Ex Parte Imler et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 27, 201311590943 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2013) 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. 11/590,943 11/01/2006 Sean Michael Imler 12729/189 (Y01512US01) 7194 56020 7590 02/27/2013 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE / YAHOO! OVERTURE P.O. BOX 10395 CHICAGO, IL 60610 EXAMINER LE, THU NGUYET T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2162 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/27/2013 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 SEAN MICHAEL IMLER and KEVIN CHENG ____________________ Appeal 2010-008331 Application 11/590,943 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JASON V. MORGAN, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-008331 Application 11/590,943 2 STATEMENT OF CASE 1 The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 1-13 and 15-26, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. The Appellants invented a system and method for dynamically retrieving data specific to a region of a layer or a map. Specification 0001. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some paragraphing added]: 1. A computer implemented method for retrieving data from a data source by querying the data source with data points of a layer, the data points being encompassed within a determined region of the layer, comprising: [1] determining, by a processor, the region of the layer, the region being displayed in accordance with a first scale and the layer being displayed in accordance with a second scale, wherein the second scale of the layer remains fixed when the first scale of the region changes and the first scale of the region changes proportionally to a change in the second scale of the layer; [2] dynamically querying the data source, by the processor, with one or more data points of the layer encompassed within the region upon determining the region; and [3] receiving, by the processor, the data from the data source. 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Nov. 23, 2009) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Apr. 16, 2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Feb. 19, 2010), and Final Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed May 12, 2009). Appeal 2010-008331 Application 11/590,943 3 REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Rasmussen Shoemaker US 2005/0270311 A1 US 2007/0064018 A1 Dec. 8, 2005 Mar. 22, 2007 REJECTIONS 2 Claims 1-13 and 15-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Shoemaker and Rasmussen. ISSUES The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-13 and 15-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shoemaker and Rasmussen turns on whether the combination of Shoemaker and Rasmussen teaches or suggests “the second scale of the layer remains fixed when the first scale of the region changes and the first scale of the region changes proportionally to a change in the second scale of the layer.” ANALYSIS The Appellants contend that the combination of Shoemaker and Rasmussen fails to teach or suggest “the second scale of the layer remains fixed when the first scale of the region changes and the first scale of the region changes proportionally to a change in the second scale of the layer,” as recited in independent claim 1 and as similarly recited in independent claims 16 and 23. App. Br. 4-7 and Reply Br. 2-3. 2 The Examiner’s previously submitted rejections of 2 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with written description requirement and 23-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed towards non- statutory subject matter have been withdrawn. Ans. 3. Appeal 2010-008331 Application 11/590,943 4 We agree with the Appellants. We agree with the Examiner that Shoemaker describes a map or layer that includes a lens/magnifying glass to view a region and the area within the selected region can be changed according to a first scale. Ans. 10-11 (citing Shoemaker Figs. 4-5 and ¶¶ 0052 and 0075). We also agree with the Examiner that Rasmussen describes a layer or map that can be changed according to a second scale. Ans. 11 (citing Rasmussen ¶ 0059). However, we disagree with the Examiner that Shoemaker suggests a combination of a layer with a second scale and a region with a first scale of Shoemaker with the changes in the second scale of the layer in Rasmussen such that “the second scale of the layer remains fixed when the first scale of the region changes and the first scale of the region changes proportionally to a change in the second scale of the layer.” We find no evidence in Shoemaker or Rasmussen, or in the combination thereof, that suggests the first scale of the region changes proportionally to a change in the second scale of the layer. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1- 13 and 15-26. Since this issue is dispositive as to the rejection of these claims, we need not reach the remaining arguments presented by the Appellants. CONCLUSIONS The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-13 and 15-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shoemaker and Rasmussen. Appeal 2010-008331 Application 11/590,943 5 DECISION To summarize, our decision is as follows. The rejection of claims 1-13 and 15-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shoemaker and Rasmussen is not sustained. REVERSED ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation