Ex Parte Yang et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 26, 201713909417 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/909,417 06/04/2013 Qi Yang CCZP-P03-001 2293 1473 7590 Haley Guiliano LLP 75 Broad Street Suite 1000 NEW YORK, NY 10004 09/28/2017 EXAMINER LUU, CUONG V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2128 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/28/2017 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): haleyguiliano_PAIR @ firsttofile. com HGPatentDocket @ hglaw. com DocketRequests @ hglaw. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte QI YANG, HOWARD SLAVIN, KJARTAN STEFANS SON, ANDRES RABINOWICZ, SIMON OLSBERG, MARY LACLAIR, and JONATHAN BRANDON Appeal 2017-005408 Application 13/909,4171 Technology Center 2100 Before MARC S. HOFF, DENISE M. POTHIER, and ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 28—39.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 The real party in interest is Caliper Corporation. 2 Claims 1—27 have been cancelled. Appeal 2017-005408 Application 13/909,417 Appellants’ invention is a method and system for geographically based analysis of traffic, carried over a wide scale traffic network. Geographical information systems (GIS) are integrated with traffic simulation processes to allow a user to analyze traffic patterns and loads at specific geographic locations of regions. Traffic simulators adaptively or controllably select between multiple traffic simulation models for simulating traffic across different segments of the traffic network. Portions of the traffic network that are to be analyzed more closely can use a traffic simulator with a higher level of granularity, while other areas may be modeled with lower granularity models that may provide for computational efficiency. See Abstract. Claims 28 and 37 are exemplary of the claims on appeal: 28. A geographic information system (GIS) comprising: a geographic database comprising geographically accurate lane-level representations of road segments and connections, lanes, lane widths, lane configurations and connections, traffic controls and elevations, representing lane alignments with geographic shape and length corresponding to roads connected at intersections; and a visualization system that visualizes traffic conditions at geographically accurate lane-level detail. 37. A geographic information system (GIS) comprising: a geographic database comprising geographically accurate lane-level representations of road segments and connections, lanes, lane widths, lane configurations and connections, traffic controls and elevations, representing lane alignments with geographic shape and length corresponding to roads connected at intersections; and a conversion tool that converts conventional GIS centerline data to said geographically accurate lane-level 2 Appeal 2017-005408 Application 13/909,417 representation. The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Zuber US 5,910,177 June 8, 1999 Qi Yang, A Simulation Laboratory for Evaluation of Dynamic Traffic Management Systems (1997) (hereinafter “Yang”). Bryan John Newstrom, Real-Time High Accuracy Geo-Spatial Database for Onboard Intelligent Vehicle Applications (2000) (hereinafter “Newstrom”). Claims 28—36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yang and Newstrom. Claims 37—39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yang and Zuber. Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Nov. 10, 2016), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Feb. 10, 2017), the Final Rejection (“Final Act.,” mailed Dec. 18, 2015), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Dec. 23, 2016) for their respective details. ISSUES 1. Does the combination of Yang and Newstrom teach or suggest a geographic database comprising geographically accurate lane-level representations of road segments and connections, lanes, lane widths, lane configurations and connections, traffic controls and elevations, representing 3 Appeal 2017-005408 Application 13/909,417 lane alignments with geographic shape and length corresponding to roads connected at intersections? 2. Does the combination of Yang and Zuber disclose or suggest a conversion tool that converts conventional GIS centerline data to a geographically accurate lane-level representation? ANALYSIS Claims 28-36 Appellants argue that the Examiner erred because Yang does not teach lane connections as geographic entities, nor physical connectors or objects that have either shape or length; Yang does not disclose that Figures 3-5 and 3-13 are geographically accurate at the lane level; and Yang does not show lane alignments with geographic shape and length corresponding to roads connected at intersections. App. Br. 7—9, 11. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Initially, we observe that while independent claim 28 recites a geographic database comprising “geographically accurate lane-level representations of road segments and connections, lanes, lane widths, lane configurations and connections, traffic controls and elevations, representing lane alignments with geographic shape and length corresponding to roads connected at intersections,” Appellants’ Specification offers no definition of the phrase “geographically accurate.” See Ans. 3. The Examiner offers dictionary definitions, unrebutted by Appellants, of “geography,” as “topographical features of a region, usually of the earth,” and of “topography” as “the detailed mapping or charting of the features of a relatively small area.” Ans. 3^4. 4 Appeal 2017-005408 Application 13/909,417 Applying these dictionary definitions as the broadest reasonable interpretation of “geography” and “geographical,” the Examiner finds that Yang teaches geographically accurate lane-level representations of lanes, lane configurations and connections, etc., representing lane alignments with geographic shape and length, as claim 1 requires. See Final Act. 4—5. We agree with the Examiner that Yang’s Figure 3-5 Teaches roads with lanes and a ramp diverging with a freeway. At the diverging ramp, lanes are split into 2 routes and shown how they are connected from the freeway to a ramp and a continuing freeway. This teaching is physical connectors of lanes with shape and length in a database. Ans. 2. We further agree with the Examiner that Yang’s Figure 3-13 “teaches animation of vehicle movements in the road network comprising of routes, lanes, interchanging curves according to the real physical road network .... These teachings are regarded as accurate geographic entities with physical connectors and objects that have either shape or length.” Ans. 3. Appellants’ argument to the contrary, that there is “no disclosure in Yang” that Figures 3-5 and 3-13 are “geographically accurate at the lane level,” is presented with no evidentiary support. App. Br. 9. hacking evidence or a rigorous definition of “geographically accurate,” Appellants’ attorney argument here is entitled to little probative weight. Appellants’ contention that Yang merely discloses geometric characteristics, which do not equate to geographical accuracy, is also not persuasive of Examiner error. See App. Br. 10—11. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that under the dictionary definition of “geography,” as “topographical features of a region,” Yang’s teachings taken together regarding such elements as the road network, lanes, lane changing, merging, 5 Appeal 2017-005408 Application 13/909,417 traffic control network, etc., cited in the Final Rejection and the Examiner’s Answer, correspond to the claimed “geographic database comprising geographically accurate lane-level representations.” Ans. 3^4; Final Act. 4— 5. Appellants’ argument that the Examiner improperly finds that “a ramp, which is a segment, can be an intersection, which is a node,” is not persuasive of error. App. Br. 12. First, the Examiner does not maintain any such position in the Examiner’s Answer. Second, we agree with the Examiner’s response that Yang’s Figure 3-5 provides disclosure of lane connection and lane alignments, and we further agree with the Examiner that Yang also teaches a table of links and nodes, as is disclosed in Appellants’ Specification. Ans. 4. Last, we agree with the Examiner that Dr. Koutsopoulos’s declaration is not considered persuasive to show that the Examiner erred. See Ans. 4—5. We find that the Koutsopoulos declaration consists of a series of conclusory statements regarding what one of skill in the art would not do, or how one skilled in the art would not interpret Yang. See, e.g., Koutsopoulos Decl. ]Hf 7, 9, 12. These conclusions are supported by precious little fact but primarily only by opinion evidence concerning the definition of terms such as “geographic information system” and “geographic database.” For example, Dr. Koutsopoulos provides definitions for the above terms with no supporting evidence. See, e.g., id. 6, 8. These shortcomings prompt us to accord the Koutsopoulos declaration little weight as against the Examiner’s findings. Appellants have not presented factually supported arguments sufficient to overturn the Examiner’s factual findings. On this record, we 6 Appeal 2017-005408 Application 13/909,417 are constrained to find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 28— 36 over Yang and Newstrom. We sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection. Claims 37-39 Independent claim 37 recites, inter alia, “a conversion tool that converts conventional GIS centerline data to said geographically accurate lane-level representation.” App. Br. A-2 (Claims App.). The Examiner admits that Yang does not teach this limitation and cites Zuber to supply the missing teachings. Final Act. 7; Ans. 5. We have reviewed Figure 4, and column 3 of Zuber, cited by the Examiner therein. Ans. 5. We find that Zuber teaches only an illustration of a potentially dangerous road maneuver (Fig. 4), and a description of Zuber’s map database contents (col. 3,11. 40-48). We further find that Zuber fails to disclose a conversion tool for GIS centerline data as is recited in claim 37. We find that the combination of Yang and Zuber fails to disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention. We do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 37—39. CONCLUSIONS 1. The combination of Yang and Newstrom suggests a geographic database comprising geographically accurate lane-level representations of road segments and connections, lanes, lane widths, lane configurations and connections, traffic controls and elevations, representing lane alignments 7 Appeal 2017-005408 Application 13/909,417 with geographic shape and length corresponding to roads connected at intersections. 2. The combination of Yang and Zuber does not disclose or suggest a conversion tool that converts conventional GIS centerline data to a geographically accurate lane-level representation. ORDER The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 28—36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 37—39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation