Tierney, Timothy

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 29, 2020

2019004895 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 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.
11/038,607 01/18/2005 Timothy Tierney SIMPL-001U.USA 9499
7590 12/29/2020
Timothy Tierney
7435 N. Figueroa Street
Box No. 41403
Los Angeles, CA 90041
EXAMINER
OHBA, MELLISSA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2164
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/29/2020 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIMOTHY TIERNEY
Appeal 2019-004895
Application 11/038,607
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on Appellants Request for Rehearing. Appellant’s
Request for Rehearing is filed under 37 C.F.R. § 41.521 requesting that we
reconsider certain portions of our Decision of September 17, 2020, wherein
we affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16–23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).2 We have reconsidered our Decision in light of Appellant’s

1 “The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed
to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board.” 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.52(a)(1).
2 We reversed the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph for lack of written description.
Appeal 2019-004895
Application 11/038,607

2
contentions in the Request, and we have found no error in the result reached.
We, therefore, decline to change the result of the Decision.

RELATED PROCEEDINGS
Appellant identifies an appeal pending before the Board in U.S. Patent
Application No. 12/454,012 as a related proceeding. That related
proceeding was assigned Appeal No. 2019-003185, and decided in a
separate decision also issued on September 17, 2020. It too is the subject of
a Request for Rehearing, and we decide the related Request in a concurrently
issued decision.
EXEMPLARY CLAIM
The claims are directed to an internet based geographic information
system. Exemplary claim 16 reads as follows:
16. A geographic information apparatus, comprising:
at least one server connected to by a plurality of user
platforms and having at least one non-transitory medium for
storage of user-created data, wherein,
at least one server is configured with a package of server
files executing on at least one server, wherein
at least one of the server files is configured to control
interaction by each user platform with multiple online databases
containing geospatial information;
at least one of the server files is configured to control
create/retrieve/update/delete interactions by each user platform
with multiple online databases containing geospatial
information;
at least one of the server files is configured to interface
with an Internet browser or equivalent client accessible from a
user platform;
Appeal 2019-004895
Application 11/038,607

3
at least one of the server files is configured to provide core
geographic information system functionality, including map
navigation, discrete geospatial data layer presentation, data
transformations, and discrete geospatial data layer creation at the
user level through the browser interface, wherein user created
discrete geospatial data layers are uploaded and stored on the
non-transitory medium of at least one server;
at least one of the server files is configured to provide
interactions with each user platform, including
interfacing with the core geographic information
system functionality,
access by a first user of a user platform to geospatial
databases provided by at least one of the servers or
provided by at least one Internet website, the geospatial
databases having discrete geospatial data layers created by
other users of other user platforms, and
provision of map-based data to the first user,
including discrete geospatial data layers created by other
users;
at least one of the server files is configured to support
simultaneous multiple user access to the user created discrete
geospatial data layers and the core geographic information
system functionality; and
at least one of the server files is configured to allow a user
to grant data layer access permissions to discrete geospatial data
layers for stand-alone usage or usage in maps created and owned
on at least one server by the first user so as to allow the first user
to allow access by a second user that creates and owns on at least
one server discrete geospatial data layers, and at least one of the
server files is configured to allow a user to grant data layer access
permissions to discrete geospatial data layers for stand-alone
usage or usage in maps to allow the second user to share discrete
geospatial data layers created and owned on at least one server
by the second user, wherein the data layer access permissions are
uploaded to and stored on a non-transitory medium of a server
and enforced by a fully online resident program.
Appeal 2019-004895
Application 11/038,607

4
Corrected Appeal Br. (Claims Appendix 2–3).
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
1. Appellant contends the Board erred in the decision because the
Board erroneously understood relied upon Von Kaenel’s statement that “The
sales director grants ‘view & modify’ access to the project to team member
‘B’ to the sales territory data layer, and to no other user,” as demonstrating
that “in Von Kaenel’s system, permissions can be granted to specific data
layers, and are not limited to projects as a whole.” (Request 2.) More
specifically, Appellant contends:
[T]he Board misapprehends the meaning of this element of Von
Kaenel’s teachings, as the statement is explicitly referring to a
data layer being shared as an element of a map and not as a stand-
alone item (no map required). When taken in this context, it is
clear that Von Kaenel does not teach permissions being applied
to stand-alone data layers.
(Request 2).
2. Appellant further argues the Board erred in the decision
because the Board erroneously found that Von Kaenel and Coch were
properly combined. (Request 2.) Appellant contends:
Appellant respectfully submits that the Board misapprehends the
true nature of the VonKaenel system, wherein data layers are
solely owned by the enterprise and solely shared by the enterprise
to individual users by means of business rules (Paragraphs 343).
Users only have the ability to build projects comprised of these
data layers and to share the projects, but the layers within the
projects are the property of the enterprise which retains full
control over what users may access them that cannot be
circumvented by user-to-user sharing of a project.
. . .
Appeal 2019-004895
Application 11/038,607

