Sjoerd Aben et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 1, 2020

2020003354 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 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.
13/977,790 09/30/2013 Sjoerd Aben 1684/US 1075
75090 7590 12/01/2020
TOMTOM INTERNATIONAL B.V.
IP Creation
De Ruyterkade 154
AMSTERDAM, 1011 AC
NETHERLANDS
EXAMINER
MUSTAFA, IMRAN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/01/2020 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):
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 SJOERD ABEN, TEUN DE HAAS, ERIK THOMASSEN,
and BREGHT BOSCHKER
____________

Appeal 2020-003354
Application 13/977,790
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOHANTY, 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, 2, 10–15, 17, 18, and 26–36. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.

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 TomTom
Navigation B.V. (Appeal Br. 1).
Appeal 2020-003354
Application 13/977,790

2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The Appellant’s claimed invention relates to navigation devices and
methods for navigating and displaying maps and routes (Spec. 1:6–7).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.

1. A method of determining a route between two locations in
a navigation device using a digital map comprising a number of
line segments, wherein each path between the two locations is
considered to be formed of a plurality of line segments and at
least some of said line segments forming the paths have at least
a first type of attribute and a second type of attribute associated
therewith, the method comprising:
providing a first cost function for the first type of
attribute, the first cost function generated by dividing a map
into a first plurality of areas and assigning a first weighting
factor to each area in the first plurality of areas, each first
weighing factor usable to determine a separate cost for each line
segment within a corresponding area based on the first type of
attribute for that line segment, wherein at least some of the first
plurality of areas have different first weighting factors;
providing a second cost function for the second type of
attribute, the second cost function generated by dividing the
map into a second plurality of areas and assigning a second
weighting factor to each area in the second plurality of areas,
each second weighing factor usable to determine a separate cost
for each line segment within a corresponding area based on the
second type of attribute for that line segment, wherein at least
some of the second plurality of areas have different second
weighting factors;
determining, using the first cost function and the second
cost function, costs associated with each line segment of a
plurality of line segments that are candidates for a route
between two locations, the determining comprising calculating
a separate cost for each line segment as a combination of costs
generated using a given first weighing factor and a given
second weighing factor based on areas in which that line
Appeal 2020-003354
Application 13/977,790

3

segment is located within the respective first plurality of areas
and the second plurality of areas;
based on the costs associated with the plurality of line
segments that are candidates for the route between the
locations, determining a route between the locations that
includes line segments from the plurality of line segments; and
determining, based on geographical locations of the
navigation device that are sensed using a location sensing
system, directions for following said route as a user proceeds
along said route and presenting the directions for following said
route to the user via at least one of a display and a speaker.

THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 2, 10–15, 18, and 26–362 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable by Gelhar (US 2005/0107950 A1; published
May 19, 2005) and Kluge (US 2011/0040438 A1; published Feb. 17, 2011)
2. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Gelhar, Kluge, and Wantanbe (US 6,269,303 B1; issued July 31, 2001.

FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence3.

2 The statement of the rejection does not list claims 27–36; however, the
body of the rejection addresses these claims. (Final Act. 2–3, 7, 8).
Accordingly, we consider the omission of claims 27–36 from the statement
of the rejection to be a typographical error.
3 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
Appeal 2020-003354
Application 13/977,790

4

ANALYSIS
The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 is improper (Appeal
Br. 9–12, Reply Br. 2–8). The Appellant in the Appeal Brief at pages 9–12
first states deficiencies in the cited references. The Appellant then argues
that the combination of prior art references Gelhar and Kluge does not
suggest the limitations of claim 1 (Appeal Br. 12).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection of record is
proper (Final Act. 2–6, 8–10, Ans. 3–7).
We agree with the Appellant. Claim 1 requires
providing a first cost function for the first type of
attribute, the first cost function generated by dividing a map
into a first plurality of areas and assigning a first weighting
factor to each area in the first plurality of areas, each first
weighing factor usable to determine a separate cost for each
line segment within a corresponding area based on the first
type of attribute for that line segment
(Appeal Br. 17, Claims App. (emphasis added)). Claim 1 also contains a
similar limitation for providing a “second cost function” in a similar manner.
The Appellant argues that Gelhar discloses the path is determined through
“zones” and not individual “line segment[s]” as recited in the claim (Appeal
Br. 10). The Examiner cites to Gelhar’s Figure 1, and paragraphs 9, 10, and
31 as disclosing this feature (Ans. 3, 4). Here, while Gelhar’s Figure 1 does
show a road (20, 22) through respective areas (12) both paragraphs 9 and 10
state that route or rating is based on “zones” and not a line segment. While
Gelhar’s paragraph 31 does state the road distance is taken into account, it is
unclear from this passage that the road distance is factored as a separate cost
rather than being part of the zone cost in some manner as the segment is
discussed extending past zone 12 and to include part of zone 16. Paragraph
Appeal 2020-003354
Application 13/977,790

5

32 still indicates the cost value is determined on the cost value for each zone
and the cited claim limitation is not specifically disclosed as asserted in the
rejection. Regardless, the cited portions of Gelhar both fail to show the first
cost function would be used as a “weighting factor” usable to determine a
separate cost for each line segment as claimed. Kluge’s paragraph 117 does
disclose determining a route to minimize the costs associated with road
segments on the route. The rationale for the modification of Gelhar by Kluge
in the Final Office Action at page 6 fails to provide an articulated reasoning
with rational underpinnings to sustain the rejection as being obvious to one
of ordinary skill without impermissible hindsight. Here, the rejection of
record fails to provide sufficient articulated reasoning with rational
underpinnings to modify Gelhar “to determine a separate cost for each line
segment within a corresponding area based on the first type of attribute for
that line segment” in combination with the other claimed method steps such
as the “weighting factor” in the claim.
For these above reasons, the rejection of claim 1 is not sustained. The
rejection of claims 2, 10–15, 18, and 26–36, which depend from claim 1 or
are directed to similar subject matter, is not sustained for the same reasons
given above. The rejection of dependent claim 17 is also not sustained as the
additional reference fails to cure the deficiency in the base rejection.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejections section above.

Appeal 2020-003354
Application 13/977,790

6

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 10–15,
18, 26–36
103(a) Gelhar, Kluge 1, 2, 10–15,
18, 26–36
17 103(a) Gelhar, Kluge,
Watanabe
17
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 10–15,
17, 18, 26–
36

REVERSED