Navico Holding AS

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 5, 2020

2019006249 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 5, 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.
14/918,309 10/20/2015 Mark Griffith 48379/09055 7763
27530 7590 10/05/2020
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
IP Department
One Wells Fargo Center
301 South College Street, 23rd Floor
Charlotte, NC 28202
EXAMINER
RIVERA VARGAS, MANUEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2864
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/05/2020 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):
ip@nelsonmullins.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MARK GRIFFITH
____________

Appeal 2019-006249
Application 14/918,309
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.

INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 requests review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–5, 7–12, and 14–21.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to the “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Navico Holding AS as the real party in
interest. Appeal Brief filed March 25, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”) at 1.
2 Non-Final Office Action entered September 26, 2018 (“Non-Final Act.”) at
1.
Appeal 2019-006249
Application 14/918,309

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claims 1 and 17 illustrate the subject matter on appeal,
and read as follows:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium having
stored thereon computer-executable instructions which, when
executed by a computer, cause the computer to:
receive chlorophyll data, from one or more chlorophyll
sensors disposed on a hull of a vessel in real-time or
substantially near real-time, wherein the chlorophyll data
corresponds to a marine environment proximate to the vessel;
analyze the received chlorophyll data to determine one or
more real-time or substantially near real-time chlorophyll
concentrations of the marine environment;
determine a real-time or substantially near real-time
location of the vessel based on global positioning system (GPS)
data; and
correlate the real-time or substantially near real-time
chlorophyll concentrations to the real-time or substantially near
real-time location of the vessel; and
generate a display based on the real-time or substantially
near real-time chlorophyll concentrations, wherein the
generated display comprises one or more visual representations
of the one or more real-time or substantially near real-time
chlorophyll concentrations overlaid on a chart map of the
marine environment at the correlated location.

17. A non-transitory computer-readable medium having
stored thereon computer-executable instructions which, when
executed by a computer, cause the computer to:
receive chlorophyll data, from one or more chlorophyll
sensors disposed on a hull of a vessel in real-time or
substantially near real-time, wherein the chlorophyll data
corresponds to a marine environment proximate to the vessel;
analyze the received chlorophyll data to determine one or
more real-time or substantially near real-time chlorophyll
concentrations of the marine environment; and
Appeal 2019-006249
Application 14/918,309

3
generate one or more alerts based on comparing the
real-time or substantially near real-time chlorophyll
concentrations to one or more predetermined values.

Appeal Br. 15, 18–19 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).
REJECTION
The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1, 3–5, 7–12, and 14–
21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Schaeffer3 in view of
Chaum4 in the Examiner’s Answer entered June 26, 2019 (“Ans.”).5

FACTUAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellant’s timely contentions,6 we affirm the Examiner’s rejections

3 US 2015/0339323 A1, published November 26, 2015.
4 US 5,126,978, issued June 30, 1992.
5 Although the Examiner includes claims 22 and 23 in the heading for this
rejection in the Non-Final Office Action (Office Act. 4), the first page of the
Office Action does not list claims 22 and 23 as pending in the application,
which correctly reflects Appellant’s cancellation of claims 22 and 23 (in an
amendment filed August 16, 2018). And although the Examiner includes a
separate rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Appellant cancelled
claim 6 in an amendment filed January 2, 2018, as indicated in the first page
of the Office Action, which does not list claim 6 as pending in the
application.
6 We do not consider any new argument Appellant presents in the Reply
Brief that Appellant could have raised in the Appeal Brief. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv); 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (arguments raised for the first
time in the Reply Brief that could have been raised in the Appeal Brief will
not be considered by the Board unless good cause is shown); see also Ex
parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (Informative)
(explaining that “the reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments
that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the
Examiner’s rejections, but were not”); Optivus Technology, Inc. v. Ion Beam
Appeal 2019-006249
Application 14/918,309

4
of claims 1, 3–5, 7–12, and 14–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for the reasons set
forth in the Office Action, the Answer, and below.
We review appealed rejections for reversible error based on the
arguments and evidence the Appellant provides for each issue the Appellant
identifies. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072,
1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637
F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that even if the Examiner had
failed to make a prima facie case, “it has long been the Board’s practice to
require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s
rejections”)).
We address claims separately, to the extent they are so argued by
Appellant. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claims 1, 4, 7–12, and 15
Appellant presents arguments directed to independent claims 1 and
12, which Appellant argues together, and Appellant does not separately
argue claims 4, 7–11, and 15, which each depend from either claim 1 or
claim 12. Appeal Br. 11–12. We, therefore, select claim 1 as representative,
and decide the appeal as to claims 1, 4, 7–12, and 15 based on claim 1 alone.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Schaeffer discloses a system and method for determining and
displaying a quality parameter of water located at a particular position within
a body of water. Schaeffer Abst.; ¶¶ 14, 18, 41; claim 1. Schaeffer discloses
that the system continually downloads satellite or aerial imaging data of a

Applications S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (argument raised for
the first time in the reply brief that could have been raised in the opening
brief is waived).
Appeal 2019-006249
Application 14/918,309

5
body of water to a server database. Schaeffer ¶ 62. Schaeffer discloses that,
separately, a user with a mobile device equipped with a GPS system
indicator sends particular location information to the system. Schaeffer
¶¶ 19, 44, 45, 80. Schaeffer discloses that the system extracts a subset of the
image information in the database specific for the particular location sent by
the user, and the system transmits this information to the user’s mobile
device for “processing, analysis, and visualization,” to provide “current
information regarding a water quality parameter” at “the requested location.”
Schaeffer ¶¶ 18, 41, 45, 46. Schaeffer discloses that “[b]y continually
updating the server with satellite imaging data, near-real time conditions
may be provided to users in a timely manner.” Schaeffer ¶ 62.
Schaeffer discloses that a user may select a particular water quality
parameter of interest, such as chlorophyll concentration, and the system will
extract and present to the user’s mobile device image data for a requested
location corresponding to the selected water quality parameter. Schaeffer
¶¶ 14, 31, 41, 49, 83.
Schaeffer discloses that qualitative and quantitative information for a
water quality parameter can be displayed on a user’s mobile device, and
Schaeffer explains that “the results may be shown for a particular location
and/or have a display box” overlying a map showing the requested location
and its surroundings, as shown in Schaeffer’s Figure 3. Schaeffer ¶ 83.
Schaeffer discloses that “[a]lternatively, a color shading (customizable) may
be superimposed on the [map] image to provide a relative measurement for
the surrounding area.” Id. Schaeffer discloses that multiple parameters for
the same location may be displayed on the same screen, by overlaying
images of the multiple parameters. Schaeffer ¶¶ 85, 88; Fig. 5.
Appeal 2019-006249
Application 14/918,309

6
Schaeffer discloses that “the present invention’s imaging and analysis
of water quality parameters may be combined with actual on site water
sampling and/or testing.” Schaeffer ¶ 70. Schaeffer explains that a person
on a boat may directly measure chlorophyll concentration, and because “the
mobile device’s GPS provides the location of the water sample taken, the
results can be directly interpreted with the image data analysis.” Id.
Schaeffer discloses that “[t]his sample testing may confirm the image data
analysis or add to it and the combined data may be even more helpful.” Id.
The Examiner finds that Schaeffer does not explicitly disclose
measuring chlorophyll concentration using sensors disposed on the hull of a
vessel, and does not disclose that the information displayed on a user’s
mobile device comprises one or more visual representations of the one or
more real-time or substantially near real-time chlorophyll concentrations,
and the Examiner relies on Chaum for suggesting modifying Schaeffer’s
system to include such features. Non-Final Act. 6.
Chaum discloses a system for continuously collecting data from ocean
water using sensors mounted on the hull of a ship or submarine (naval
platform). Chaum col. 1, ll. 24–40; col. 2, ll. 28–32. Chaum discloses that
the sensors provide real-time measurements of various oceanographic
parameters, including chlorophyll, and the system displays the data collected
by the sensors. Chaum col. 5, ll. 6–9, 24–27; col. 8, ll. 17–21.
In view of these disclosures in Chaum, the Examiner concludes that
“[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schaeffer’s invention
to incorporate sensors on the hull of the vessel and wherein the generated
display comprises one or more visual representations of the one or more
Appeal 2019-006249
Application 14/918,309

7
real-time or substantially near real-time chlorophyll concentrations for the
purpose of acquiring live data.” Non-Final Act. 6.
Appellant argues that “even if combined, the combination of
Schaeffer’s system and the sensor in Chaum would result in a combined
water quality parameter display, not one specific to chlorophyll
concentration and one that would not be in real-time or substantially near
real-time (as other data — such as other water quality data) would also be
present.” Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis omitted). Appellant argues that “[t]his
could create a chart with false or misleading information that would render
the purpose of the claimed invention less effective.” Id. Appellant argues
that “neither Schaeffer nor Chaum, nor their combination, disclose, teach, or
suggest” generating a display based on real-time or substantially near real-
time chlorophyll concentrations comprising one or more visual
representations of one or more real-time chlorophyll concentrations overlaid
on a chart map of the marine environment at the correlated location, as
recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 11.
As discussed above, however, Schaeffer discloses that a user may
select a particular water quality parameter of interest, such as chlorophyll
concentration, and Schaeffer’s system will then extract and present to the
user’s mobile device image data for a requested location corresponding to
the selected water quality parameter. Schaeffer ¶¶ 14, 31, 41, 49, 83. As
also discussed above, Schaeffer discloses that the results may be displayed
as a box or color shading overlying a map showing the requested location
and its surroundings, and Schaeffer indicates that images for multiple water
quality parameters may be overlaid on the same screen. Schaeffer ¶¶ 83, 85,
88; Figs. 3 and 5.
Appeal 2019-006249
Application 14/918,309

8
One of ordinary skill in the art seeking to continuously obtain data on
chlorophyll concentration at a particular location in real time would have
been led to modify Schaeffer’s system and method to mount sensors on the
hull of a boat from which on-site water sampling and/or testing occurs, to
continuously obtain data on chlorophyll concentration at a particular location
in real time with the sensors, as disclosed in Chaum. The ordinary skilled
artisan further would have been led to display the results of the
measurements taken by the hull-mounted sensors, along with image data
corresponding to chlorophyll concentration provided by Schaeffer’s system,
overlying a map showing the requested location and its surroundings, as
disclosed in Schaeffer, to provide the user with a visual representation of the
real-time chlorophyll concentration measured by the sensors as compared to,
and in addition to, the chlorophyll concentration generated from Schaeffer’s
imagining data. As disclosed in Schaeffer, displaying both types of
chlorophyll concentration data “may confirm the image data analysis or add
to it and the combined data may be even more helpful.” Schaeffer ¶ 70.
Thus, contrary to Appellant’s arguments, the combined disclosures of
Schaeffer and Chaum would have suggested a display comprising one or
more visual representations of one or more real-time chlorophyll
concentrations overlaid on a chart map of a marine environment at a
particular location, as recited in claim 1.
Appellant argues that “Schaeffer’s system utilizes satellite gathered
image data to analyze and determine water quality parameters, including
chlorophyll concentration,” and, therefore, “there is already such chlorophyll
data available via Schaeffer and there would be no need or desire to utilize
sensors on the vessel.” Appeal Br. 12.
Appeal 2019-006249
Application 14/918,309

9
As discussed above, however, Schaeffer explicitly discloses
combining Schaeffer’s imaging and analysis of water quality parameters,
including chlorophyll concentration, with actual on site water sampling
and/or testing. Schaeffer ¶ 70. Schaeffer further discloses that the results of
the direct sample testing can be interpreted together with the image data
analysis, to “confirm the image data analysis or add to it and the combined
data may be even more helpful.” Id. Contrary to Appellant’s arguments,
Schaeffer thus explicitly discloses the usefulness and benefits of obtaining
chlorophyll concentration data both from direct on site water sampling and
from image data analysis. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have recognized the usefulness of mounting sensors on the hull of a
boat from which water samples are taken, as disclosed in Chaum, to allow
chlorophyll concentration to be directly, continuously measured.
Appellant argues that “the analysis required for the general water
quality in Schaeffer from satellite images is different than the sensor based
analysis of Chaum,” and, therefore, “one of ordinary skill in the art would
not be motived to combine the teachings of Schaeffer with the teachings of
Chaum.” Appeal Br. 12.
As discussed above, however, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is
based on Schaeffer’s disclosure of determining chlorophyll concentration at
a particular location in a body of water using satellite image data, rather than
determining “general water quality” as Appellant appears to assert.
Non-Final Act. 6. And although determining chlorophyll concentration from
satellite image data as disclosed in Schaeffer may differ from directly
determining chlorophyll concentration using sensors as disclosed in Chaum,
Appeal 2019-006249
Application 14/918,309

10
such a distinction does not identify any particular error in the Examiner
factual findings, reasoning, or conclusion of obviousness.
We, accordingly, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 7–
12, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 17–21
Appellant presents arguments directed to independent claim 17, and
does not separately argue claims 18–21, which each depend from claim 17.
Appeal Br. 12–13. We, therefore, select claim 17 as representative, and
decide the appeal as to claims 17–21 based on claim 17 alone. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claim 17 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium having
stored thereon computer-executable instructions which, when executed by a
computer, cause the computer, in part, to generate one or more alerts based
on comparing real-time or substantially near real-time chlorophyll
concentrations to one or more predetermined values.
To address the rejection of claim 17, Appellant repeats arguments that
Appellant presents for claim 1. Appeal Br. 13. Because these arguments do
not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 for the
reasons discussed above, the arguments also do not identify reversible error
in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17, for the same reasons.
Appellant additionally argues that “even if combined, the combination
of Schaeffer’s system and the sensor in Chaum would not result in [] one or
more alerts based on comparing real-time or substantially near real-time
chlorophyll concentrations to predetermined values.” Appeal Br. 12
(emphasis omitted). Appellant argues that “Schaeffer utilizes historical data
from satellites to enable its alert to a user,” which “is not in real-time or
Appeal 2019-006249
Application 14/918,309

11
substantially near real-time and is not based on chlorophyll concentrations,
as it is instead, based on overall water quality from satellite images.” Id.
As discussed above, however, Schaeffer discloses a system that
continually downloads satellite or aerial imaging data for a body of water to
a server database. Schaeffer ¶ 62. Schaeffer discloses that the system uses
the imaging data to provide current information to a user’s mobile device for
a particular water quality parameter, such as chlorophyll concentration, at a
specific location in the body of water. Schaeffer ¶¶ 18, 31, 41, 45, 46, 83.
Schaeffer explains that “[b]y continually updating the server with satellite
imaging data, near-real time conditions may be provided to users in a timely
manner.” Schaeffer ¶ 62.
Schaeffer further discloses that the system “may always be running
with passive continual updates from the server for locations of interest,” and
a “user may set preferences for displaying and analyzing data [such as
chlorophyll concentration] on their mobile device.” Schaeffer ¶ 63.
Schaffer discloses that “[w]hen a water quality parameter [such as
chlorophyll concentration] is above a desired threshold an alert may be
provided to the user.” Id.
Thus, although Schaeffer may disclose use of historical data from
satellites, and may disclose obtaining an indication of overall water quality
from satellite images as Appellant argues, Schaeffer nonetheless also
discloses providing an alert to a user based on near-real time conditions at a
specific location for a particular water quality parameter, such as chlorophyll
concentration, when the concentration is above a desired threshold (a
predetermined value), as recited in claim 17.
Appeal 2019-006249
Application 14/918,309

12
We, accordingly, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17–21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 3 and 14
Appellant presents arguments directed to claims 3 and 14, which
Appellant argues together. Appeal Br. 13–14. We, therefore, select claim 3
as representative, and decide the appeal as to claims 3 and 14 based on claim
3 alone. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites that “the one or more visual
representations of the one or more real-time or substantially near real-time
chlorophyll concentrations are combined with a chart map, wherein the chart
map comprises a real-time or substantially near real-time representation of
the marine environment, and wherein the chart map includes a symbol
representing a real-time or substantially near real-time location of the vessel
in the marine environment.”
Appellant argues that Schaeffer does not disclose or suggest
“providing a representation of the real-time or substantially near real-time
representation of the vessel including a symbol on the chart map,” and
Schaeffer instead focuses “on historical satellite acquired data not linked to a
vessel.” Appeal Br. 13. Appellant argues that “when Schaeffer discloses
using a mobile device GPS it does so for correlating samples or providing
the user a reference point,” and Schaeffer does not teach utilizing “current
GPS data to display on the chart—let alone corresponding to a current
location of a vessel acquiring the real-time data.” Appeal Br. 13–14.
As discussed above, however, Schaeffer’s system extracts a subset of
satellite image information from a database specific for a particular,
requested location, and the system sends this information to a user’s mobile
Appeal 2019-006249
Application 14/918,309

13
device for “processing, analysis, and visualization,” to provide “current
information regarding a water quality parameter [such as chlorophyll
concentration] at the requested location.” Schaeffer ¶¶ 14, 18, 31, 41, 45,
46, 83. Schaeffer discloses that “[b]y continually updating the server with
satellite imaging data, near-real time conditions may be provided to users in
a timely manner.” Schaeffer ¶ 62.
As also discussed above, Schaeffer discloses that the “imaging and
analysis of water quality parameters” obtained using Schaeffer’s system
“may be combined with actual on site water sampling and/or testing.”
Schaeffer ¶ 70. Schaeffer explains that a person on a boat may directly
measure chlorophyll concentration, and because “the mobile device’s GPS
provides the location of the water sample taken, the results can be directly
interpreted with the image data analysis.” Id. Schaeffer discloses that the
results of the image data analysis may be displayed as a box or color shading
overlying a map showing the requested location and its surroundings, and
Schaeffer indicates that images for multiple water quality parameters may be
overlaid on the same screen. Schaeffer ¶¶ 83, 85, 88; Figs. 3 and 5.
In view of these disclosures in Schaeffer, one of ordinary skill in the
art seeking to obtain data on chlorophyll concentration at a particular
location in a body of water reasonably would have been led to directly
measure the chlorophyll concentration using sensors mounted on the hull of
a boat positioned at the desired location, as suggested by Chaum (discussed
above). The ordinarily skilled artisan would have been led to display the
results of the measurements taken by the hull-mounted sensors, along with
image data corresponding to near real-time chlorophyll concentration
provided by Schaeffer’s system, overlying a map showing the location of the
Appeal 2019-006249
Application 14/918,309

14
boat and its surroundings, determined by a GPS in the user’s mobile device
as disclosed in Schaeffer, to provide the user with a visual representation of
the real-time or near-real time chlorophyll concentration at the location of
the boat, as recited in claim 3.
We, accordingly, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 5 and 16
Appellant presents arguments directed to claims 5 and 16, which
Appellant argues together. Appeal Br. 14. We, therefore, select claim 5 as
representative, and decide the appeal as to claims 5 and 16 based on claim 5
alone. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and recites that the non-transitory
computer-readable medium further comprises “program instructions which,
when executed by the computer, cause the computer to generate one or more
alerts indicating whether the one or more real-time or substantially near real-
time chlorophyll concentrations have changed by a predetermined amount or
a predetermined percentage in comparison to a predetermined value.”
To address the rejection of claim 5, Appellant repeats the argument
that Appellant presents for claim 17 that “Schaeffer utilizes historical data
from satellites to enable its alert to a user,” which “is not in real-time or
substantially near real-time and is not based on chlorophyll concentrations,
as it is instead, based on overall water quality.” Appeal Br. 14. Because this
argument does not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 17 for the reasons discussed above, the argument also does not
identify reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5, for the same
reasons.
Appeal 2019-006249
Application 14/918,309

15
We, accordingly, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 7–12,
14–21
103 Schaeffer,
Chaum
1, 3–5, 7–12,
14–21

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).

AFFIRMED