TOMTOM TRAFFIC B.V. et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 30, 202015110419 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 15/110,419 07/08/2016 Arne Kesting 1078/US 7037 75090 7590 03/30/2020 TOMTOM INTERNATIONAL B.V. IP Creation De Ruyterkade 154 AMSTERDAM, 1011 AC NETHERLANDS EXAMINER BERNS, MICHAEL ANDREW ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3663 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2020 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 ARNE KESTING, NIKOLAUS WITTE, and JEAN-CLAUDE MATTELAER Appeal 2019-005432 Application 15/110,419 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5 and 8–13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real parties in interest as TomTom International B.V. and TomTom Global Content B.V. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-005432 Application 15/110,419 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claimed Subject Matter Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A method of detecting the closure of a navigable element forming part of a network of navigable elements within a geographic area, the method comprising: obtaining positional data relating to the movement of a plurality of devices along the navigable element with respect to time; using the positional data to determine an elapsed time since a device was last detected on the navigable element; determining, for the navigable element, an expected time interval between consecutive devices being detected on the navigable element, the expected time interval being an amount of time during which consecutive devices are expected to be detected traversing the navigable element; comparing the determined elapsed time to the expected time interval between consecutive devices being detected on the navigable element; and identifying the navigable element as being potentially closed when the determined elapsed time exceeds the expected time interval. Rejections Claims 1–5 and 10–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Ginsberg (US 2013/0162449 A1, pub. June 27, 2013) (“Ginsberg”). Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ginsberg and Boldyrev et al. (US 2014/0067938 A1, pub. Mar. 6, 2014) (“Boldyrev”). Appeal 2019-005432 Application 15/110,419 3 ANALYSIS Claims 1 and 12 recite, “determining, for the navigable element, an expected time interval between consecutive devices being detected on the navigable element, the expected time interval being an amount of time during which consecutive devices are expected to be detected traversing the navigable element.” Appeal Br., Amended Claims App. (filed Oct. 24, 2018). Claim 11 includes a nearly identical recitation. Id. The Examiner finds that Ginsberg’s disclosure in paragraph 54 corresponds to the foregoing recitations of claims 1, 11, and 12. Final Act. 3, 4, 5. Ginsberg’s paragraph 54, with bold type omitted and italics added, recites: In some embodiments, traffic data collected from user devices 110 over a period of time is stored in database 129 and processed further by controller 120 to determine or refine routes proposed by routing module 126. In one specific embodiment, vehicle speed information collected over a period of time is used to determine the presence of stop signs that were not previously known by the system. Knowledge of where such stop signs are located allows the system to build in appropriate delays when considering routes that include intersections with those stop signs. Similarly, over a long period of time it may be evident that no user devices 110 have traversed a given portion of a mapped road. Such data may indicate that the road was planned but never built, that the road has been closed, or that the road is unavailable for use for some other reason. Based on such collected data, in some routing module 126 ignores such road segments as being available for a proposed route. Conversely, location and speed data from user devices 110 may indicate that a new road has been built that is not on the base map loaded into database 129, and if there is enough vehicular use of such a route, then routing module 126 assumes such a path, even though not mapped, is available for a proposed route. Appeal 2019-005432 Application 15/110,419 4 It is the Examiner’s position that based on the foregoing disclosure “there is necessarily and inherently, some expected time interval having no user devices that [Ginsberg’s system] is looking for, which may be an hour or a month.” Ans. 3. Also, the Examiner determines that “Ginsburg disclosing a ‘long period of time’ must have some established time period. Computers [sic] implementation of that invention means that the system will detect a car passing by and start a clock after every car until the next car passes and records the time between cars.” Id. The Appellant argues that Ginsberg’s statement “over a long period of time it may be evident that no user devices 110 have traversed a given portion of a mapped road,” in paragraph 54, is vague and consequently, the Examiner’s finding is inadequately supported. See Appeal Br. 10–12. The Appellant’s argument is persuasive. Although “over a long period of time” includes an interval of time, it is not necessarily the case that the interval of time is “an expected time interval between consecutive devices being detected on the navigable element, the expected time interval being an amount of time during which consecutive devices are expected to be detected traversing the navigable element” that is determined. The interval of time, i.e., “over a long period of time,” may refer to a set period of time, such as a one hour period, during which no devices are ever detected. The lack of detection of the devices may be used to determine that a road was planned but never built, that a road has been closed, or that a road is unavailable for use for some other reason. Consequently, we do not agree with the Examiner’s position that Ginsberg’s system will detect a car passing by and start a clock after every car until the next car passes and records the time between cars. Although the Examiner’s Appeal 2019-005432 Application 15/110,419 5 position offers one possibility as to how Ginsberg’s system may work, it is not necessarily the case that the system works in that manner. Therefore, the Examiner’s rejection, based on anticipation, is not adequately supported. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 11, and 12, or claims that depend therefrom, as anticipated by Ginsberg. Additionally, the Examiner fails to rely on Boldyrev in any manner that would remedy the deficiency discussed above. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 9, which depend either directly or indirectly from claim 1, as unpatentable over Ginsberg and Boldyrev. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–5, 10– 13 102(a)(2) Ginsberg 1–5, 10–13 8, 9 103(a) Ginsberg, Boldyrev 8, 9 Overall Outcome 1–5, 8–13 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation