Ex Parte Tracton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2016

12627278 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/627,278 11130/2009
11764 7590
Ditthavong & Steiner, P,C,
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
11/02/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kenneth Tracton
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.
P3626USOO 3745
EXAMINER
LI, CELI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3661
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2016 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):
docket@dcpatent.com
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENNETH TRACTON, QUINN JACOBSON, CYNTHIA KUO,
ANDRIY SHNYR, and CIPRIAN CUDALBU
Appeal2014-007469
Application 12/627,278
Technology Center 3600
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Kenneth Tracton et al. (Appellants) seek review, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a), of the Examiner's decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action
dated October 11, 2013 ("Final Act."), rejecting claims 1-20. 1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Nokia Corporation as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2014-007469
Application 12/627,278
BACKGROUND
The disclosed subject matter is a method and apparatus for presenting
contextually appropriate navigation instructions. See Spec., Title. Claims 1,
8, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a request, from a device, for
guidance information to a destination, wherein the
guidance information includes, at least in part,
instructions for following a route to the destination;
determining a plurality of candidate reference
points associated with the route;
selecting one or more of the plurality of
candidate reference points to include in the
instructions based on saliency of the plurality of
candidate reference points with respect to one or
more of comprehension parameters associated with
a user; and
generating the instructions based on the one
or more selected reference points,
wherein the comprehension parameters
represent an ability of the user to comprehend the
guidance information based on characteristics of the
one or more of the plurality of candidate reference
points.
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bouget (US 2006/0111834 Al, published May
25, 2006) and Cioffi (US 2010/0241350 Al, published Sept. 23, 2010).
2
Appeal2014-007469
Application 12/627,278
2. Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bouget, Cioffi, and Kortge (US 2006/0247852
Al, published Nov. 2, 2006).
3. Claims 7 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bouget, Cioffi, Kortge, and Raab (US 2009/0228196 Al,
published Sept. 10, 2009).
4. Claims 4, 11, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bouget, Cioffi, and Ettinger (US 2008/0262717 Al,
published Oct. 23, 2008).
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1 - The rejection of claims 1-3, 8-10,
and 16--18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
A. Independent Claims 1, 8, and 16
Appellants argue claim 1, stating that claims 8 and 16 stand or fall
together with claim 1. Appeal Br. 6. The Examiner relied on paragraphs 5
through 9 of Bouget for various aspects of claim 1, but stated that "Bouget
does not explicitly disclose wherein the comprehension parameters relate to
the ability of the user to recognize the selected one or more reference
points." Final Act. 3. The Examiner stated, however, that Cioffi teaches
"comprehension parameters [that] represent an ability of the user to
comprehend the guidance information based on characteristics of the one or
more of the plurality of candidate reference points (Abstract, paragraphs
3
Appeal2014-007469
Application 12/627,278
0007, 0034---0035, 0042, 0050--0072, Blind users)." ld. 2 The Examiner
stated that
Id.
given the teaching of Cioffi, it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of
modifying the method/apparatus of Bouget by employing the
well-known or conventional features selecting landmark for
blind user[s], to enable the blind users to navigate to the
destination safely.
Appellants contend that the Examiner relied on "Cioffi 's vision status
field ... to provide the missing teachings" regarding the comprehension
parameters. Appeal Br. 7. 3 Appellants state that the "provisional
application 61/161,356 of Cioffi was filed on March 18, 2009 which was
before the priority date of the present application, November 30, 2009" and
argue that "the provision[ al] application neither mentions 'sighted', nor
discloses any vision status field, which designates the user as sighted or
blind, and enables the system to filter out or leave in blind portions of
narrative map data" and thus "does not disclose any 'vision status field' that
was relied upon by the Examiner to teach "the comprehension parameter[]"
limitation. Appeal Br. 7, 8.4 According to Appellants, because "Cioffi was
filed on March 18, 2010, subsequent to the priority date of the present
2 We will refer to this limitation (at the end of claim 1) as the
"comprehension parameters" limitation.
3 Paragraph 34 of Cioffi provides, in relevant part: "Field 1231F
includes a vision status field, which designates the user as sighted or blind,
and enables the system to filter out or leave in blind portions of narrative
map data."
4 We will refer to U.S. Provision Application 61/161,356 as the
"Cioffi Provisional."
4
Appeal2014-007469
Application 12/627,278
application, November 30, 2009," "Ciojjz does not constitute prior art with
respect to the claimed inventions." Appeal Br. 8.
In response, the Examiner states to have "not use[d] 'vision status
field' in the actual office action." Ans. 2. Instead, the Examiner relies on
"'blindness'" to address the comprehension parameters limitation. Id. The
Examiner also states that the Cioffi Provisional
teaches selecting one or more of the plurality of candidate
reference points to include in the instructions based on saliency
of the one or more candidate reference points with respect to
blindness of a user (pages 17-18 of provisional application,
blindness wayfinding is choosing specific landmarks [reference
points] that are qualified for blind travelers, which means
filtering out those landmarks that are not qualified for blind
traveler, blindness is the comprehension parameters for selecting
landmarks [reference points] and represent an ability of the user
to comprehend the guidance information). Therefore, the
provisional application of Cioffi does constitute prior art with
respect to the claimed inventions.
Ans. 2-3.
In reply, Appellants contend that "'blindness' (alleged comprehension
parameters) does not represent an ability of the user to comprehend the
textual or audible way-finding instructions/information (alleged guidance
information)." Reply Br. 2. According to Appellants, "'[b]lindness'
represents, at best, an ability of the user to see visual information, but does
not represent an ability of the user to comprehend the way-finding
instructions because there is no correlation between the ability to see and the
ability to comprehend." Id. at 3; see also id. (stating that "'blindness' does
not represent an ability of the blind user to comprehend/understand the
guidance information").
5
Appeal2014-007469
Application 12/627,278
We first address the status of Cioffi as prior art as of the filing date of
the Cioffi Provisional. Appellants' argument that the Cioffi Provisional
"does not disclose any 'vision status field"' (Appeal Br. 8) does not
demonstrate error in the Examiner's position because the Examiner does not
rely on the "vision status field" disclosed in Cioffi (see i-f 34) to address the
"comprehension parameters" limitation.5 See Ans. 2. Because Appellants
do not raise additional arguments regarding the status of Cioffi as prior art as
of the filing date of the Cioffi Provisional (Appeal Br, 7-8; Reply Br. 2--4),
we are not apprised of error here.
We tum now to the argument regarding the "comprehension
parameters" limitation. See Reply Br. 2-3. Here, we agree with the
Examiner that "blindness does represent an ability of the user to comprehend
guidance information" because, "[i]f the user is blind, the user does not have
the ability to see anything including reference points and to comprehend
guidance information like a regular person without blindness." Ans. 3. The
fact that other factors might also impact the ability of a user to
"comprehend" guidance information does not undermine the finding that
"blindness" satisfies the "comprehension parameters" limitation. See Reply
Br. 3 ("For example, a blind user may not be able to understand the way-
finding instructions due to language difference, intellectual disability,
hearing impairment, etc."). Moreover, we note that paragraph 65 of the
Specification provides that "the comprehension parameters may include a
5 For this same reason, we are not apprised of error based on
Appellants' argument that, "[ e ]ven assuming, arguendo, Cioffi constituted
prior art with respect to the claimed inventions, Cioffi' s vision status field
(alleged comprehension parameters) does not" satisfy the "comprehension
parameters" limitation. Appeal Br. 8.
6
Appeal2014-007469
Application 12/627,278
literacy parameter, a visual impairment parameter, a language parameter, a
combination thereof, etc." (emphasis added).
We tum now to an additional argument raised in the Reply Brief, in
which Appellants contend that "one skilled in the art would not be motivated
to add the asserted comprehension parameter in Cioffi, i.e., 'blindness' into
Bouget, since Bouget 's visual guiding system serves only sighted users."
Reply Br. 3 (discussing Final Act. 3, 11. 15-20). According to Appellants,
"the asserted motivation actually discourages any such combining attempt,
since Bouget 's visual signs (such as colour of a sign, paragraph [0066])
cannot help Cioffi 's blind users." Id. Appellants state that "[a]lthough
Bouget may render the visual guiding instructions vocally in real time whilst
the user is approaching a POI (paragraphs [0070], [0019]), Bouget's visual
guiding instructions (such as 'tum right at a Nokia store') cannot help
Cioffi 's blind users." Id. at 4.
We are not apprised of error based on the various differences in the
relied-upon prior art because Appellants have not shown that the differences
identified undermine the factual findings or reasoning relied on to support
the conclusion of obviousness. See Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 2--4; see also KSR
Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007) ("[F]amiliar items may
have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a
person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents
together like pieces of a puzzle."). Here, the Examiner relies on certain
teachings of Cioffi to modify "the method/apparatus of Bouget by
employing the well-known or conventional features selecting landmark for
blind user, to enable the blind users to navigate to the destination safely."
Final Act. 3 (emphasis added). Thus, that Bouget may not disclose
7
Appeal2014-007469
Application 12/627,278
providing guidance to blind users does not show error. See Jn re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-obviousness cannot be
established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references.").
For the reasons set forth above, we sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 as unpatentable over the combined teachings relied
upon by the Examiner. Claims 8 and 16 fall with claim 1.
B. Dependent Claims 2, 9, and 17
Appellants argue dependent claims 2, 9, and 17 as a group. Appeal
Br. 6, 9. We select claim 2 as representative, with the remaining claims
standing or falling with claim 2. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants contend that, in addressing claim 2, the Examiner
"implicitly acknowledged that Bouget does not disclose" the limitation
"wherein the selection is based, at least in part, on the weighting." Appeal
Br. 9. Appellants argue that the Examiner "asserted that Cioffi disclose[ s ]"
that limitation but that "Cioffi merely discloses selecting the starting
landmark and the ending landmark based on a user input" and that "nowhere
does Cioffi disclose selecting reference points between the starting landmark
and the ending landmark based on any weighting, especially weighting of
the reference points." Id. Appellants also argue that "the alleged
comprehension parameters (the vision status field) do not disclose the
weighting" and that "[ w ]hether the user is sighted or blind is not being
weighted in the vision status field." Id. Appellants conclude, "[t]hus, Cioffi
does not disclose selecting reference points based on the weighting or the
comprehension parameters." Id.
8
Appeal2014-007469
Application 12/627,278
We are not apprised of error here. In the Otlice Action, the Examiner
set forth the language of claim 2 and cited paragraphs 12 and 50 through 69
of Bouget. See Final Act. 4. The Examiner also stated that "Cioffi teaches
selecting reference points based on comprehension parameters (blind[]
users)." Id. In the Answer, the Examiner discusses paragraphs 12 and 50
through 69 of Bouget and certain specific disclosures on pages 1 7 and 18 of
the Cioffi Provisional. See Ans. 4. As to the argument regarding the "vision
status field," as noted above, the Examiner does not rely on that aspect of
Cioffi in the Rejection. See Ans. 2. As to the argument that Cioffi does not
disclose selecting reference points between the starting landmark and the
ending landmark based on weighting, Appellants do not apprise us of error
in the Examiner's findings regarding the Cioffi Provisional and "reference
points":
Cioffi teaches weighting and selecting reference points based on
blindness [comprehension parameter] of the user and contextual
characteristics of the reference point (pages 17-18 of provisional
application of Cioffi, the landmarks are weighted on the constant
and permanent of auditory, olfactory, proprioceptive, tactile
quality, to qualify as a useful orientation aid for a blind traveler,
blindness wayfinding weights and selects landmarks to help
blind users to accomplish navigation safely and independently).
Therefore, the combination of Bouget and Cioffi does teach
selecting reference points based on the weighting or the
comprehension parameters.
Ans. 4. 6 Here, Appellants have not apprised us of error in the findings (Final
Act. 4; Ans. 4) that the combination of Bouget and Cioffi satisfy the
limitation at issue.
6 Although the Examiner discusses pages 1 7 and 18 of the Cioffi
Provisional, we note that the teachings of the "Exemplary definitions"
section on those pages can be found in paragraphs 15 through 22 of Cioffi.
9
Appeal2014-007469
Application 12/627,278
For the reasons set forth above, we sustain the rejection of claim 2 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings relied upon by the Examiner.
Claims 9 and 17 fall with claim 2.
C. Dependent Claims 3, 10, and 18
Because Appellants do not separately argue claims 3, 10, and 18
(Appeal Br. 6-9), which depend from claims discussed above, we sustain the
rejection of claims 3, 10, and 18.
Rejections 2 through 4-The rejections of claims 4-7,
11-15, 19, and20under35U.S.C.§103(a)
Appellants do not separately argue claims 4--7, 11-15, 19, and 20
(Appeal Br. 10-11), which depend from claims discussed above. Thus, for
the reasons discussed above, we sustain the rejection of these claims.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the decision to reject claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10