HERE GLOBAL B.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 14, 2022

2021000108 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2022)

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. 16/126,871 09/10/2018 Jerome BEAUREPAIRE P8906US00 5313 137284 7590 02/14/2022 DITTHAVONG, STEINER, & MLOTKOWSKI 201 N. Union Street, Suite 110 Alexandria, VA 22314 EXAMINER GIRMA, FEKADESELASS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2689 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/14/2022 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): docket@dcpatent.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JEROME BEAUREPAIRE and AARON RINCOVER Appeal 2021-000108 Application 16/126,871 Technology Center 2600 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, BETH Z. SHAW, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-9, 11-19, 21, and 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2019). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as HERE Global B.V. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-000108 Application 16/126,871 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to generating a passenger-based driving profile. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer-implemented method comprising: collecting vehicle sensor data of a vehicle carrying a user as a passenger, wherein the vehicle sensor data indicates at least one driving behavior of the vehicle while the user is riding in the vehicle as the passenger; collecting user sensor data, user input data, or a combination thereof indicating a reaction of the user to the at least one driving behavior; and including the at least one driving behavior in a passenger profile for the user as the passenger based on the reaction of the user. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Hummel US 2017/0200321 Al July 13, 2017 Canavor US 9,971,348 Bl May 15, 2018 Munafo US 2019/0050787 Al Feb. 14, 2019 Mosalem US 2019/0288868 Al Sept. 19, 2019 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 13-16, 18, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Mosalem. Claims 2, 3, 5, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mosalem and Munafo. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mosalem, Munafo, and Canavor. Appeal 2021-000108 Application 16/126,871 3 Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mosalem, Munafo, and Hummel. OPINION The Examiner finds that Mosalem discloses the claimed “reaction of the user to the at least one driving behavior” because Mosalem explains that the detection device uses the data of the navigation system of the vehicle to continuously determine the position of the vehicle and the behavior of the passenger. Non-Final Act. 3. It is well settled that to anticipate, a prior art reference must not only disclose all recited elements within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements arranged as in the claim. Net MoneyIn, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “Thus, it is not enough that the prior art reference discloses part of the claimed invention, which an ordinary artisan might supplement to make the whole, or that it includes multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.” Id. Mosalem discloses that a detection device 7 can determine that a vehicle is approaching a building 3 and that passengers 9 are planning a stay in the building, and can further determine a behavior of the respective passenger 9, such as an average stay time of the passengers in the building 3. Mosalem ¶ 24. However, we agree with Appellant that this portion of Mosalem does not disclose a “reaction of the user to the at least one driving behavior,” but rather, an intended or average stay of a passenger in a building. To the extent that the recited element would have been obvious in view of Mosalem is not a question before us; nor will we speculate in that Appeal 2021-000108 Application 16/126,871 4 regard here in the first instance on appeal. But what we can say is that the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1 is flawed. We are therefore constrained by this record to find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. Accordingly, on this record, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of independent claims 1, 11, and 16. For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the rejection of the remaining pending claims, which depend from one of claims 1, 11, and 16, either directly or indirectly. CONCLUSION We reverse the rejections. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 13-16, 18, 19, 22 102 Mosalem 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 13-16, 18, 19, 22 2, 3, 5, 12, 17 103 Mosalem, Munafo 2, 3, 5, 12, 17 9 103 Mosalem, Munafo, Canavor 9 21 103 Mosalem, Munafo, Hummel 21 Overall Outcome 1-9, 11-19, 21, 22 REVERSED