Heiko Mund et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 4, 201913977793 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 4, 2019) 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. 13/977,793 09/23/2013 Heiko Mund 2258/US 6000 75090 7590 09/04/2019 TOMTOM INTERNATIONAL B.V. IP Creation De Ruyterkade 154 AMSTERDAM, 1011 AC NETHERLANDS EXAMINER TRAN, KIM THANH THI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2612 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/04/2019 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): patents@tomtom.com tony@parklegal.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte HEIKO MUND and HANNES SCHARMANN ____________________ Appeal 2018-008289 Application 13/977,7931 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–18, and 21–23. Claims 3, 19, and 20 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 Appellants’ Brief (“Br.”) identifies Tom Tom Global Content, B.V. as the real party in interest. Br. 1. Appeal 2018-008289 Application 13/977,793 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to matching probe traces to a digital vector map. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for matching traces derived from probe data to one or more line segments in a digital map, said digital map configured to store a plurality of line segments spatially associated within a coordinate system, the method comprising: providing at least one probe trace having a plurality of spatially associated trace points located within the coordinate system of the digital map; determining, by a processor, a matching candidate for each line segment within a specified distance of each trace point; generating, by the processor, a graph, the graph having a plurality of sequential levels, each level corresponding to a trace point, with adjacent trace points corresponding to adjacent levels in the graph, the generating comprising adding the matching candidates for each trace point to the graph as nodes in a level corresponding to the trace point and connecting an edge between the node for each matching candidate and nodes for one or more matching candidates in adjacent levels of the graph; selecting, by the processor, at least one path of matching candidates of the graph as a match result; and generating, by the processor, a digital map based on the match result. Br. 24 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Smartt US 2006/0155464 A1 July 13, 2006 Wells US 2007/0104389 A1 May 10, 2007 Hagan US 2013/0030692 A1 Jan 31, 2013 Appeal 2018-008289 Application 13/977,793 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4–12, 14–18, and 21–23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hagan and Smartt. Final Act. 6. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Hagan, Smartt and Wells. Final Act. 13. ISSUES First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Hagan and Smartt teach or suggest the limitations “generating . . . a graph . . .” as recited in independent claims 1 and 16? Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Hagan teaches or suggests “selecting . . . at least one path of matching candidates of the graph as a match result,” as recited in claims 1 and 16? Third Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Hagan and Smartt teach or suggest “two nodes of the graph are connected with an edge if a local topological connection exists between both matching candidates in the digital map,” as recited in dependent claims 2 and 17? Fourth Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Hagan and Smartt teach or suggest “scoring the graph,” as recited in dependent claim 4? Fifth Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Hagan and Smartt teach or suggest “said scoring includes establishing scoring criteria based on at least one of the number of connected matching candidates in a path and the mean distance,” as recited in claim 5? Sixth Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Hagan and Smartt teach or suggest “simplifying the graph,” as recited in claim 9? Appeal 2018-008289 Application 13/977,793 4 Seventh Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Hagan and Smartt teach or suggest “said simplifying includes removing at least one node having the same level like any node of a previously selected path from the graph,” as recited in claim 10? Eighth Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Hagan and Smartt teach or suggest “said simplifying includes removing nodes with a distance between the matching candidate and the corresponding trace point greater than a predefined maximal distance,” as recited in claim 11? ANALYSIS First Issue—“generating a graph” In rejecting claim 1 as obvious over Hagan and Smartt, the Examiner finds that Hagan teaches most of the limitations, but does not teach the “generating . . . a graph” limitation of claim 1. Final Act. 6–7 (“H[a]gan does not teach ‘generating, by the processor, a graph. . . .”). The Examiner introduces Smartt to cure Hagan’s deficiency. Final Act. 7 (citing Smartt ¶¶ 39–40, 67; Figs. 3–5); Ans. 12–13 (citing Smartt, Table 1, ¶¶ 43, 44, 47, 53, and 67; Figs. 7, 8, and 11B). The Examiner explains that Smartt suggests the “generating . . . a graph” limitation because Table 1 of Smartt depicts “[m]atching statistics of GPU trace to roadway graph elements” and because Smartt describes that “the graph . . . has connection between points.” Ans. 12 (emphasis omitted). Appellants argue the rejection is in error because “Smartt does not describe or suggest a graph such as in the independent claims and/or any operation involving a graph.” Br. 11–12. Appellants further argue that “Hagan does not describe or suggest a graph with matching candidates as Appeal 2018-008289 Application 13/977,793 5 nodes such as in the independent claim and/or selecting at least one path of matching candidates of the graph as a match result.” Br. 13. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. In issues involving claims under examination, we interpret Appellants' claims according to their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re ICON Health & Fitness, 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The claim term “graph” is not defined in the Specification and therefore we consider the plain language of the claim in determining the scope of the claim term “graph.” We agree with the Examiner that Smartt’s Table 1 teaches generating a graph. In particular, Smartt’s Table 1 explicitly states that “Match[es] statistics of GPS trace to roadway graph elements.” As such, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Smartt fails to teach or suggest “generating . . . a graph” as recited in claim 1. We further note that the Examiner provides additional explanation and support in the Examiner’s Answer. See Ans. 12–13. Appellants’ arguments do not address these findings because Appellants did not file a Reply Brief. As such, the additional findings in the Answer are uncontested in the record, and Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s determination that Smartt teaches the “generating . . . a graph” limitation. Second Issue—the “selecting” limitation Appellants also contend Hagan does not teach or suggest “selecting, by the processor, at least one path of matching candidates of the graph as a match result.” Br. 13. Appellants, referencing the Examiner’s citation to paragraph 241 of Hagan, specifically argue: “In no way does this section of Hagan describe or suggest ‘selecting, by the processor, at least one path of matching candidates of the graph as a match result.’” Id. Appeal 2018-008289 Application 13/977,793 6 Although the Examiner cites to only paragraph 241 of Hagan for this disputed limitation in the Final Action, the Examiner provides additional findings and clarifications in his Answer. Ans. 14, citing Hagan ¶¶ 21, 26, 33. Specifically, the Examiner finds Hagan’s curvature or elevation information is used to determine which of the candidate nodes or lines or segments in the second map is the best match to the node. Id. As mentioned above, Appellants did not file a Reply Brief in response the Examiner’s additional findings. Without any evidence or argument to the contrary, we accept the Examiner’s findings and agree that Hagan’s selection of a most likely candidate node and/or candidate line or segment for use in the route calculation teaches or at least suggests the disputed limitation. Because we do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive of Examiner error, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 6–8, 12–15, 18, and 21–23, for which Appellants do not present separate arguments. Third Issue—Claims 2 and 17 Appellants argue separately for patentability of claims 2 and 17 contending that the Examiner has erred in finding Hagan teaches the limitation “two nodes of the graph are connected with an edge if a local topological connection exists between both matching candidates in the digital map.” Br. 14–15. Appellants argue that, because the Examiner acknowledges that Hagan does not teach the “generating a graph” limitation in claim 1, it is impossible for Hagan to teach “two nodes of the graph are connected with an edge if a local topological connection exists between both matching candidates in the digital map” as recited in claim 2. Appellants Appeal 2018-008289 Application 13/977,793 7 further assert that the description in Hagan cited by the Examiner “has nothing to do with the language of dependent claims 2 and 17” because it merely describes “how a match in longitudinal and latitudinal coordinates an LRP (“location reference point”) and two candidate nodes is resolved.” Br 15. We are not persuaded of Examiner error. In the Answer, the Examiner explains that the rejection is based both on the teachings of Smartt and on the teachings of Hagan: Examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument, because Smartt fairly teaches the graph (Please see argument at claim 1 above). Hagan [par. 142] discloses the length of the starting node to ending nodes and add up the length, since Applicant does not particularly define the “scoring” or how to scoring the graph. Therefore, the combination of Hagan and Smartt fairly teaches the claim[ed] invention. Ans. 15–16. As noted above, Appellants have not filed a Reply Brief. As such, this additional explanation is not addressed by any argument made by Appellants and stands uncontested in this record. Appellants’ argument, as set forth in their brief, is unpersuasive of Examiner error because it attacks Hagan singly, while the rejection is based on the combined teachings of Smartt and Hagan. Consequently, we sustain the rejection of claim 2 and claim 17. Fourth Issue—Claim 4 Appellants also argue separately for patentability of dependent claim 4. Br. 15–17. Claim 4 depends from claim 1, and recites the additional limitation of “scoring the graph.” The Examiner cites paragraph 142 of Hagan as teaching “scoring the graph.” Appellants argue, as they did with claim 2, that because the Examiner acknowledges Hagan does not teach a graph, it cannot teach “scoring a graph.” Br. 16. This argument is not Appeal 2018-008289 Application 13/977,793 8 persuasive because in the Answer, the Examiner again clarifies that Hagan is not relied upon for the graph, but instead is cited to show scoring of nodes in combination with Smartt’s graph. Ans. 15. Appellants further contend “the cited paragraph of Hagan has nothing to do with . . . scoring a graph.” Br. 16. However, we agree with the Examiner that Hagan’s teaching of adding distances between the nodes shown in Figure 3 is a form of scoring. Ans. 15. Appellants do not address the Examiner’s explanation because they did not file a Reply Brief. As such, the Examiner’s reasonable explanation stands uncontested in the record, and we sustain the rejection of claim 4. Fifth Issue—Claim 5 Claim 5 depends from claim 4, and additionally recites “said scoring includes establishing scoring criteria based on at least one of the number of connected matching candidates in a path and the mean distance.” Br. 25 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner finds that Hagan teaches this limitation. Final Act. 10 (citing Hagan ¶¶ 143–144). Appellants present the same argument regarding Hagan’s failure to teach a graph, which we do not find persuasive for the reasons discussed above. Br. 17. Appellants further argue the cited portion of Hagan “has nothing to do with . . . establishing a specified scoring criteria for scoring a graph” and instead relates to an encoding process for checking a location for validity. Br. 17. We are not persuaded of Examiner error. In the Answer, the Examiner provides additional findings and explanation. In particular, the Examiner additionally cites paragraph 161 in Hagan, and explains that it teaches scoring multiple candidate nodes in the map by using longitudinal and latitudinal coordinate information (i.e., distance). Ans. 16 (citing Hagan Appeal 2018-008289 Application 13/977,793 9 ¶ 161). Because they did not file a Reply Brief, Appellants have not responded to this additional explanation and finding, which stands uncontested in this record. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred with respect to claim 5, and we sustain its rejection. Sixth Issue—Claim 9 Appellants also advance separate arguments for claim 9, which depends from claim 1 and recites “further comprising simplifying the graph.” In rejecting claim 9, the Examiner again cites Hagan. Final Act. 11 (citing Hagan ¶ 172). Appellants offer the same argument regarding Hagan’s failure to teach a graph, which we do not find persuasive for the reasons discussed above. Br. 19. Appellants additionally contend “[t]he cited paragraph of Hagan has nothing to do with the language of claim 9” and instead merely describes “using a shortest path algorithm to determine a route through a digital map.” Br. 20. We disagree. As explained by the Examiner, claim 9 does not require any specific technique be used in simplifying the graph. Ans. 17 (“Applicant does not particularly claim how to simplify[] the graph.”) Hagan teaches that a shortest path may be defined through candidate nodes, “providing a concatenated format . . . trimming the concatenated shortest-path according to the offsets retrieved.” Hagan ¶ 172. We agree with the Examiner that the “concatenated format” described by Hagan is a “simplification” within the meaning of claim 9. Appellants’ argument fails to persuasively explain why a concatenated format does not teach or suggest the recited “simplifying.” Accordingly, we are not persuaded of Examiner error, and we sustain the rejection of claim 9. Appeal 2018-008289 Application 13/977,793 10 Seventh Issue—Claim 10 Claim 10 depends from claim 9 and recites “wherein said simplifying includes removing at least one node having the same level like any node of a previously selected path from the graph.” The Examiner rejects claim 10 citing Hagan. Final Act. 11 (citing Hagan, Fig. 19 and ¶ 240). Final Act. 11. Appellants argue Hagan does not teach the recited limitation because it “is describing data format rules that are used during an encoding or decoding process that relate to types of nodes to be avoided.” Br. 21. We are not persuaded of Examiner error. Although Hagan does not explicitly teach the removal of a node, it describes avoiding a certain nodes which are not part of the path. Avoiding these nodes effectively removes the nodes from consideration. As such, we agree with the Examiner that Hagan at least suggests the argued limitation, and we sustain the rejection of claim 10. Eighth Issue—Claim 11 Claim 11 also depends from claim 9 and recites the additional limitation “wherein said simplifying includes removing nodes with a distance between the matching candidate and the corresponding trace point greater than a predefined maximal distance.” The Examiner finds claim 11 rendered obvious by Hagan’s rules definitions (Table A5), which define a maximum distance between LRP and also define avoidable nodes. Final Act. 11 (citing Hagan ¶ 243). Appellants argue Hagan is deficient because it merely summarizes “data format rules that are used during an encoding or decoding process.” Br. 22. We agree with Appellants. The maximum difference defined by Hagan relates to the largest difference between location reference points. Hagan ¶ 232. Hagan explains Appeal 2018-008289 Application 13/977,793 11 that “[t]he maximum distance between two consecutive location reference points is restricted in order to speed up shortest-path computation because several short routes can be computed quicker than one large route.” Hagan ¶ 233. When this maximum difference is exceeded, Hagan teaches that “a sufficient number of LRPs shall be inserted.” Hagan ¶ 232. Thus, Hagan teaches adding nodes when the distance threshold is met, while the claim recites “removing nodes.” As such, we are persuaded that the Examiner has erred in determining that claim 11 is unpatentable, and we do not sustain its rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–10, 12–18, and 21–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED-IN-PART Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation