HERE Global B.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 27, 2020

2019006578 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2020)

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.
14/795,566 07/09/2015 Leon STENNETH P8347US00 9367
11764 7590 05/27/2020
Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C.
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 305
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
ALSAMIRI, MANAL A.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/27/2020 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):
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
docket@dcpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LEON STENNETH and LEO MODICA
Appeal 2019-006578
Application 14/795,566
Technology Center 3600

Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.

CUTITTA, 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 1–20, all of the pending claims. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as HERE Global
B.V. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-006578
Application 14/795,566

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to “detecting a surface of a delivery
location at which a delivery package can be placed” by an aerial based
package delivery vehicle. Spec. ¶ 1.2 The claimed method includes
“processing of the building footprint information and [] source data to
determine one or more entrances associated with the at least one building.”
Id. ¶ 3.
Claims 1, 11, and 18 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below
with limitations at issue italicized, represents the claimed subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
determining building footprint information for at least
one building associated with at least one geographic address;
determining source data associated with the at least one
building, the at least one geographic address, or a combination
thereof, wherein the source data includes pedestrian probe
data;
processing the building footprint information and the
source data to determine one or more entrances associated with
the at least one building; and
processing the source data associated with the one or
more entrances to determine one or more delivery surfaces for
the at least one geographic address.
Appeal Br. 17 (Claims Appendix).

2 Throughout this Decision we refer to: (1) Appellant’s Specification filed
July 9, 2015 (“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office Action mailed February 1, 2019
(“Final Act.”); (3) the Advisory Office Action mailed March 28, 2019
(“Advisory Act.”); (4) the Appeal Brief filed May 30, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”);
(5) the Examiner’s Answer mailed July 25, 2019 (“Ans.”); and (6) the Reply
Brief filed September 3, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2019-006578
Application 14/795,566

3
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1–9 and 11–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Lopez Morales et al. (US
2014/0330456 A1, Nov. 6, 2014) (“Morales”) and Abhyanker (US
2014/0180914 A1, June 26, 2014). Final Act. 2–15.
The Examiner rejects claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Morales, Abhyanker, and Derenick et al.
(US 2016/0114905 A1, Apr. 28, 2016) (“Derenick”). Id. at 16.

OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of Appellant’s arguments and evidence.
Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017).
The Examiner relies on the combination of Morales and Abhyanker to
teach or suggest “determining source data . . . wherein the source data
includes pedestrian probe data,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 2–5. Of
particular relevance, the Examiner interprets claim 1’s “‘pedestrian probe
data’ to be pedestrian data collected by any sensor.” Ans. 4; Advisory
Act. 2. In view of this interpretation, the Examiner finds that Abhyanker’s
disclosure of GPS 218 providing pedestrian location data to determine a path
for multi-copter 100 to avoid pedestrians teaches or suggests “pedestrian
probe data.” Final Act. 4 (citing Abhyanker ¶ 139) (“[N]avigation and
pathing system 242 could be configured to incorporate data from the sensor
fusion algorithm 238, the GPS 218, and one or more predetermined maps so
Appeal 2019-006578
Application 14/795,566

4
as to determine the driving path for autonomous neighborhood multi-copter
100 . . . [to] avoid or otherwise negotiate potential obstacles” such as
pedestrians). The Examiner determines that motivation existed to combine
the teachings of the references. Final Act. 5.
Appellant argues claim 1 as representative of claims 3–20. Appeal
Br. 8–14. As such, we select claim 1 as representative of the group. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017). Appellant argues that the Examiner’s
interpretation of pedestrian probe data is unreasonably broad because “one
of ordinary skill in the art would give ‘pedestrian probe data’ a plain
meaning as probe data collected by pedestrian probes worn by pedestrians.”
Appeal Br. 9. Appellant further argues that
[a]lthough the Specification does not define “pedestrian probe
data” explicitly, the Specification describes the “pedestrian
probes” worn by pedestrians as a discrete data source separate
from other data sources for determining obstacles at the flying
path, which preclude the Examiner’s interpretation of
Abhyankar’s external/remote sources, e.g., the autonomous
neighborhood multi-copter 100 and external sensors, other
vehicles, other computer systems ([0140]) as the “pedestrian
probes.”
Id. at 10.
These arguments are unpersuasive because Appellant fails to establish
that the Examiner’s interpretation of “pedestrian probe data,” as recited in
claim 1, is not the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
Appellant’s Specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As Appellant acknowledges, the Specification does
not define expressly “pedestrian probe data.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant
argues, however, that in view of the Specification “one of ordinary skill in
Appeal 2019-006578
Application 14/795,566

5
the art would further understand that pedestrian probe data is collected by
pedestrian probes (e.g., user equipment 101, [0029])” that are “worn by
pedestrians.” Id.
The Specification, however, does not require user equipment 101 to
be “probes worn by pedestrians,” as Appellant argues. Id. To the contrary,
Appellant’s Specification discloses that user equipment 101 “may include
. . . any type of . . . fixed terminal.” Spec. ¶ 29. The Specification’s
disclosure of user equipment 101 as a fixed terminal is inconsistent with
Appellant’s argument that the user equipment must be worn by pedestrians.
Appellant, therefore, fails to set forth a description of pedestrian probe data
in the Specification that requires the data to be provided by a user-wearable
probe or is otherwise inconsistent with the Examiner’s interpretation of
“pedestrian probe data” as “pedestrian data collected by any sensor.”
Ans. 4. We determine that the Examiner’s interpretation corresponds with
how the inventors describe the invention in the Specification, i.e., it is an
interpretation that is “consistent with the specification.” In re Morris, 127
F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appellant, therefore, fails to demonstrate persuasively that the
Examiner’s broad, but reasonable interpretation of claim 1’s “determining
source data . . . wherein the source data includes pedestrian probe data,” as
encompassing “Abhyankar’s unmanned aerial vehicle sensor(s) collecting
pedestrian location information to identify and avoid mobile obstacles/
pedestrians” (Ans. 4) is inconsistent with Appellant’s Specification or is
otherwise unreasonable. In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382–83
(Fed. Cir. 2017).
Appeal 2019-006578
Application 14/795,566

6
For the reasons discussed, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim, as well as the rejection of
independent claims 11 and 18, and dependent claims 3–9, 12–17, 19, and 20,
which Appellant does not argue separately.
Next, Appellant argues that the cited combination fails to teach or
suggest “wherein the pedestrian probe data includes probe data of one or
more building owners [or] one or more package delivery drivers,” as recited
in claim 2. Appeal Br. 14. Specifically, Appellant argues “[t]here is no
teaching of probe data of a building owner or a package delivery driver
within the cited passages or anywhere else within the reference” because “a
text search of the entire reference of Abhyanker for the terms ‘building
owner’ or ‘delivery driver’ yields no search results.” Id.
We find this argument unpersuasive because Appellant fails to
persuasively address the Examiner’s findings that, in Abhyankar, “[t]he
autonomous neighborhood multi-copter uses its own sensors and other
external sensors . . . to navigate around the neighborhood, to identify, and
avoid obstacles such as pedestrians” and that a detected pedestrian “can be a
building owner or package delivery driver” in view of Abhyankar’s
discussion of using probe data to detect a pedestrian or “any entity.” Ans. 7
(citing Abhyankar ¶¶ 139, 160, 179); Advisory Act. 2. Appellant’s
argument that a text search of Abhyanker fails to expressly disclose the
terms building owner or delivery driver is unpersuasive because “the
question under [35 U.S.C. § 103] is not merely what the references expressly
teach but what they would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made.” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc.,
Appeal 2019-006578
Application 14/795,566

7
874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (emphasis added) (quoting In re
Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976); see also MPEP § 2123.
Moreover, we are bound by a PTAB precedential decision, because here,
like in Ex parte Nehls, “the method is carried out the same way regardless
of” whether the source of the probe data is a pedestrian, a building owner, or
a delivery driver. Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1889 (BPAI 2008)
(precedential) That is, Appellant does not show how the claimed invention’s
detection of probe data from a building owner or delivery driver would be
performed any differently than detection of a pedestrian’s probe data. We,
therefore, agree with the Examiner’s finding that Abhyankar’s discussion of
using probe data to detect a pedestrian or “any entity” teaches, or at least
suggests, the disputed limitation, as recited in claim 2. Abhyankar ¶ 160.
Appellant, therefore, has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of dependent claim 2.

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–9 and 11–20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Morales and
Abhyanker.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Morales, Abhyanker, and
Derenick.

Appeal 2019-006578
Application 14/795,566

8
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–9, 11–20 103 Morales, Abhyanker 1–9, 11–20
10 103 Morales, Abhyanker,
Derenick
10
Overall
Outcome
1–20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED