Ex Parte Walkling et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 12, 201512305804 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte UWE WALKLING, MARCO FIEDLER, HENRY BRANDES, HOLGER LISTLE, RALF OSMERS, THOMAS KLEIN, JOERG KREWER, and STEFAN LUEER ____________________ Appeal 2012-012434 Application 12/305,804 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-012434 Application 12/305,804 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 9–14 and 16–26. Claims 1–8 and 15 were previously cancelled. App. Br. 1, Claims App’x 1–2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Exemplary Claim Exemplary independent claim 9 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added): 9. A navigation device for a land vehicle, comprising: a hierarchical database containing a data tree with hierarchically arranged data; and at least one geographic database containing data that are arranged in geographic subregions, wherein the hierarchical database includes a reference to the at least one geographic database and the reference is provided in place of a hierarchy point of the hierarchical database. Rejections on Appeal The Examiner rejected claims 9–14 and 16–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated Parupudi (US 2005/0050201 A1, pub. Mar. 3, 2005). Final Act. 4–7.1 ANALYSIS Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 4–5; Reply Br. 3–4), the principal and dispositive issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting exemplary claim 9 turns on whether Parupudi discloses 1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 10–14 and 16–26. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. Appeal 2012-012434 Application 12/305,804 3 “the reference is provided in place of a hierarchy point of the hierarchical database.” We adopt the findings of facts made by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer as our own. We concur with decision reached by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 because: [T]here is no disclosure (or even suggestion) of any reference being provided “in place of a hierarchy point of the hierarchical database” as in the context of the presently claimed subject matter of claims 9 and 14. This is also believed to be clear from cited Fig. 3, since even if the Secondary World (302) included links (-->) to the Master World (300), this is the opposite of the presently claimed subject matter of the independent claims in which the links are a reference to at least one geographic database (asserted to be like Secondary World (302)) in which the reference is provided in place of a hierarchy point (asserted to be like nodes of 300) of the hierarchical database (asserted to be like Master World (300)). App. Br. 4–5. Appellants further contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 because: [T]here is no identical disclosure (or even suggestion) that the link is bi-directional and in fact, as described below, and Fig. 3 makes it clear that the links are directional. Also, there is no identical disclosure of any reference being provided “in place of a hierarchy point of the hierarchical database [Master World]” as in the context of the presently claimed subject matter of claims 9 and 14 even if there were a link between the two nodes of the databases. Appeal 2012-012434 Application 12/305,804 4 Reply Br. 3–4. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Parupudi discloses this feature: First, in relational database field, referencing from one database to another is often bi-directional, as it is implemented via key-to-key linkage. In other words, once a reference from one database (say “A”) to another (say “B”) via a key-to-key linkage (say “A.key1” to “B.key2”) is established, by the nature of the A.key1-to-B.key2 linkage, B has a reference to A which is the opposite direction of the A-to-B reference. Therefore, since reference often is bi-directional, Parupudi’s disclosure of Secondary World database having a reference to Master World database indicates that Master World database has reference to Secondary World database (para. [0106]). This conclusion is also echoed by Fig. 2 of P, in which the link (i.e. reference between Master World 200 and Secondary World 204) is bi- directional. Ans. 4–5. Figure 2 of Parupudi, with added marking, is reproduced below: Figure 2 is a conceptual diagram of exemplary Master World and Secondary World Appeal 2012-012434 Application 12/305,804 5 Thus, as depicted in Figure 2 and as described in paragraph 106 of Parupudi, we agree with the Examiner that the link is bi-directional and discloses the claimed reference provided in place of a hierarchy point of the hierarchical database feature of exemplary claim 9. Regarding Appellants’ arguments regarding Figure 3 of Parupudi, we note that Figure 3 is exemplary (Parupudi, para. 11). Separately, we highlight the following. Appellants’ contentions repeatedly state that in Parupudi (1) “there is no identical disclosure (or even suggestion) that the link is bi-directional,” or (2) “there is no identical disclosure of any reference being provided ‘in place of a hierarchy point of the hierarchical database.’” Given that the Examiner has indicated (Ans. 4– 6) how the Examiner believes the disputed limitation is met by Parupudi; Appellants are arguing that Parupudi must satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test. However, it is well established that for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test.” In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832–33 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). In re Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 317 (CCPA 1978) (“[A]lthough appellants would have us hold that Hildebrandt fails as an anticipation because it does not contain a description of the subject matter of the appealed claims, ipsissimis verbis, we cannot countenance a result which so obviously exhalts [sic] form over substance.”). It follows that Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9–14 and 16–26. Appeal 2012-012434 Application 12/305,804 6 DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 9–14 and 16–26 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation