Ex Parte Shrivathsan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2013

11967265 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MUSIRI SHRIVATHSAN, NICOLA A. CRANE, and
DAVID CHIU
____________________

Appeal 2011-010371
Application 11/967,265
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and
BARRY L. GROSSMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Chao (US 6,845,322 B1, iss. Jan. 18, 2005) and Kato (US 2006/0178807
A1, pub. Aug. 10, 2006). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2011-010371
Application 11/967,265

2
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to “a mobile client navigation
system having a traffic routing system.” Spec., para. [0001].1 Claims 1 and
11 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
l. A method for operating a mutable mobile
traffic routing system comprising:
receiving traffic routing parameters with
traffic segments by a client from a server to be
shown on a display of the client;
selecting a traffic re-routing request
parameter, based on a traffic routing control
parameter, from the traffic routing parameters with
the traffic segments at the client;
sending the traffic re-routing request
parameter from the client to the server;
updating the traffic routing parameters at the
server based on the traffic re-routing request
parameter; and
sending the traffic routing parameters
updated for an updated traffic segment with the
traffic re-routing request parameter from the server
to the client.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue independent claims 1 and 11 together (Br. 11-13)
and do not present any separate arguments for the patentability of dependent
claims 2-10 and 12-20 (Br. 13). As such, we treat claims 1-20 as argued as a

1 As used herein, “Spec.” refers to the Specification filed December 31,
2007. The copy of this Specification in the record is missing page 10.
Appeal 2011-010371
Application 11/967,265

3
single group and select independent claim 1 as the representative claim in
accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
The Examiner finds that Chao discloses the method of claim 1 with
the exceptions of the traffic routing parameters having traffic segments and
updating the traffic segments. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner finds that Kato
discloses processing and displaying traffic information that includes road
segments and periodically updating the road segments, and concludes it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chao
to use “traffic routing parameters with traffic segments and to update the
traffic segment[s] in order to reflect new traffic data” as taught by Kato.
Ans. 4.
Appellants do not take issue with the Examiner’s combination of
Chao and Kato; rather, Appellants repeatedly argue that the claim limitations
of “receiving traffic routing parameters with traffic segments and updating
the traffic routing parameters is not taught or suggested in Chao or Kato.”
Br. 11, see also Br. 12, 13, 14. However, it is the nature of an obviousness
rejection that neither reference teaches each and every limitation. Instead, it
is the combined teachings of the references that results in unpatentability.
Here, the Examiner’s findings are that Chao discloses a client receiving and
displaying traffic routing parameters from a server and Kato discloses
processing traffic routing parameters that include traffic segments, as
discussed supra. Appellants’ argument does not convince us of error in
these findings.
Appellants also argue that Kato “teaches only road segments traffic
but not traffic routing parameters for controlling operation of a display with
navigation information.” Br. 11; see also Br. 12. We also find this
Appeal 2011-010371
Application 11/967,265

4
argument unconvincing for the same reason that the Examiner does not rely
on Kato to disclose receiving traffic routing parameters to be shown on a
display. The Examiner’s position is that Kato teaches processing traffic
routing parameters that include traffic segments. Appellants do not contest
the Examiner’s finding that Kato discloses processing “traffic segments.”
In view of the above, Appellants’ arguments do not apprise us of
error, and we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2-20 grouped
therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chao and
Kato.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

mls