Ex Parte Jung et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 31, 201311333850 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 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. 11/333,850 01/18/2006 Sang-Yoon Jung 678-2368 6953 66547 7590 12/31/2013 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER KIM, KYUNG J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3665 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/31/2013 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 SANG-YOON JUNG, YONG-IK CHOI and YOUNG-KHON MOON ____________ Appeal 2012-001916 Application 11/333,850 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, PATRICK R. SCANLON and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-001916 Application 11/333,850 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Sang-Yoon Jung et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): (1) claims 1-10 as unpatentable over Moroto (US 5,612,881; iss. Mar. 18, 1997) and Shilcrat (US 5,963,948; iss. Oct. 5, 1999); and (2) claim 11 as unpatentable over Moroto, Shilcrat and Nimura (US 6,125,323; iss. Sep. 26, 2000). We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter “relates to a navigation system, and more particularly[,] to a method for finding a path from a start point to an end point (destination) in a navigation system.” Spec.1, ll. 13-15; figs. 3A-3C. Claims 1, 6 and 8 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites: 1. A method for finding a path in a navigation system, the method comprising: selecting at least one entire path option of predetermined path options for an entire section between a start point and an end point; selecting at least one sectional path option different from the at least one entire path option of the predetermined path options for a specific section selected by a user from the entire section, so as to find an ideal path; and finding a path in the specific section according to the at least one sectional path option and creating an entire path for the entire section by employing the path in the specific section. Appeal 2012-001916 Application 11/333,850 3 ANALYSIS Obviousness over Moroto and Shilcrat - Claims 1-10 Appellants do not present separate arguments for independent claims 1, 6 and 8. App. Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 1-3. Appellants do not present additional arguments for dependent claims 2-5, 7, 9 and 10 separate from those directed against the rejection of independent claims 1, 6 and 8. App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 3. Accordingly, Appellants have argued claims 1-10 as a group for purposes of the rejection of those claims under § 103(a). Claim 1 is representative of the group and is selected for review, with claims 2-10 standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011). Independent claim 1 recites the steps of (1) “selecting at least one entire path option of predetermined path options . . . ;” and (2) “selecting at least one sectional path option different from the at least one entire path option of the predetermined path options . . . ” App. Br., Clms. App’x. The Examiner found that Moroto discloses the limitations of claim 1 except that “Moroto [] does not expressly disclose: predetermined path options and [at least one sectional path option] different from the at least one entire path option of the predetermined path options.” Ans. 4-5. The Examiner further found that “Shilcrat discloses: predetermined path options (user desired characteristics) . . . and [at least one sectional path option] different from the at least one entire path option of the predetermined path options.” Id. at 5 (citing Shilcrat, Abstract, col. 4, ll. 62-67, col. 5, ll. 1-39, col. 34, ll. 65-67, col. 35, ll. 1-28 and col. 37, ll. 8-30). The Examiner reasoned that “Moroto [] and Shilcrat both teach navigation and creating paths that guide the user to destinations” and concluded that “[i]t would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add the Appeal 2012-001916 Application 11/333,850 4 predetermined path options of Shilcrat to the navigation system of Moroto [] in order generate paths that conform best to user-specified timing considerations” Ans. 5-6 (citing Shilcrat, col. 3, ll. 33-50). Appellants assert that Shilcrat fails to teach or suggest the steps of (1) “selecting at least one entire path option of predetermined path options for an entire section between a start point and an end point;” and (2) “selecting at least one sectional path option different from the at least one entire path option of the predetermined path options for a specific section selected by a user from the entire section, so as to find an ideal path.” See Reply Br. 1-3; see also App. Br. 5-6. Specifically, Appellants assert that [i]n regards to the mention in Shilcrat of “visit dairy and frozen food last” in a shopping trip, Shilcrat is simply describing selection of an end point, and the mention of adding a route for “a user [who] wants to stop for coffee” during a shopping trip of Shilcrat is simply a selection of a specific route point. Shilcrat fails to disclose whether the end point (e.g. dairy and frozen food) and the specific route point (i.e. the route to get coffee) is selected using predetermined path options or otherwise. Therefore, the setting of the “dairy and frozen food last” in a shopping trip of Shilcrat does not correspond to selecting at least one entire path option of the predetermined path options for an entire section between a start point and an end point, as recited in Claim 1. In addition, the adding to a route for getting coffee into the middle of shopping trip of Shilcrat does not correspond to selecting at least one sectional path option different from the at least one entire path option of the predetermined path options for a specific section selected by a user from the entire section, so as to find an ideal path, as recited in Claim 1. Appeal 2012-001916 Application 11/333,850 5 Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner stated that [i]n the claim language, “entire path option” is interpreted as being the option for the entire trip. “Sectional path option” is interpreted as being the option for a section of that trip; the options being user characteristics such as: fastest route, or the shortest route, etc. The second phrase of claim 1 at issue is interpreted as allowing the user to select a portion of the (entire) path and change the characteristic (the option) for that portion only. Ans. 13. In addition, the Examiner found that [Shilcrat] discloses that the path is “optimized by desired user chosen characteristics (e.g., least distance to traverse; schedule most crowded areas first/last, etc.; schedule in lunch/dinner/food break; visit dairy and frozen foods last; etc.) is designed.” (Column 37, lines 8-14). Furthermore, [Shilcrat] discloses that the [sic.] allows the user to add spots to be visited, such as stopping for coffee, using the profile database, to create a variety of paths based on options such as shortest distance, or avoid most crowded areas or get frozen food last, as well as other options (Col. 37, lines 17-30). Id. The Examiner further reasoned that [a]lthough not expressly disclosed [in Shilcrat], the sectional path option is different from the overall path option. For example, the user wants to get dairy and frozen foods last (entire path option), to ensure that the dairy and frozen foods are cool as long as possible. But during the middle of shopping trip, the user wants to get coffee and adds that into the trip (sectional path) so that the coffee Appeal 2012-001916 Application 11/333,850 6 break is placed to minimize extraneous walking (sectional oath option). Ans. 13-14. In other words, based on the Examiner’s findings and stated reasoning, Shilcrat discloses the steps of (1) selecting at least one entire path option (i.e., visit dairy and frozen foods last) from the predetermined path options (i.e., least distance to traverse; schedule most crowded areas first/last; schedule in lunch/dinner/food break; visit dairy and frozen foods last); and (2) selecting at least one sectional path option (i.e., stopping for coffee), which is different from the at least one entire path option of the predetermined path options. The Examiner’s findings and stated reasoning are based on rational underpinnings. Appellants have not provided any persuasive evidence of error regarding the Examiner’s findings or stated reasoning. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and claims 2-10, which fall with claim 1, as unpatentable over Moroto and Shilcrat is sustained. Obviousness over Moroto, Shilcrat and Nimura - Claim 11 Appellants assert that “[c]laim 11, which depends from Claim 8, was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moroto, Shilcrat and Nimura, which fails to cure the defects of Moroto and Shilcrat that are set forth above.” App. Br. 7. As discussed above, we are not persuaded by these arguments. Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 as unpatentable over Moroto, Shilcrat and Nimura. DECISION We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-11. Appeal 2012-001916 Application 11/333,850 7 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Vsh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation