, 1996).
II. ISSUES
The principal issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in
finding that Schaaf (in view of Ise) teaches or suggests an identification unit
configured to “identify, when it is determined that the scrolling has stopped,
a search object candidate specified by a position at which the scrolling has
stopped;” and a selecting unit configured to “select a search object candidate
being the same type as that of the search object candidate identified ...”
(claim 1).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Schaaf
1. Schaaf discloses a map scrolling method for selectively displaying
icons based on conditions and settings of the navigation system during a
transition period of a map scrolling operation (Abst.). The map scrolling
method includes detecting whether there is a pause in the map scrolling
operation, and then displaying a list of place names of the icons that are
located proximate to a specified location on the map image. 112.
3
Appeal 2016-003813
Application 13/800,753
2. Figures 3C—D are reproduced below:
Fig. 3D
Figure 3C shows a situation where the map scroll operation is paused,
and Figure 3D shows a screen on which the navigation system displays the
name and other information on the icons in an area pointed by the cursor. |
20. As shown in Figure 3C, both the brand name icons 75 and generic point
of interest (POI) icons 73 are shown. 138. As shown, a user clicks the
cursor and the navigation system will display a screen which includes
detailed information on the area at the cursor point and a list of POIs, either
generic or brand name, as shown in Figure 3D, wherein the POI list includes
4
Appeal 2016-003813
Application 13/800,753
entries 65A, 65B and 65C showing other candidate POIs proximate to the
cursor point. 139.
3. A limit condition is attached to generic POI icons that represent a
category of point of interest, and brand name icons only within a selected
category are displayed during the transition period of the map scrolling
operation. 113.
4. Figure 5 is reproduced below:
Fig. 5
Figure 5 shows an example of screen display where only the brand
name icons of specified category shown while other brand name icons and
the generic POI icons are removed from the map image during the map
scrolling operations. \22. In particular, when the user scrolls the map
image after the user has set the destination, i.e., the selected category (i.e.,
restaurants) indicated by the brand name icons, or if the category of icons
are selected by the user through a system set-up procedure, the navigation
system displays only selected category of brand name icons (i.e., only
restaurant brand name icons 152) and removes the brand name icons of other
categories. 142.
5
Appeal 2016-003813
Application 13/800,753
IV. ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellant. We do not consider arguments that
Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs, and we
deem any such arguments waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellant contends “Schaaf may teach filtering points of interest
based on a destination,” but “there is no teaching or suggestion of scrolling
to a particular point of interest, and then filtering the points of interest based
on the selected point of interest” (App. Br. 5). In particular, according to
Appellant, “[sjetting a destination and selecting a point of interest are two
different operations in a navigation system” (id.). In the Reply Brief,
Appellant repeats “[t]here is no teaching or suggestion in Fig. 5 or paragraph
[0042] of S[c]ha[a]f of scrolling to a particular point of interest, and then
filtering the points of interest based on the selected point of interest” (Reply
Br. 5).
Based on the record before us, we unconvinced by Appellant’s
contentions regarding the Examiner’s rejections of the claims.
We note that although Appellant contends that there is no “filtering
the points of interest based on the selected point of interest” in Schaaf, the
claims do not recite any “filtering” step. Nevertheless, we agree with the
Examiner’s findings, and are unpersuaded of error with the Examiner’s
conclusion that the claims would have been obvious over the cited
references.
Schaaf discloses a map scrolling method which includes detecting
whether there is a pause in the map scrolling operation (FF 1), and then
receiving a user selection of a particular POI by clicking the cursor over the
6
Appeal 2016-003813
Application 13/800,753
POI, wherein the navigation system will display a screen which includes
detailed information on the area at the selected cursor point and a list of
POIs, either generic or brand name (FF 2). We agree with the Examiner’s
finding Schaaf’s “navigation system determines the map completion of the
map scrolling operation” wherein Schaaf also discloses “POI icons 73
(search object) that displays at the locations where the map scroll operation
ends” (Ans. 2; FF 1—2). Accordingly, we find no error with the Examiner’s
reliance on Schaaf for teaching and suggesting an identification unit
configured to “identity, when it is determined that the scrolling has stopped,
a search object candidate specified by a position at which the scrolling has
stopped” (claiml).
We also agree with the Examiner’s finding “Schaaf also shows only
user selected brand name icons . . . being displayed after scrolling has
stopped,” wherein “the user selects the candidate object through a system
setup procedure of the navigation system to display only the user specified
object after the completion of the scrolling operation” (Ans. 3). In
particular, Schaaf discloses attaching a limit condition to generic POI icons
that represent a category of point of interest, and displaying brand name
icons only within a selected category during the transition period of the map
scrolling operation (FF 3—4). That is, after the user has selected a category
(including selection through a system set-up procedure), the navigation
system displays only selected category (a particular type) of brand name
icons (i.e., only restaurant brand name icons) and removes the brand name
icons of other categories (different types) (FF 4).
Appellant concedes “Schaaf may teach filtering points of interest”
(App. Br. 5). Although Appellant contends that Schaaf s filtering is “based
7
Appeal 2016-003813
Application 13/800,753
on a destination” {id.), we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Schaaf
also discloses and suggests selecting for display points of interest of “the
same type” as that of the identified point of interest as claimed (claim 1).
On this record, Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 and claims 2-4, 9, and 10 depending therefrom and falling
therewith (App. Br. 5) over Schaaf in further view of Ise. Appellant does
not provide substantive arguments for independent claims 11 and 17
separate from claim 1 (App. Br. 5—6). Accordingly, we also affirm the
rejection of claims 11 and 17, and claims 12—14, and 18—20 depending
respectively therefrom over Schaaf and Ise. Because Appellant does not
provide separate arguments for dependent claims 5—8, 15, 16, 21, and 22, we
also affirm the rejection of these claims over Schaaf and Ise, in further view
of Asano.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
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).
AFFIRMED
8