12243186 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2019)

Robert P. Fernekes

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 29, 2019

12243186 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2019)

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. 12/243,186 10/01/2008 Robert P. Fernekes 10171-12063A (NC58218US) 9819 101535 7590 11/29/2019 Lempia Summerfield Katz LLC/HERE 20 South Clark Street Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60603 EXAMINER MORRIS, JOHN J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2157 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/29/2019 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): docket-us@lsk-iplaw.com hereipr@here.com pair_lsk@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROBERT P. FERNEKES Appeal 2018-006339 Application 12/243,186 Technology Center 2100 Before ERIC B. CHEN, HUNG H. BUI, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BENNETT, 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 1–15, 22, and 23. Claims 16–21 are cancelled. 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. 2. Appeal 2018-006339 Application 12/243,186 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention relates to “[a] method and system for locating geographic data stored [] on physical storage media” (i.e., geographic database) “that is organized by parcels of one or more tiles bounded by lines of constant latitude or longitude in a world tile grid.” Spec. col. 3, ll. 16–19. The claims are directed to a spatial index organized as an array for locating geographic data parcels stored on physical storage media. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system for locating geographic data stored in parcels on physical storage media, wherein the geographic data is located in a geographic database that is organized by parcels of one or more tiles of a plurality of tiles each tile being bounded by lines of constant latitude or longitude in a world tile grid, wherein a size of each of the plurality of tiles is not greater than a size of a parcel, the system comprising: an application that receives a request for geographic data, wherein the request includes information that the application uses to identify a tile that contains the requested geographic data, the identified tile being one of a plurality of tiles stored in a parcel; and a spatial index organized as an array, wherein the application uses the tile identification to identify a row of the array and a column of the array associated with the tile, and wherein the application uses the row and the column to identify within the array, using only a single access thereto, the parcel location on the physical storage media that contains the requested geographic data, wherein the application further causes the retrieval of the geographic data associated with the plurality of tiles of the parcel located at the identified parcel location from the physical storage. Appeal Br. 16 (Claims Appendix). Appeal 2018-006339 Application 12/243,186 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Driessen US 4,888,698 Dec. 19, 1989 McDonough Marathe US 2004/0220957 A1 US 2007/0203909 A1 Nov. 4, 2004 Aug. 30, 2007 Clarke, D. “Sparse Arrays,” archived at http://www.dragonthoughts.co.uk/technical/sparsearray.html, 2002 (“Clarke”) REJECTIONS Claims 1–5 and 8–15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Driessen and McDonough. Final Act. 3–9. Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Driessen, McDonough, and Marathe. Final Act. 9–11. Claims 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Driessen, McDonough, and Clarke. Final Act. 11–13. ISSUES First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Driessen teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders obvious a “geographic database that is organized by parcels of one or more tiles of a plurality of tiles each tile being bounded by lines of constant latitude or longitude in a world tile grid, wherein a size of each of the plurality of tiles is not greater than a size of a parcel,” as recited in claim 1? Second Issue: Has the Examiner provided sufficient reasoning for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the cited references to achieve the invention as claimed? Appeal 2018-006339 Application 12/243,186 4 ANALYSIS First Issue In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Driessen teaches all of the recited limitations except for “the identified tile being of a plurality of tiles stored in a parcel.” Final Act. 3–5. The Examiner relies on McDonough as teaching this missing limitation (citing McDonough ¶¶ 9, 58), and concludes that it would have been obvious to combine their respective teachings because doing so “would provide a more efficient use of the storage by allowing more space of the parcel to be used.” Final Act 5. Relevant to this issue, the Examiner finds the limitation “geographic database that is organized by parcels of one or more tiles of a plurality of tiles each tile being bounded by lines of constant latitude or longitude in a world tile grid, wherein a size of each of the plurality of tiles is not greater than a size of a parcel” taught by Driessen’s map database and corresponding main cell pattern. Final Act. 3–4 (citing Driessen col. 5, l. 67–col. 6, l. 1; col. 6, ll. 8– 11, 39–41). Appellant argues the Examiner has erred because some of the main cells in Driessen are larger than the parcel size, and Driessen teaches that those main cells must be subdivided into quadrants in order for those cells to have “a size . . . that is not greater than a size of a parcel.” Appeal Br. 6–11. More specifically, Appellant argues that Driessen seeks to solve the problem of map cells having too many features to be able to be stored in the memory space allocated to individual parcels, and that if the maps cells in Driessen fit the parcels, the subdividing process taught by Driessen would be wholly superfluous. Appeal Br. 7–9; Reply Br. 3 (“there would be no need for such Appeal 2018-006339 Application 12/243,186 5 a determination, subsequent to the division, if the system of Driessen formed, or could form, all of the main cells to be no bigger than a parcel”). Appellant further argues that Driessen’s subdivided base cells cannot be considered “tiles” within the meaning of claim 1 because the subdivided cells are not “bounded by lines of constant latitude or longitude in a world tile grid,” as recited in the claim. Appeal Br. 7 (“those base cells cannot be read on Appellant's claimed tiles as they would not be bounded by lines of constant latitude or longitude with the other undivided main cells or base cells sub-divided from another main cell”). We are not persuaded of Examiner error. The use case cited by the Examiner reads on the claims. Appellant argues that “99.5%” of situations described in Driessen do not read on the claim. However, it is well- established that all of the disclosures in a reference, including non-preferred embodiments, must be evaluated for what they fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Inland Steel Co., 265 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Thus, we must evaluate even those rare situations contemplated by Driessen in which the main cells are sufficiently-small to fit within the defined parcels. Appellant does not dispute that in those limited situations, Driessen teaches the disputed limitation. Also, even the subdivided base cells teach the disputed limitation. Appellant argues that the base cells cannot be considered tiles because they do not have the required bounding properties recited in the claim. We disagree. Appellant asserts that the recited “each tile being bounded by lines of constant latitude or longitude in a world tile grid” requires that the tiles be bounded by lines of constant latitude or longitude “with the other undivided main cells or sub-divided base cells.” However, the claim recites no Appeal 2018-006339 Application 12/243,186 6 requirement that the bounding or each tile be made with respect to other tiles. Rather, it merely requires that the tiles be “bounded . . . in a world tile grid.” Although subdivided, the boundary lines in the base cells have a constant latitude or longitude because they are parallel to the original lines of the main cell. That is, the horizontal boundary lines of each subdivided base cell have a constant latitude for their entire length. The same can be said of the vertical lines of each subdivided base cell. As such, we disagree with Appellant that the subdivided base cells cannot be considered within the scope of the disputed limitation. Second Issue As noted above, the Examiner finds Driessen fails to teach or suggest “the identified tile being of a plurality of tiles stored in a parcel.” Final Act. 3–5. The Examiner relies on McDonough as teaching this missing limitation, and concludes that it would have been obvious to combine their respective teachings because doing so “would provide a more efficient use of the storage by allowing more space of the parcel to be used.” Final Act. 5. Appellant contends that Driessen and McDonough have been improperly combined because combining Driessen with McDonough would not cure the deficiency in Driessen, and for that reason, the references teach away from each other. Appeal Br. 12–13 (“Combining Driessen with McDonough as suggested by the Examiner would not fix this issue since, as previously argued, the indexing system of McDonough still requires two table accesses, by tile and then by parcel key.”). We do not agree. Appellant’s argument presumes that Driessen is deficient with respect to the disputed limitation addressed above. However, as we explained Appeal 2018-006339 Application 12/243,186 7 above, Driessen teaches the disputed limitation. As such, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of Examiner error with respect to the proposed combination. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Appellant also argues that McDonough teaches away from Driessen because if combined, “the Driessen system would no longer function as intended.” App. Br. 14. Appellant asserts “any reference which would modify the system of Driessen to size parcels so all main cells fit within a parcel . . . would obviate the need for the entire invention of Driessen.” However, as we explained above, the Examiner does not rely on McDonough for the purpose of modifying Driessen so that all cells fit within a parcel. As we noted above, Driessen already supplies this teaching. Instead, the Examiner relies on McDonough as teaching “the identified tile being of a plurality of tiles stored in a parcel.” Final Act. 5. As such, Appellant’s contention does not persuade us that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been discouraged from combining the references for the reasons given by the Examiner. Because we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in concluding claims 1 is obvious over Driessen and McDonough, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Remaining Claims Appellant does not argue for patentability of any other claims with particularity. As such, we treat claim 1 as representative, and the remaining claims fall along with claim 1. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. Appeal 2018-006339 Application 12/243,186 8 DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–5, 8–15 103 Driessen, McDonough 1–5, 8–15 6, 7 103 Driessen, McDonough, Marathe 6, 7 22, 23 103 Driessen, McDonough, Clarke 22, 23 Overall Outcome 1–15, 22, 23 FINALITY AND 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