5
The Board goes on to state “the Examiner’s rationale for
combining references merely proposes extending the sharing
capability taught by VonKaenel to additional sharing contexts”
(Decision 7–8). Appellant respectfully submits that the Board
has overlooked the fact that these additional contexts are
expressly forbidden in VonKaenel, making their addition into
that reference impossible.
(Request 2–3 (citing Von Kaenel col. 57, ll. 12–18).)
3. Appellant further argues the Board erred in the decision
because the rejection “[e]mploys [i]mproper [h]indsight [r]easoning.”
(Request 3.) Noting that the “Board rejected Appellant’s argument that the
Examiner derived the notion of layer-sharing from Appellant’s application”
based on Von Kaenel’s teaching of layer-based sharing, Appellant argues
“Von Kaenel does not teach layer-based sharing.” (Request 3.)
ANALYSIS
Requests for rehearing are limited to matters misapprehended or
overlooked by the Board in rendering the original decision. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.52(a)(1). A request for rehearing must state with particularity the
points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board.
Id. Arguments not raised, and evidence not previously relied upon, are
generally not permitted in the request for rehearing. A request for rehearing
is not an opportunity to reargue points merely because Appellant does not
agree with the result of the Board's Decision. Id.
First Contention
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s first contention. Appellant
argues the Board misapprehended the teachings of Von Kaenel because it
describes a data layer being shared as an element of a map and not as a
stand-alone item (no map required). We disagree because Appellant’s
Appeal 2019-004895
Application 11/038,607

6
argument is not commensurate with the scope of the argued limitation.
Appellant’s argument appears to suggest that the phrase “for stand-alone
usage” means that the map layer must be shared for usage as something
other than map. This interpretation is inconsistent with Appellant’s
Specification, which discloses “storing all data created by users anywhere
into a single database following a single standard,” that “users may allow
other users to access their data, promoting data sharing,” and may do so “by
granting access permissions.” Spec. ¶ 13. The sharing of data described in
Appellant’s Specification provides no indication that the use of that shared
data would be anything other than as a map layer. Rather, the Specification
merely notes the “difficulty in sharing data among users on different
machines,” and “overcomes this obstacle by storing all data created by users
anywhere into a single database following a single standard.” Spec. ¶ 13.
Thus, according to Appellant’s Specification, the sharing of layers is
accomplished by granting access permissions on a layer-by-layer basis, i.e.,
a stand-alone basis, to a single database following a single standard. We
observe no description that indicates sharing of a single layer is done for the
purpose of using a map layer outside of a map platform. As such,
Appellant’s argument relies on an unduly narrow meaning for the phrase
“stand-alone usage,” one that is inconsistent with the description in the
Specification.
Consistent with “stand-alone usage” as described in Appellant’s
Specification, Von Kaenel discloses that the map layers are stored in a
common database, from which individual layers can be shared among users
by granting user-specific permissions on a layer-by-layer basis. See Von
Kaenel Fig. 33 (Data Store storing Roads (3371), Customer Info (3372), and
Appeal 2019-004895
Application 11/038,607

7
Sales Territory (3373)). As described by Von Kaenel, the Sales Director can
share a specific map layer with a specific individual from the common data
store in the network. This map layer can be viewed as a separate layer—i.e.,
on a stand-alone basis. Von Kaenel ¶ 487 (“[T]he client software collects
information about the data being viewed by the user, including, for example,
layers being viewed, the order in which the layers are viewed.”). As such,
we are not persuaded we misapprehended the teachings of Von Kaenel, and
we do not find error in the Decision.
Second Contention
We also do not find Appellant’s second contention persuasive.
Appellant contends the Board misapprehended Von Kaenel because “data
layers are solely owned by the enterprise and solely shared by the enterprise
to individual users by means of business rules.” (Request 2.) However, as
we noted above, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity to reargue
points merely because Appellant does not agree with the result of the
Board’s Decision. Appellant’s second contention merely reargues the
argument set forth on the Appeal Brief regarding the proposed combination.
Appeal Br. 11. Although Appellant now argues, for the first time, that
extending the sharing capability of Von Kaenel “is expressly forbidden,” we
are not persuaded that Von Kaenel’s stated goal of ensuring that customized
views do not “circumvent the basic set level access controls defined in the
server system” amounts to “expressly forbidding” any specific type of
sharing. Rather, we view this statement as merely indicating that sharing of
data within the map platform should not override broader server
permissions. As such, Appellant’s second contention is unpersuasive.
Appeal 2019-004895
Application 11/038,607

8
Third Contention
We do not find persuasive Appellant’s third contention—that the
interpretation of the references employs hindsight reasoning—because it
bases this contention on Appellant’s assertion that Von Kaenel does not
teach layer based sharing. As we explained above in addressing Appellant’s
First Contention, we are not persuaded that we misapprehended Von
Kaenel’s teachings in this regard. Therefore, we do not find error in our
determination that the Examiner did not rely upon hindsight reasoning in
combining the teachings of Coch and Von Kaenel.
DECISION SUMMARY
Outcome of Decision on Rehearing
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
16–23 103 Von Kaenel, Coch 16–23

Final Outcome of Appeal after Rehearing
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
13–31 112 Written
Description
16–23
16–23 103 Von Kaenel, Coch 16–23
Overall
Outcome
16–23
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).
DENIED