Ex Parte Twig et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 11, 201612715266 (P.T.A.B. May. 11, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 121715,266 03/01/2010 Ilan Twig 35690 7590 05/13/2016 MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P,C P.O. BOX 398 AUSTIN, TX 78767-0398 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. 6257-33204 8412 EXAMINER CHEN,TEY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2154 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/13/2016 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): patent_docketing@intprop.com ptomhkkg@gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ILAN TWIG and AMIT ARAD Appeal2014-004916 Application 12/715,266 Technology Center 2100 Before NATHAN A. ENGELS, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING STATEMENT OF THE CASE On May 3, 2016, Appellants filed a Request for Rehearing (hereinafter "Req. Reh'g")under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 from the Decision on Appeal (Decision) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board), mailed March 3, 2016. 1 In the Decision, we affirmed the Examiner's final rejection of claims 8-30. We deny the Request for Rehearing. 1 "The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board." 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(l). Appeal2014-004916 Application 12/715,266 In their request, Appellants argue the Decision is based on three factual errors not supported by substantial evidence: (i) the Board erred in finding, "the first type of zooming capability disclosed in Roy is the same zooming capability that Appellants cite in Appellants' Specification as an example of the claimed subject matter"; (ii) the Board erred because Roy's "described change in resolution is irrelevant to the question of rendering 'additional map details of [a] first type"'; and (iii) the Board erred in stating, "the description of Roy in the Specification is directed to the irrelevant 'second type' of zooming capability." (Req. Reh' g 4--7.) However, we adhere to our statement that the first type of zooming disclosed in Roy is the same as that described in the Specification, and do not agree that the change in resolution resulting from Roy's first type of zooming falls outside the scope of "additional map details" as claimed. Appellants attempt to limit "additional map details" to "roads, buildings, etc." is an unpersuasive attempt to narrow the scope of the claims to the embodiments described in the Specification. (Req. Reh'g 2.) Although claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In regard to the statement in the Decision that the descriptions of Roy in the Specification are directed to the irrelevant "second type" of zooming, Appellants cite the reference to the first type of zooming in paragraph 4 7 of the Specification, which involves "vector-based data that has already been downloaded" (Req. Reh'g 7.), but note the Examiner nonetheless correctly finds this type of zooming satisfies the requirements of the claim, given the 2 Appeal2014-004916 Application 12/715,266 capabilities of vector-based data, such as described in Roy in the context of CAD files: [W]hen a user at a computer system wishes to view a schematic, the computer system downloads all of the data in the CAD file for that schematic from a data storage device via the Internet. The CAD file typically contains data corresponding to different levels of design of the schematic. In some instances, a user may wish to view only some of the data in the files, for example, the highest level of design of the schematic. In this case, although only a portion of data is required to display the schematic requested by the user, the computer system has already downloaded all of the data in the CAD file. (e.g., col. 1, lines 37-58) .... (Ans. 7.) In sum, having considered the arguments in the Request for Reconsideration, we are not persuaded that the affirmation of the Examiner's rejections is in error, and we adhere to our decision to sustain the rejections. DECISION In view of the foregoing discussion, we have granted Appellants' Request to the extent that we have reconsidered the original Decision but have denied it with respect to making any changes to the Decision. 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). REHEARING DENIED 3 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation