Ex Parte WeissDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 23, 201411516984 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JOHN P. WEISS ____________ Appeal 2012-004229 Application 11/516,984 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-004229 Application 11/516,984 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE John P. Weiss (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) claims 1, 4-7, 9, 10, 13-16, and 18-22 as unpatentable over Yokota (US 6,771,189 B2, issued Aug. 3, 2004) and Gearhart (US 7,065,448 B1, issued Jun. 20, 2006). Claims 2, 3, 8, 11, 12, and 17 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). INVENTION Appellant’s invention relates to “a method for generating and presenting a preview of a driving route when the number of instructions in the route would otherwise exceed a predetermined number of acceptable instructions.” Spec. 2, para. [0006]. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 1. A method of presenting a route of maneuvers in a vehicle to a user comprising: calculating a set of driving maneuvers usable to proceed from a first location that is a present location of the vehicle to a second location selected by the user; calculating the number of maneuvers in the set of driving maneuvers; determining whether the number of maneuvers in the set of driving maneuvers exceeds a predetermined maximum acceptable number of driving maneuvers; presenting the set of driving maneuvers if the number of maneuvers in the set of driving maneuvers does not exceed the predetermined maximum acceptable number of driving maneuvers; and if the number of maneuvers in the set of driving maneuvers exceeds the predetermined maximum acceptable number of driving maneuvers, reducing the set of driving maneuvers to create a preview set including the first location Appeal 2012-004229 Application 11/516,984 3 and the second location as well as a subset of driving maneuvers between the first location and the second location, wherein reducing the set of driving maneuvers to create a preview set comprises leaving a first portion of consecutive instructions of the set starting at the first location unreduced while reducing a second portion of the set, and presenting the preview set to the user via a navigational display. SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. ANALYSIS Each of independent claims 1, 10, and 19 requires, inter alia, a preview of a set of driving maneuvers that includes a “first location” and a “second location,” wherein the “first location” constitutes the present location of a vehicle and the “second location” is “selected by the user.” App. Br., Clms. App’x. The Examiner interprets the phrase “second location selected by the user” as an “identified intermediate point between the starting location and destination . . . such as the point at which ‘Main Street becomes Lincoln Ave’.” Ans. 18. As such, the Examiner finds that Yokota discloses “calculating a set of driving maneuvers usable to proceed from a first location of the vehicle (Pn) to a second location selected by the user (Pn+1). Ans. 5 (citing Yokota, col. 8, ll. 10-52 and figs. 7-10). In contrast to the Examiner’s interpretation, Appellant takes the position that the claimed “second location” constitutes the “chosen final destination.” App. Br. 5. Hence, Appellant argues that Yokota’s preview display fails to include a first location and a second location, as claimed by each of independent claims 1, 10, and 19 because “Yokota ‘selectively Appeal 2012-004229 Application 11/516,984 4 zooms in’” and “eliminate[s] from the display all points not at the zoomed location.” Id (emphasis omitted). In response, the Examiner opines that, “there is no claim language necessarily requiring that the ‘second location’ be the end location or destination.” Ans. 17. According to the Examiner, construing the phrase “second location selected by the user” as the final destination is not supported by a specific definition in Appellant’s Specification. Ans. 15-16. Moreover, the Examiner explains that “[t]he route generated according to this process involves identifying in response to user input a number of locations other than the starting and ending point, such as the location between the starting point and the ending point at which ‘Main Street becomes Lincoln Ave’ (Fig. 4A; page 12, paragraph 0047 of the Specification as filed).” Ans. 16. When construing claim terminology in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, reading the claim language in light of the Specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, an ordinary and customary meaning of the term “select” is “to choose . . . from a number or group.” Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 1997). As such, an ordinary and customary meaning of the phrase “second location selected by the user” means that the user chooses the second location from a group or number of locations. Although we appreciate the Examiner’s position that intermediate points (locations) are identified in response to user input, nonetheless, such intermediate points (locations) are not “selected” by the user, that is, are not chosen by the user Appeal 2012-004229 Application 11/516,984 5 from a group or number of locations. Rather, the intermediate point (location) at which “Main Street becomes Lincoln Ave” is chosen/selected by the navigation system as part of a route calculation. We thus agree with Appellant that the phrase “second location selected by the user” means “an ‘endpoint’ or ‘destination’ of a route.” Reply Br. 4. Such an interpretation is also consistent with Appellant’s Specification, which states that, “the user has designated a starting and ending point . . . and the system has calculated driving instructions (the route).” Spec. 10, para. [0037] (emphasis added). Hence, for the foregoing reasons, the Examiner’s interpretation of an intermediate point (location) as the claimed “second location selected by the user” is inconsistent with both the Appellant’s Specification and the express meaning of the phrase. As such, the Examiner’s finding that Yokota’s location point (Pn+1) constitutes the claimed “second location selected by the user” is in error. See Ans. 5. Since the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon an unreasonable claim construction and since Gearhart, as applied by the Examiner, does not cure the deficiency of Yokota, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4-7, 9, 10, 13-16, and 18-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yokota and Gearhart. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4-7, 9, 10, 13-16, and 18-22 is reversed. REVERSED llw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation