Ex Parte Wang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 18, 2017

13842318 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 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.
13/842,318 03/15/2013 Yin Wang 83209144 6899
56436 7590 05/22/2017
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
BOOMER, JEFFREY C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/22/2017 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
chris. mania @ hpe. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YIN WANG, GEORGE FORMAN, and
XUEMEI LIU
Appeal 2015-003450
Application 13/842,3181
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Yin Wang et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1—6, 8, and 10-21.2 We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 According to Appellants, Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP is
the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2 (filed Sept. 12, 2014).
2 Claims 7 and 9 are canceled. Id. at 4.
Appeal 2015-003450
Application 13/842,318
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to “a system for updating road maps.”
Spec, para 2.
Claims 1,12, and 21 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A system for updating road maps, comprising:
a processor;
a database, comprising data describing a number of
roads;
a map matching module configured to match a
number of GPS traces with a number of roads;
a matched segment module configured to process
GPS traces that are matched to a subset of the number of
roads;
an unmatched segment module configured to
process GPS traces that are unmatched with a road
among the number of roads; and
a map updating module configured to update a
number of roads based on proposed changes presented by
the matched segment module and the unmatched segment
module;
in which the map matching module is further
configured to:
partition the number of roads into a number
of disjoint sections with the map matching module
treating each of the number of roads as bi­
directional;
determine, based on a percentage of GPS
traces in each direction along a disjoint section
among the number of disjoint sections, the possible
directional flow of traffic; and
2
Appeal 2015-003450
Application 13/842,318
propose a change to the metadata in the
database describing the allowable directional flow
of traffic;
in which, where it has been determined that a
section within the number of sections is a one-way
directional flow of traffic, the system is configured
to imply one-way directional flow of traffic
constraints on other sections within the number of
sections.
REJECTIONS3
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Cherveny et al. (US 2003/0125871
Al, pub. July 3, 2003, hereafter “Cherveny”) and Stefan
Schroedl et al. (.Mining GPS Traces for Map Refinement, 9 Data
Mining and Knowledge Discovery 59-87 (2004) (hereafter
“Schroedl”).
II. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 4—6, 10, 11, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cherveny,
Schroedl, and, Cao and Krumm (From GPS Traces to a
Routable Road Map, 17th ACM SIGSPATIAL International
Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems,
3 We consider the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite, to have been withdrawn by the
Examiner. See Ans. 3 (transmitted Nov. 24, 2014). Appellants amended
claim 1 in the After-Final Amendment, filed June 9, 2014, which was
entered by the Examiner. See Adv. Act. 1 (transmitted June 17, 2014); see
also Appeal Br. 12.
3
Appeal 2015-003450
Application 13/842,318
November 4-6, 2009, Seattle, WA, USA, hereafter “ACM
SIGSPATIAL”).4
III. The Examiner rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cherveny, Schroedl, and Umezu et al.
(US 2010/0063727 Al, pub. Mar. 11, 2010, hereafter
“Umezu”).
IV. The Examiner rejected claims 12—15 and 17—19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cherveny and
ACM SIGSPATIAL.
V. The Examiner rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cherveny, ACM SIGSPATIAL, and
Schroedl.
VI. The Examiner rejected claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cherveny and Zheng et al. (US
2009/0216704 Al, pub. Aug. 27, 2009, hereafter “Zheng”).
ANALYSIS
Rejections I—III
The Examiner finds that Cherveny discloses most of the
limitations of independent claim 1, but fails to disclose a map
matching module that treats each of the roads as bi-directional. Final
Act. 3^4 (citing Cherveny, paras. 2, 18, 60, 69, and Figs. 1, 4A).
Nonetheless, the Examiner finds that Schroedl discloses that usually a
4 We view the Examiner’s omission of claim 20 from the heading of this
rejection as a typographical error because the claim is discussed in the body
of the rejection. See Final Act. 6, 14, 15 (transmitted Apr. 29, 2014).
4
Appeal 2015-003450
Application 13/842,318
two-way direction is assumed for a road segment. Id. at 4 (citing
Schroedl, p. 61, section 2, para. 1). According to the Examiner,
because “single segments are used to represent all road data, it is
implied that two-way direction is assumed.” Id. Thus, the
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious for a person of
ordinary skill in the art “to have configured a map updating system like
Cherveny ... to configure road segment to represent a bi-directional road
by default, as taught by Schroedl” because “in Schroedl ... it is
within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to assume a road
is two-directional when representing a road with single line segments.” Id.
Appellants argue that “[bjecause Schroedl describes a GPS system
that assumes a uni-directional flow of traffic and Cherveny does not assume
any directionality at all, the two reference now teach away from each other
. . . and, as a consequence, cannot be combined for lack of motivation to do
so.” Appeal Br. 15.
In response, the Examiner takes the position that “[i]t is obvious in
Cherveny ... the roads are assumed to be bi-directional unless proven
otherwise” and thus, “[r]oad links being treated as bi-direction[al] by default
is supported by Cherveny.” Ans. 4 (citing Cherveny, para. 74). Moreover,
the Examiner points out that “Schroedl teaches that the technique of
assuming and treating map links as roads with bi-directional [traffic] flow as
a default was old and well-known in the art at the time of the invention.” Id.
at 4—5.
Cherveny discloses a system and process for updating a central
geographic database in which the direction of traffic flow that is added as a
feature of a new link, i.e., 100(m), is based upon sensory data received from
5
Appeal 2015-003450
Application 13/842,318
a traveling vehicle. See Cherveny, para. 74; see also id., Figs. 4B, 4C.
According to Cherveny, based on the sensory data received from the
traveling vehicle moving from left to right along new link 100(m), the
system adds a restriction of uni-directional traffic flow along link 100(m)
“until sensor data is received to indicate that travel may be allowed in the
other direction.” Id., para. 74, Figs. 4B, 4D. As such, we do not agree with
the Examiner’s assertion that the road links in Cherveny are “treated as bi-
direction[al] by default,” but rather we agree with Appellants that “each new
segment added in Cherveny is actually assumed to be uni-directional
instead of ‘bi-directionaF as recited in claim 1.” Ans. 4; Reply Br. 6 (filed
Jan. 22, 2015). Moreover, we note that because the direction of traffic flow
in Cherveny is based on actual sensory data, “Cherveny does not assume any
directionality.” See Appeal Br. 15 (emphasis omitted).
Furthermore, we appreciate the Examiner’s position that Schroedl
discloses that treating map links as roads with bi-directional traffic flow is
old and well known. See Ans. 4—5. However, the Examiner does not offer
an adequate explanation as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would
modify the system of Cherveny, which does not assume any traffic flow
directionality, to assume a bi-directional traffic flow, as taught by Schroedl,
when the system of Cherveny already determines the direction of traffic flow
by using sensory data. The Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness says
essentially that the modification of Cherveny’s system to assume a bi­
directional traffic flow, as taught by Schroedl, would have been obvious
because treating map links as roads with bi-directional traffic flow is old and
well known. Conclusory statements are not enough to satisfy the
Examiner’s obligation to provide a reasoned explanation. In re Van Os, 844
6
Appeal 2015-003450
Application 13/842,318
F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Even though Schroedl’s assumption of
bi-directional flow is old and well known, the Examiner must still explain
why a person of ordinary skill in the art would modify the prior art
references to create the claimed invention. KSR Int 7. Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (stating that a claimed invention “composed of
several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of
its elements was, independently, known in the prior art”); In re Kotzab, 217
F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Even under [the] ‘expansive and
flexible’ obviousness analysis [of KSR], we must guard against ‘hindsight
bias’ and ‘expost reasoning.’” St. Jude Med., Inc. v. Access Closure, Inc.,
729 F.3d 1369, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). As such, the reason
proposed by the Examiner to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art
would combine the teachings of Cherveny and Schroedl is inadequate to
support the conclusion of obviousness.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1 and 8 as unpatentable over Cherveny
and Schroedl.
As to Rejections 11 and III, the Examiner’s use of the disclosures of
ACM SIGSPATIAL and Umezu does not remedy the deficiency of the
combined teachings of Cherveny and Schroedl. See Final Act. 6—16.
Therefore, for the same reasons discussed supra, we also do not sustain the
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 2, 4—6, 10, 11, and 20 as
unpatentable over Cherveny, Schroedl, and ACM SIGSPATIAL and of
claim 3 as unpatentable over Cherveny, Schroedl, and Umezu.
7
Appeal 2015-003450
Application 13/842,318
Rejections IV and V
The Examiner finds that Cherveny discloses receiving a GPS trace
traversing a first and second road, i.e., 1st St., 2nd St., that do not appear
connected in a map database. Final Act. 17 (citing Cherveny, para. 77, Figs.
5A— 5F). The Examiner further finds that “the traversal from the first to the
second road indicates a divergence from the first road,” divergence that “is
resolved by matching subsequent GPS points to the second road and
ignoring the connectivity to the first road.” Id. (citing Cherveny, para. 77,
Fig. 5D, item 136).
Appellants argue that “Cherveny does not teach or suggest ‘matching
subsequent GPS points to the second road and ignoring the connectivity to
the first roadas called for by independent claim 12. Appeal Br. 19.
According to Appellants, “Cherveny links a first road (i.e.[,] F8) to the
points (i.e., 136) while simultaneously matching a second road (i.e., FI 1) to
the points (i.e., 136).” Id.
In response, the Examiner takes the position that
Cherveny discloses in Fig. 5C . . . several subsequent GPS
points, where 130U are matched to the immediately preceding
road and 130F are matched to the new road. The GPS points
located at the transition between the roads must be matched to
one road or the other, not both, therefore the GPS point’s
connectivity to one of the roads must be ignored while it is
matched to the other road.
Ans. 6.
We do not agree with the Examiner’s interpretation of Cherveny
because it is not commensurate with the scope of independent claim 12,
which specifically recites that the divergence resolved is between a first road
and a second road that are known to be unconnected in the map database. In
8
Appeal 2015-003450
Application 13/842,318
contrast, in the Examiner’s interpretation, the divergence resolved is
between a known first road, i.e., 1st Street (GPS points 130U), and a new
road, namely, Market Street (GPS points 130F).
Cherveny discloses that geographic database 20 does not contain a
link for Market Street between known 1st Street and 2nd Street, and as shown
in Figure 5A, Market Street does not exist in geographic map database 20.
See Cherveny, para. 77. Cherveny further discloses that GPS positions
130U are matched to known link F8, which represents 1st Street, whereas
GPS positions 130F are stored as unmatched. Id., para. 77, Fig. 5C. Hence,
in Cherveny, the GPS trace traverses first and second known roads that are
not connected, i.e., 1st Street and 2nd Street, and the traversal indicates a
divergence, that is, unmatched positions 130F. According to Cherveny, a
new link is derived by determining the shortest distance 180 from the first
unmatched position 175 to the nearest matched point 190 on link F8 (first
road) and further determining the shortest distance 182 from the last
unmatched position 176 to the nearest matched point 192 on link FI 1
(second road). Id., para. 78, Fig. 5E. Therefore, in contrast to claim 12,
which requires ignoring the connectivity to the first road, in Cherveny, the
divergence is resolved by matching subsequent GPS positions, i.e., GPS
positions 130F, to both first and second roads, i.e., links F8, Ell.
As such, we agree with Appellants that Cherveny fails to disclose
resolving the divergence by matching GPS points to the second road and
ignoring the connectivity to the first road. See Reply Br. 11. The
Examiner’s use of ACM SIGSPATIAF and Schroedl disclosures does not
remedy the deficiency of Cherveny discussed supra. See Final Act. 16—18.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
9
Appeal 2015-003450
Application 13/842,318
claims 12—15 and 17—19 as unpatentable over Cherveny and ACM
SIGSP ATIAL and of claim 16 as unpatentable over Cherveny, ACM
SIGSPATIAL, and Schroedl.
Rejection VI
The Examiner finds that Cherveny discloses most of the limitations of
independent claim 21, but fails to disclose code that when executed by a
processor “receivers] data defining a type of vehicle from which the GPS
traces originate.” Final Act. 19-20; see also Appeal Br. 35. Nonetheless,
the Examiner finds that Zheng discloses the above-mentioned limitation. Id.
at 20. Thus, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify
Cherveny to receive data defining the type of vehicle from which the GPS
traces originate, as taught by Zheng, in order to “determin[e] the mode of
transportation from raw GPS data with a system that reduces the number of
sensors/devices and thereby reducing cost and complexity of a system.” Id.
Appellants argue that because Zheng discloses predicting, based on
GPS traces, whether a path is traveled on foot or by a vehicle (bike, bus, or
car), “Zheng fails to teach that specific data is actually received at all and
instead must be assumed.” Appeal Br. 23. According to Appellants, the
data received by Zheng’s system does not define what type of vehicle is
sending out the GPS traces, but rather “defines whether a path is walkable or
not.” Id.
In response, the Examiner points to Zheng’s paragraphs 29 and 33 and
finds that because the “GPS data [in Zheng] contributes to the probability
10
Appeal 2015-003450
Application 13/842,318
score,” the data received “defines what type of vehicle (bike or car) the data
originates from.” Ans. 7.
Zheng discloses “determining transportation modes from raw GPS
data.” Zheng, para. 19. According to Zheng, the GPS data is divided into
trips and then each trip is partitioned into walk segments and non-walk
segments of different transportation modes such as car, bus, and bike, based
on velocity and/or acceleration values determined from the GPS traces. See
id., Abstract, paras. 23, 27. In other words, Zheng’s system receives GPS
traces from a user and after processing, determines whether the user walked
or used a bike, car, or bus for a certain segment of travel. As such, because
the data originates from a user and determines a type of transportation mode
that the user employed, Zheng discloses “data defining a type of vehicle
from which the GPS traces originate,” as called for by independent claim 21.
In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of
claim 21 over the combined teachings of Cherveny and Zheng.
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—6, 8, and 10-21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed as to claim 21 and reversed as to claims 1—6,
8, and 10-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
11