Ex Parte Weiland et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 19, 2010

10620732 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 19, 2010)

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.
10/620,732 07/16/2003 Michael Weiland N0169 US 9034
37583 7590 07/19/2010
NAVTEQ NORTH AMERICA, LLC
425 West RANDOLPH STREET
SUITE 1200, PATENT DEPT
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
TO, TUAN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/19/2010 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte MICHAEL WEILAND, GREGORY NYCZAK,
WILLIAM MCDONOUGH, MICHAEL TSENGOURAS,
DAVID SHUMAN, and PAUL FORD
__________

Appeal 2009-006031
Application 10/620,732
Technology Center 3600
__________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-006031
Application 10/620,732

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-12 and 14-21. Claim 13 has been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 2

The Invention
The disclosed invention relates generally to representing road lanes as
data in a database (Spec. 2).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for representing lanes with a road database
comprising: storing in the road database data representations of
physical road lanes; and associating with each data representation of a
physical road lane
data indicating start and end points of the represented physical
road lane; and
data indicating what linearly extending physical features are
adjacent to and extend along the represented physical
road land on a right side and a left side thereof.

The Reference
The Examiner relies upon the following reference as evidence in
support of the rejections:
Tamai US 5,902,350 May 11, 1999

2 Appellants waived appearance at an oral hearing scheduled for this appeal
on July 5, 2010. See Communication filed July 6, 2010.
Appeal 2009-006031
Application 10/620,732

3
The Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1-12 and 14-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Tamai.

ISSUE 1
Appellants assert that “Tamai fails to disclose” limitations of claim 1
(App. Br. 4).
Did the Examiner err in finding that Tamai discloses limitations
recited in claim 1?

ISSUE 2
Appellants assert that “Tamai has no disclosure whatsoever about
whether a physical road lane can be entered by a ‘lane change’ from another
lane” (App. Br. 8).
Did the Examiner err in finding that Tamai discloses data indicating
that one road lane can be entered by a lane change from another road lane?

ISSUE 3
Appellants assert that “Tamai has no disclosure about whether a
physical road lane of less than full width is present or where such a lane
might become a lane of full width” (App. Br. 10).
Did the Examiner err in finding that Tamai discloses data indicating a
road lane cannot be entered by a lane change from another road lane?

Appeal 2009-006031
Application 10/620,732

4
ISSUE 4
Appellants assert that “Tamai has no disclosure about whether a
physical road lane of less than full width is present or where such a lane
might end” (App. Br. 11).
Did the Examiner err in finding that Tamai discloses data indicating a
road lane of full width, a road lane of less than full width, a road lane of less
than full width that becomes a full width lane, and a road lane of less than
full width that ends entirely immediately ahead?

ISSUE 5
Appellants assert that “Tamai has no disclosure about ‘shoulders’”
(App. Br. 12).
Did the Examiner err in finding that Tamai discloses data indicating a
shoulder?

ISSUE 6
Appellants assert that “Tamai has no disclosure about whether
‘surfaces’ located adjacent to lanes are ‘drivable’” (App. Br. 12) or data that
indicates “that no drivable surface is located adjacent to” a road lane (App.
Br. 13).
Did the Examiner err in finding that Tamai discloses data indicating a
drivable surface adjacent to a road lane?

Appeal 2009-006031
Application 10/620,732

5
ISSUE 7
Appellants argue generally that Tamai fails to disclose data indicating
“whether surfaces located adjacent to lanes are ‘drivable’” (App. Br. 13).
Did the Examiner err in finding that Tamai discloses data indicating
that no drivable surface is located adjacent to a road lane?

ISSUE 8
Appellants assert that Tamai fails to disclose “sublanes” (App. Br. 14)
or “multiple sublanes” (App. Br. 15).
Did the Examiner err in finding that Tamai discloses data indicating
multiple sublanes and a sublane with start and end points?

ISSUE 9
Appellants assert that “Tamai also fails to disclose the limitations . . .
that relate to ‘multiple sublanes’ that ‘overlap’” (App. Br. 15, 21).
Did the Examiner err in finding that Tamai discloses that some
sublanes overlap?

ISSUE 10
Appellants assert that “Tamai likewise fails to disclose anything about
representing the ‘geometry’ of a ‘physical road lane’” (App. Br. 16).
Did the Examiner err in finding that Tamai discloses data indicating
geometry of a road lane?

Appeal 2009-006031
Application 10/620,732

6
ISSUE 11
Appellants assert that “Tamai has no disclosure about ‘splines’” (App.
Br. 17).
Did the Examiner err in finding that Tamai discloses a spline?

ISSUE 12
Appellants assert that “Tamai has no disclosure about a ‘reference’
between a ‘data representation of a physical road lane’ and a ‘data entity
used for navigation-related purposes that represents the road segment of
which the physical road lane is a part’” (App. Br. 17).
Did the Examiner err in finding that Tamai discloses a reference to
data used for navigation-related purposes that represents a road segment?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Facts (FF) are shown by a preponderance
of the evidence.
1. Tamai discloses “a representation of an intersection 10 comprising
cross-streets” (col. 2, ll. 5-6) in which the “intersection 10 is
represented in the map database” (col. 2, l. 10).
2. Tamai discloses that the
map database . . . comprises positional data such as, for
example, latitude and longitude coordinates, for describing road
intersections, road segments, landmarks and points of interest,
and other geographical information. The data base further
comprises road attribute data identifying characteristics of roads
Appeal 2009-006031
Application 10/620,732

7
or places on the map, including, but not limited to, road and
place names; road features such as dividers, one-way
restrictions, surface, speed limit, shape, elevation; and road
classifiers such as freeway, expressway, artery, street, access,
and connector, for example. Given a source and a destination,
the vehicle navigation system uses the map database to generate
a route to the destination and to provide maneuver indications
directing the driver to the desired destination.

(Col. 5, ll. 42-55).
3. Tamai discloses “determining whether the intersection includes a
turn-lane connector” and “retrieves from a map database . . . the
positional data and road attribute data for the road segments
comprising the intersection” (col. 6, ll. 29-34).
4. The Specification discloses that “[i]f two lanes split, an attribute may
be included that indicates that these lanes overlap” and that
overlapping lanes “are modeled such that their centerlines start at the
same point” (Spec. 10, ll. 6-8).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
35 U.S.C. § 102
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
Appeal 2009-006031
Application 10/620,732

8
ANALYSIS
Issue 1
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal of issue 1 on the basis of claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in asserting that Tamai
discloses a road database that stores data representations of physical road
lanes. Appellants argue that Tamai “stores data that represent road segments
. . . and not the lanes that make up road segments” (App. Br. 7). However,
as described above, Tamai discloses roads (including lanes, e.g., Fig. 1a) and
storing data representing the roads in a map database. Since the data stored
in the map database of Tamai represents the roads and the lanes the make up
the road, we disagree with Appellants’ contention that Tamai supposedly
fails to disclose data that represents roads or the lanes that make up the
roads.
Appellants also argue that “Tamai fails to disclose that the database
. . . contains information that indicates what is adjacent to and extends along
a represented physical road segment” (App. Br. 8). However, Appellants
fail to demonstrate that Tamai’s disclosure of data in the database describing
“landmarks and points of interest, and other geographical information” or
“road features such as dividers,” for example, differs from data describing
(or representing) elements that are adjacent to and extend along a road.
Since elements such as landmarks, points of interest, or road dividers are
Appeal 2009-006031
Application 10/620,732

9
adjacent to roads and extend along roads, we agree with the Examiner that
Tamai discloses this claimed feature.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find no error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-12 and 14-21, which fall
therewith, with respect to issue 1.

Issue 2
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in asserting that Tamai
discloses data indicating that one road lane can be entered by a lane change
from another road lane.
The Examiner finds that Tamai discloses a “left turn lane [that] can be
entered by a lane change from the road” (Ans. 8). Tamai discloses a left turn
lane that is represented by “a connector 30’ corresponding to turn lane 30”
(col. 2, ll. 50-51) and “a double maneuver . . . for a left turn from N/S street
24 onto abutting street 26” via the connector 30’ (col. 2, ll. 52-54). Thus,
Tamai discloses maneuvering a vehicle from one lane (e.g., “N/S street”) to
another lane (e.g., connector 30’), both of which are represented by data in
the map database. We find no discernible difference between the Tamai
disclosure and the disputed claim limitation.
Appellants argue that Tamai fails to disclose “a ‘lane change’ from
another lane” (App. Br. 8) but fail to indicate any difference between
changing lanes as recited in claim 2 and “maneuvering” a vehicle from one
lane to another, as disclosed by Tamai. Since we find no difference and
Appeal 2009-006031
Application 10/620,732

10
Appellants have not asserted any specific differences, we agree with the
Examiner.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find no error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 with respect to issue 2.

Issue 3
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in asserting that Tamai
discloses data indicating a road lane cannot be entered by a lane change from
another road lane. Tamai discloses a map database that includes data
identifying “one-way restrictions” (col. 5, ll. 48-49). Since a “one-way
restriction” indicates that a lane (which is one-way) may not be entered (i.e.,
“restricted”) in the wrong direction, we agree with the Examiner that Tamai
discloses data indicating a lane may not be entered.
Appellants argue that Tamai fails to disclose “a ‘lane change’ from
another lane” (App. Br. 9). We disagree with Appellants’ assertion because,
as described above, we find that Tamai discloses maneuvering a vehicle
from one lane to another, which involves change from one lane to another,
as well as restricting maneuvering a vehicle onto a lane with a one-way
restriction. Appellants fail to provide arguments distinguishing the
disclosure of Tamai and the disputed claim feature.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find no error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 3.

Appeal 2009-006031
Application 10/620,732

11
Issue 4
Appellants also argue that “Tamai . . . fails to disclose representing
‘lanes that are less than full width’ or ‘lanes of full width’” (App. Br. 18,
22). We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in asserting that Tamai
discloses data indicating a road lane of less than full width that becomes a
lane of full width ahead in a direction of travel and that a lane of full width
ends entirely ahead in a direction of travel. Tamai discloses a “turn lane 30”
(col. 2, l. 51) that is represented by data in a database (i.e., data indicating “a
connector 30’ corresponding to the turn lane 30” (col. 2, ll. 50-51)). The
turn lane initially has a width of “0” (no turn lane), which is “less than full
width,” and is represented as such by data in the map database. When the
turn lane appears, data representing the connector indicates a left turn lane of
full width (see, e.g., Fig. 2a and Fig. 2b). Tamai also discloses data
representing a left turn from the turn lane 30 (see, e.g., col. 2, ll. 51-54) onto
an “abutting street 26,” thus indicating that the left turn lane 30 “ends
entirely” since the left turn lane would not be present after a left turn has
been completed. We therefore agree with the Examiner that Tamai discloses
lanes of less than full width and lanes of full width.
Appellants also argue that “Tamai has no disclosure about whether a
physical road lane of less than full width is present or where such a lane
might become a lane of full width” (App. Br. 10) or “where a lane might
end” (App. Br. 11). As described above, we find that Tamai does in fact
disclose data representing a lane (i.e., left turn lane) of less than full width
(i.e., “0” width prior to arriving at the intersection) and that comes to an end
Appeal 2009-006031
Application 10/620,732

12
(after the left turn is made). Tamai also discloses, as described above, data
indicating that the left turn lane becomes a full width, the left turn lane
appearing “immediately ahead in a direction of travel” of the lane and also
ending ahead in the direction of travel (after the left turn is made). We are
unpersuaded by Appellants’ further argument that Tamai supposedly fails to
disclose “where such a lane might become a lane of full width” or “where a
lane might end” since neither claim 4 nor claim 5 recites specifically
“where” a lane becomes full width or ends other than “immediately ahead”
in the direction of travel. Since Tamai discloses the left turn lane
“immediately ahead” in a direction of travel and Appellants fail to
demonstrate a difference between the Tamai disclosure and the disputed
claim features, we agree with the Examiner.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find no error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 5, 16, and 21 with respect to issue 4.

Issue 5
The Examiner finds that Tamai discloses “a shoulder located adjacent
to the road (62) (figure 11a)” (Ans. 9). While we agree with the Examiner
that Tamai illustrates an intersection of two streets, we do not find, and the
Examiner has not pointed out where Tamai discloses a shoulder or data
representing the shoulder.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
6.
Appeal 2009-006031
Application 10/620,732

13
Issue 6
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in asserting that Tamai
discloses data indicating a drivable surface located adjacent to a road lane.
As described above, Tamai discloses data representing a left turn lane, which
is a drivable surface adjacent to a road lane. While Appellants argue
generally that Tamai supposedly fails to disclose a drivable surface adjacent
to a road lane (App. Br. 12), Appellants fail to provide arguments
demonstrating any specific differences between the Tamai disclosure of, for
example, a left turn lane, and the claimed feature of a drivable surface
adjacent to a road lane.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find no error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 with respect to issue 6.

Issue 7
The Examiner finds that Tamai discloses “the median (44) is a no
drivable surface located adjacent to the road (38)” (Ans. 9). Tamai also
discloses that the map database contains data indicating “road features such
as dividers” (col. 5, l. 48). Since a median or a divider is not a drivable
surface and both are represented by data in a database of Tamai, we agree
with the Examiner that Tamai discloses the disputed features.
While Appellants argue generally that Tamai fails to disclose data
indicating “whether surfaces located adjacent to lanes are ‘drivable’” (App.
Br. 13), Appellants fail to provide arguments demonstrating any specific
differences between Tamai and the disputed claim limitations.
Appeal 2009-006031
Application 10/620,732

14
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find no error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 with respect to issue 7.

Issue 8
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in asserting that Tamai
discloses data indicating multiple sublanes or a sublane with start and end
points relative to a road lane of which the sublane is a part.
The Examiner finds that Tamai discloses “a sublane of road lane”
such that “figure 2a includes a left turn lane, and figure 11a includes a right
turn lane” (Ans. 9) that “comprises start and end points” (Ans. 9). Tamai
also discloses a database storing data representing “road segments” (col. 5,
l. 45). Appellants have not provided an explicit definition of the term
“sublane.” We therefore construe the term broadly but reasonably and in
light of the Specification to include any road segment with at least one lane
that is associated with another road segment or lane. As the Examiner
indicates, Tamai discloses a left turn lane (see, e.g., Fig. 2a and
corresponding Fig. 2b) and a right turn lane (Fig. 11a) that have start and
end points (i.e., the lanes begin and end) that are represented by data in a
database. The left turn and right turn lanes are associated with the road lane.
In addition, Tamai discloses other lanes within a road segment that are not
associated with right or left turns (e.g., Fig. 1a) and corresponding data in a
database that represents those lanes (e.g., Fig. 1b). We therefore agree with
the Examiner that the left turn lane and the right turn lane of Tamai or lanes
not associated with right or left turns correspond to “multiple sublanes” or a
Appeal 2009-006031
Application 10/620,732

15
“sublane” as a portion of a road segment. Hence, we disagree with
Appellants contention that Tamai fails to disclose a sublane, multiple
sublanes, or data representing the sublane or multiple sublanes and the start
and end of the sublane(s).
While Appellants argue generally that Tamai supposedly fails to
disclose sublanes or start and end points of a sublane (App. Br. 14-15 and
19-20), Appellants fail to provide arguments demonstrating any specific
differences between Tamai and the disputed claim features.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find no error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 10, and 17-19 with respect to issue 8.

Issue 9
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in asserting that Tamai
discloses data indicating sublanes that overlap.
As set forth above, we agree with the Examiner that Tamai discloses
sublanes. Appellants argue that Tamai supposedly fails to disclose multiple
sublanes that overlap because “Tamai has no disclosure about ‘sublanes’ or
‘multiple sublanes’” (App. Br. 15). Since we find that Tamai does in fact
disclose sublanes and multiple sublanes, we cannot agree with Appellants’
argument.
In addition, Tamai discloses lanes for which centerlines start at the
same point. For example, Fig. 1a of Tamai illustrates one branch of a North-
South road segment extending North from an intersection with an East-West
road segment that extends West from the intersection such that both road
Appeal 2009-006031
Application 10/620,732

16
segments start at the same (center) point at the intersection. The
Specification discloses that roads that “overlap” have “their centerlines start
at the same point” (FF 4), which describes the road segments of Tamai.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find no error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 20 with respect to issue 9.

Issue 10
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in asserting that Tamai
discloses data indicating a geometry of the represented physical road lane.
Appellants argue that Tamai fails to disclose data geometry of the
represented physical road lane because “Tamai has no disclosure about
representing physical road lanes” (App. Br. 16). As described above, we
agree with the Examiner that Tamai discloses data representing road lanes.
Therefore, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find no error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 with respect to issue 10.

Issue 11
The Examiner finds that Tamai discloses “a geometry of the road (24),
wherein the geometry is represented using a spline” (Ans. 6) but does not
demonstrate where in the Tamai reference a “spline” is disclosed as being
used to create the depicted “geometry” of the road or that only a spline could
be used to create the representation of the road as disclosed in Tamai. In
fact, the Examiner has not demonstrated that Tamai actually discloses a
Appeal 2009-006031
Application 10/620,732

17
“spline” at all. Therefore, we cannot agree that Tamai discloses each
limitation of the claim.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
14.

Issue 12
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in asserting that Tamai
discloses a reference to a data entity used for navigation-related purposes
that represents the road segment of which the physical road lane is a part.
Appellants generally argue that “Tamai has no disclosure about a
‘reference’ between a ‘data representation of a physical road lane’ and a
‘data entity used for navigation-related purposes that represents the road
segment of which the physical road lane is a part’” because Tamai “does
[not] include data that represents road lanes that make up the road segments”
(App. Br. 17). As set forth above, we find that Tamai does in fact disclose
data the represents road lanes. Therefore, we are unpersuaded by
Appellants’ argument.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find no error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 with respect to issue 12.

Appeal 2009-006031
Application 10/620,732

18
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner did not err in:
1. finding that Tamai discloses limitations recited in claim 1 (issue
1);
2. finding that Tamai discloses data indicating that one road lane
can be entered by a lane change from another road lane (issue 2);
3. finding that Tamai discloses data indicating a road lane cannot
be entered by a lane change from another road lane (issue 3);
4. finding that Tamai discloses data indicating a road lane of full
width, a road lane of less than full width, a road lane of less than full width
that becomes a full width lane, and a road lane of less than full width that
ends entirely immediately ahead (issue 4);
5. finding that Tamai discloses data indicating a drivable surface
adjacent to a road lane (issue 6);
6. finding that Tamai discloses data indicating that no drivable
surface is located adjacent to a road lane (issue 7);
7. finding that Tamai discloses data indicating multiple sublanes
and a sublane with start and end points (issue 8);
8. finding that Tamai discloses that some sublanes overlap (issue
9);
9. finding that Tamai discloses data indicating geometry of a road
lane (issue 10); and
Appeal 2009-006031
Application 10/620,732

19
10. finding that Tamai discloses a reference to data used for
navigation-related purposes that represents a road segment (issue 12).
However, we also conclude that the Examiner erred in finding that
Tamai discloses data indicating a shoulder (issue 5) and finding that Tamai
discloses a spline (issue 11).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-12, and 15-
21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 6 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
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-IN-PART

msc

NAVTEQ NORTH AMERICA, LLC
425 West RANDOLPH STREET
SUITE 1200, PATENT DEPT
CHICAGO, IL 60606