Ex Parte HUTH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 22, 2019

15309427 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
15/309,427 11/07/2016
26111 7590 03/26/2019
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK A VENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
Andre HUTH
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
4557.0130001 1711
EXAMINER
MARTINEZ BORRERO, LUIS A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2019 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):
e-office@stemekessler.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDRE HUTH
Appeal2019-001332
Application 15/309,427
Technology Center 3600
Before JAMES P. CALVE, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 11-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Armato (US 2014/0067260 Al; published Mar. 6, 2014) and Soundararajan
(US 2015/0063700 Al; published Mar. 5, 2015). 2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Audi AG, the applicant as provided for under 37 C.F.R. § 1.46, is also
identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Appeal is taken from the Final Office Action dated August 14, 2017, as
supplemented by the Advisory Action dated November 9, 2017.
Appeal 2019-001332
Application 15/309,427
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 11 and 22 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 11,
reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized for emphasis, is
exemplary of the subject matter on appeal.
11. A method for operating a navigation system of a
motor vehicle, comprising:
receiving a first geodetic position and a first address
assigned to the first geodetic position from a destination
data record obtained from an Internet source;
determining test addresses accessible to the motor
vehicle based on geodetic assignable digital map data
available to the navigation system, wherein each of the test
addresses comprise at least one street name in a destination
region describing geodetic positions;
comparing a character string describing the first
address with character strings describing the test
addresses;
selecting a second address from the test addresses
based on the character string comparisons, wherein a
character string describing the second address, as
compared to the character strings describing the other ones
of the test addresses, deviates a least from the character
string describing the first address;
determining level of deviation between the first
address and the second address;
comparing the level of deviation against a
predetermined threshold; and
operating the navigation system, based on the
comparison against the predetermined threshold, to
navigate the motor vehicle to the second address.
2
Appeal 2019-001332
Application 15/309,427
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Regarding independent claim 11, the Examiner finds that Armato
discloses, inter alia, the claimed steps of selecting a second address from the
test addresses (citing Armato ,r,r 47--49) and operating the navigation system
to navigate the motor vehicle to the second address ( citing Armato ,r,r 15, 1 7,
19). Final Act. 5-7.
Appellant argues that the Examiner errs by equating the claimed
second address, which must be selected from test addresses, to Armato' s
approximate geocoordinates 320, which is "generated from 'test addresses'
in table 220." Appeal Br. 8. In other words, Appellant submits that
"assuming arguendo that Armato' s entries in table 220 meet the
requirements of the recited 'test addresses,' the approximate geocoordinates
320 are not selected from the 'test addresses' in table 220 as required by the
claims" (id. ( citing Armato ,r 65) ), rather, "Armato describes generating a
third address based on the alleged test addresses in table 220." Id. at 9.
The Examiner responds that Armato discloses "a comparison is made
between a selected address and approximated geocoordinates to determine
discrepancies in term[ s] of distance in order to locate a destination." Ans. 4
( citing Armato ,r 59 ( disclosing server 110 may have received and also
approximated geocoordinates 210 for destination site 118, and may compare
the received and approximated geocoordinates 210 to determine whether
there is any discrepancy greater than a particular magnitude). Thus, the
Examiner determines that "it could be appreciated that ... navigating to the
claimed second address presents the user selecting an address." Id.
3
Appeal 2019-001332
Application 15/309,427
We are persuaded by Appellant's argument. The Specification
distinguishes between an address, for example, "[a] mailing address or the
like" and a geodetic position, "often referred to as geocoordinates." Spec. 2.
Claim 11, supra, requires in relevant part,
determining test addresses accessible to the motor vehicle based
on geodetic assignable digital map data ... wherein each of the
test addresses comprise at least one street name . . . [ and] a
destination region describing geodetic positions[,] ... selecting
a second address from the test addresses . . . , and operating the
navigation system ... to navigate the motor vehicle to the second
address.
In the embodiment relied on by the Examiner, Armato discloses that
[i]f server 110 determines that either address 310 or the
geocoordinates of address 310 are not stored in table 220, server
110 may generate approximate geocoordinates 320 of address
310 . ... For example, the approximate geocoordinates 320 may
inform transporter 116 of the approximate location of destination
site 118.
Armato , 4 7. More particularly, Armato discloses that
[s]erver 110 may use addresses that are near or within a
predetermined distance of destination site 118 to determine the
approximate geocoordinates 320. In particular, embodiments,
server 110 may use table 220 to determine addresses that are near
address 310. For example, server 110 may determine addresses
in table 220 ... that are on the same street as address 310. After
determining these addresses, server 110 may use the
geocoordinates of these addresses to approximate the
geocoordinates 320 of address 310.
Id. ,I 48.
Armato's server, as represented in Figure 3, receives a first address,
i.e., destination address 310, as claimed, and determines test addresses,
4
Appeal 2019-001332
Application 15/309,427
which are near to the destination site 118. However, Armato does not
disclose selecting a second address from the test addresses for navigation to
the second address, as claimed. Rather, as argued by Appellant, Armato
uses the test addresses to approximate the geocoordinates 320 of the first
address 310. Further, although Armato discloses that "geocoordinates may
represent the latitude, longitude, and altitude of an address" (i-f 49, emphasis
added), Armato stops short of disclosing that geocoordinates 320 is an
address, such that the second address of claim 11 reads on geocoordinates
320. Armato thus creates a representative address based on test addresses in
table 220, but this new address is in geocoordinates and differs from test
addresses in the table. Thus, the Examiner's reliance on Armato's
geocoordinates 320 for disclosing the claimed second address is not
supported by Armato.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 11 and claims 12-21 depending therefrom. The
Examiner relies on the same findings with respect to Armato in the rejection
of independent claim 22, and therefore, for essentially the same reasons
stated supra, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 22 and
claims 23-26 depending therefrom.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 11-26 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
5