10845488 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 15, 2010)

Ex Parte Takizawa

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 15, 2010

10845488 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 15, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte AKIHIKO TAKIZAWA ____________ Appeal 2009-004208 Application 10/845,488 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Decided: June 15, 2010 ____________ Before WILLIAM F, PATE, III, MICHAEL W. O’NEILL, and KEN B. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges. O’NEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Akihiko Takizawa (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Hiyokawa (US 6,047,235, issued Appeal No. 2009-004208 Application No. 10/845,488 2 Apr. 4, 2000). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. The Invention The invention is to a navigation system and method for providing route guidance to a user. Spec. 1, para. [0001]. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. An onboard vehicle navigation system comprising: a map data storage unit for storing a road as a set of links, wherein each link has an associated traveling direction; a guidance request reception unit for receiving a predetermined return route guidance request operation of a user; a return route calculation unit for automatically calculating a route from a present vehicle position in a present traveling lane of a road on a present traveling path, corresponding to a road link having a first traveling direction, to a position in an opposite lane of the road, corresponding to a road link having a second traveling direction opposite to that of the first traveling direction as a return guide route when said guidance request reception unit receives the predetermined return route guidance request operation; and a return route guidance unit for guiding the user according to the return guide route calculated by said return route calculation unit. OPINION Issue The determinative issue in this appeal is: Whether the Examiner erred in finding that Hiyokawa discloses automatically calculating a route from a present vehicle position in a present traveling lane of a road on a present traveling path, corresponding to a road Appeal No. 2009-004208 Application No. 10/845,488 3 link having a first traveling direction, to a position in an opposite lane of the road, corresponding to a road link having a second traveling direction opposite to that of the first traveling direction, as a return guide route when a predetermined return route guidance request operation is received. Discussion We agree with Appellant that the citations the Examiner utilizes as evidence to find that the claimed limitation at issue supra is anticipated by Hiyokawa are completely silent concerning calculating a route to a position in an opposite lane of the road, and doing such a calculation when a predetermined operation by the user is received, e.g., the user presses the “turn-back” button 51. Hiyokawa describes a vehicle navigation system that obtains the return route data while advancing along the outgoing route. Then, the return route is determined from this data. Any non-bidirectional route data, e.g., one-way streets, is substituted with predetermined road data around such non-bidirectional route data. As Appellant urges, column 3, lines 19-40 of Hiyokawa, cited by the Examiner, is a summary of Hiyokawa’s invention and describes essentially determining a route from the starting point to the destination point, conducting route guidance based on this determined route, and storing data for a return route from the destination to the starting point based on the outgoing route traveled by the vehicle. The Examiner’s identification of the entire portions of columns 7 and 9 of Hiyokawa, rather than pointing to specific portions of Hiyokawa for support of each and every one of the claimed elements/steps, does not support a finding that Hiyokawa anticipates each claimed limitation. Instead, such identification and citation without further explanation and analysis on the Examiner’s part is a proof by verbosity which is logically Appeal No. 2009-004208 Application No. 10/845,488 4 unsound and we cannot sustain. A proper finding of anticipation requires a showing that each element or limitation in a claim is present in the cited reference, either explicitly or inherently, and further the elements must be arranged in the same manner as in the claim under review. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Moreover, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences is a review body, rather than a place of initial examination. As such, the Answer must make all findings accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archaeologist with the references before them. Cf. DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 867 (7th Cir. 1999) (“[An appeal] brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archaeologist with the record.”). See also Shiokawa v. Maienfisch, 56 USPQ2d 1970, 1975 (BPAI 2000); LeVeen v. Edwards, 57 USPQ2d 1406, 1413 (BPAI 2000). Accordingly, we adopt Appellant’s understanding of the portions alluded to by the Examiner, namely, that columns 7 and 9 of Hiyokawa describe that the outgoing route is determined based on current and destination points, at intermediate points determinations are made as to whether the segment traveled is a two-way or one-way road, and return route data is obtained based on the determination at the intermediate points of the outgoing route. Likewise, we are in agreement with Appellant that column 5, lines 9-48 of Hiyokawa describes additional various details of Hiyokawa’s system, and what the Examiner has alluded to in the Answer as anticipating the claimed invention fails to describe calculating a route to a position in an opposite lane of the road, as well as doing such calculations when a predetermined operation by the user is received. Appeal No. 2009-004208 Application No. 10/845,488 5 CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in finding that Hiyokawa discloses automatically calculating a route from a present vehicle position in a present traveling lane of a road on a present traveling path, corresponding to a road link having a first traveling direction, to a position in an opposite lane of the road, corresponding to a road link having a second traveling direction opposite to that of the first traveling direction, as a return guide route when a predetermined return route guidance request operation is received. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-21 as anticipated by Hiyokawa is reversed. REVERSED mls BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE P.O. BOX 10395 CHICAGO, IL 60610