Ex Parte van der Laan et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 12, 2019

14383710 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/383,710 09/08/2014
75090 7590 06/14/2019
TOMTOM INTERNATIONAL B.V.
IP Creation
De Ruyterkade 154
AMSTERDAM, 1011 AC
NETHERLANDS
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Antoine Carl van der Laan
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.
1029/US/2 2722
EXAMINER
ALLEN, NICHOLAS E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/14/2019 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):
tony@parklegal.com
patents@tomtom.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANTOINE CARL VANDERLAAN and
RICHARD HENDRIK JOSEPHUS JONKMAN
Appeal2018-004326
Application 14/383,710 1
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JENNIFER L. MCKEOWN, and
CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-13 and 15, which constitute all pending claims.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as TomTom Traffic, B.V. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-004326
Application 14/3 83,710
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to processing data for maintenance of a database
of points of interest, such as speed limit enforcement devices, and the
maintenance of similar data that is temporary or dynamical in nature, such as
the availability of parking spaces or the availability and status of electric
vehicle charging stations. Abstract; Spec. 1:5-8, 2:18-37. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal ( emphasis
added):
1. A method of processing data for maintenance of a
database of points of interest (POI), each point of interest
represented in the database having at least one attribute and a
time-varying confidence value indicative of the accuracy of the
at least one attribute associated therewith, the method
compnsmg:
determining, by a processor, whether a confidence value
is below a predetermined threshold;
transmitting, by a transmitter, a request to one or more
remote devices to provide confirmation of an attribute of a
point of interest if it is determined that the confidence value
associated with the point of interest is below a predetermined
threshold;
receiving, by a receiver, a report relating to the attribute
in response to the transmitted request from at least one of the
remote devices; and
adjusting, by the processor, the confidence value
associated with the point of interest in accordance with the
received report.
Br. 16 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal2018-004326
Application 14/3 83,710
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-13 and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Kuhn (US 2010/0214149 Al; pub. Aug. 26, 2010)
("Kuhn") in view of Guensler et al. (US 2007/0216521 Al; pub. Sept. 20,
2007) ("Guensler"). Final Act. 2-17.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding the combination of
Kuhn and Guensler teaches the limitations of independent claims 1, 11, and
13. Br. 8-12. In particular, Appellants argue Kuhn does not teach the claim
1 limitations
transmitting, by a transmitter, a request to one or more
remote devices to provide confirmation of an attribute of a
point of interest if it is determined that the confidence value
associated with the point of interest is below a predetermined
threshold;
receiving, by a receiver, a report relating to the attribute
in response to the transmitted request from at least one of the
remote devices.
Id. ( emphasis added).
Regarding "transmitting ... , " Appellants argue that although "Kuhn
describes users providing indications of the falsity of a radar detection to a
remote database in which records of designations of falsity ( or correctness)
for radar detections are stored -- and subsequently provided to users ... ,"
"Kuhn does not describe or suggest the remote database sending, to remote
devices, requests to provide a confirmation of radar detection." Id. at 9-10
(citing Kuhn ,r,r 74, 75, 78, 120) (emphasis omitted).
3
Appeal2018-004326
Application 14/3 83,710
Regarding "receiving ... ," Appellants argue the Kuhn remote
database/servers are limited to receiving reports and sending information
based on the reports to individual detectors, and Kuhn's remote
database/servers do not send requests for confirmation to individual
detectors. Id. at 11 ( citing Kuhn ,r 85). According to Appellants:
In cited paragraph [0085], Kuhn describes an implementation in
which a mobile phone is used by a user to report a radar
detection and in which the mobile phone receives the speed trap
information from the remote database for use as described
above. Kuhn does not describe, in the cited section or
elsewhere, an operation equivalent to receiving ... a report
relating to the attribute in response to the transmitted request
from ... remote devices such as in the independent claims.
Id. at 11.
Appellants argue Guensler does not teach the limitation adjusting, by
the processor, the confidence value associated with the point of interest in
accordance with the received report. Id. at 12. According to Appellants,
Guensler describes that providers can continuously refine relative citation
risk calculations, and thereby provide algorithms that are better able to
identify relative probabilities of receiving traffic citations, but "Guensler,
however, has nothing to do with confidence values associated with points of
interest, and does not describe adjusting confidence values for points of
interest" and "does not remedy the deficiency of Kuhn." Id. at 11-12 (citing
Guensler ,r,r 4, 23, 26, 27).
Regarding the combination of Kuhn and Guensler, Appellants argue
Kuhn describes a remote database/server receiving reports from
users and distributing speed trap information based on the
received reports, but does not describe the remote database
sending requests or receiving responses based on the requests
4
Appeal2018-004326
Application 14/3 83,710
from remote devices, and Guensler describes updating an
algorithm for the computation of a likelihood of receiving a
traffic citation, but neither Kuhn nor Guensler separately
describe or suggest independent claims 1, 11, and 13. There is
further no combination of Kuhn and Guensler that describes or
suggests the independent claims.
Id. at 12.
In the Final Action, The Examiner finds Kuhn teaches the claim 1
limitations except "Kuhn does not disclose adjusting the confidence value"
( adjusting, by the processor, the confidence value associated with the point
of interest in accordance with the received report), and relies on Guensler
for this limitation. Final Act. 2-5 ( citing Kuhn ,r,r 108, 121; Guensler ,r,r 26,
27).
In the Answer, the Examiner reiterates findings and conclusions set
forth in the Final Action and presents additional findings citing additional
portions of Kuhn. Ans. 6-12 (additionally citing Kuhn ,r,r 63, 70, 124, 126,
134).
Regarding Appellants' argument that Kuhn does not describe or
suggest the remote database sending ("transmitting"), to remote devices,
requests to provide a confirmation of radar detection, the Examiner refers to
Kuhn, paragraphs 126 and 134. Id. at 6-7. The Examiner finds Kuhn
describes the detector 500 may alert the user of a detected signal and, if the
user learns it is a false alert, the user may transmit this information to the
server computer. Id. (citing Kuhn ,r 126; see also Figs. 14, 15). Regarding
"receiving ... ," the Examiner finds Kuhn describes the radar detectors 506,
504, 502, 500 receive updated data ("reports") from the server computer 514
and that confirmation would have been provided (to a remote system) in
5
Appeal2018-004326
Application 14/3 83,710
order to give the remote system the needed feedback, in order to maintain a
database of POI (e.g., speed trap). Id. at 7.
Regarding "adjusting ... " and Appellants' argument that Guensler
does not describe or suggest that an initial confidence value associated with
a point of interest is based on the source of the point of interest, the
Examiner finds the Guensler system continuously appends new vehicle
activity data and by undertaking detailed actuarial analysis of all vehicles
participating in the program (and other data collected in similar formats
procured through research studies), providers can continuously refine
relative citation risk calculations. Ans. 9 ( citing Guensler ,r,r 26, 27). The
Examiner finds "[a]ssessing risks would require adjusting of confidence
values with real-time traffic and would have been used in combination with
Kuhn in the maintenance of points of interests. A risk assessment using
real-time information is equivalent to a time-varying confidence value." Id.
at 9-10.
Dependent claim 8 recites "wherein the initial confidence value
associated with a point of interest is based on the source of the point of
interest." Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Guensler, paragraph
12 describes this claim. Br. 12-13 (citing Final Act. 9). According to
Appellants, "Guensler describes how the system calculates the probability of
receiving a traffic citation in a particular location using citation risk
algorithms" but "Guensler's calculation of the probability of receiving a
traffic citation is not, however, equivalent to the claimed 'time-varying
confidence values' indicative of the accuracy of attributes associated with
point of interest in a database." Id. at 13 (citing Guensler ,r,r 4, 23)
6
Appeal2018-004326
Application 14/3 83,710
( emphasis omitted). The Examiner's findings regarding Guensler and claim
1, discussed supra, are applicable. Ans. 9 ( citing Guensler ,r,r 26, 27).
Dependent claim 9 recites "wherein each point of interest represented
in the database has a plurality of attributes associated therewith, and the
confidence value associated with a device is a combined confidence value
indicative of the accuracy of each of the attributes." Appellants argue the
Examiner errs in finding Kuhn, Figure 9 and paragraph 124, describes
dependent claim 9. Br. 13-14 ( citing Final Act. 9-10).
In response, the Examiner refers to Kuhn, paragraphs 63 and 141.
Ans. 10-12. In particular, Kuhn describes Safety Warning System (SWS)
and Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC) beacons transmitting
and designated for vehicle use. Id.
The SWS/DSRC is an infrastructure capable of transmitting
warning information to surrounding vehicles in the vicinity of
travel of various, possibly hazardous, situations. Some
transmitted warnings include freezing bridge warnings, fog
zone warnings, rest area alerts, rail road crossing warnings, and
construction zone alerts. In accordance with principles of the
present invention, SWS information may be received and
alerted to a driver through numerous possible user interfaces as
disclosed herein.
Id. ( citing Kuhn ,r 63).
The Examiner finds that Kuhn further describes that data in addition
to coordinates may be transmitted to reduce inaccuracies. Id. at 11 ( citing
Kuhn ,r 141). The Examiner finds "Applicant's own [S]pecification defines
attributes such as driving direction (ie heading)" and "[a]ttributes are used in
Kuhn in order to provide and accurate and maintained database of POI." Id.
at 12.
7
Appeal2018-004326
Application 14/3 83,710
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments and agree, instead,
with the Examiner's findings, claim interpretation, and conclusions. On the
record before us, we find no persuasive arguments that the Examiner's
findings and claim interpretation are unreasonable, overbroad, or
inconsistent with Appellants' Specification. Additionally, we note
Appellants do not rebut the Examiner's findings and conclusions as
presented in the Examiner's Answer, discussed supra.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 13, Kuhn teaches its detectors ("remote
devices") transmit an indication of a false alert designation and the
coordinates to the server computer. Kuhn ,r 123; see also Figs. 14, 15.
Kuhn teaches its detectors receive updated data ("reports") from the server
computer and confirmation would be required to maintain a current POI
database. Id.
Guensler teaches collecting data and providing relative risk
calculations. Guensler ,r,r 26, 27. We agree with the Examiner that the
Guensler relative risk calculation is equivalent to a "time-varying confidence
value" and that one of ordinary skill in the art would employ Guensler's
teaching in the maintenance of Kuhn's points of interest.
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of independent claims
1, 11, and 13, and dependent claims 2-7, 10, 12, and 15 as these claims are
not argued separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments regarding dependent
claims 8 and 9 and, instead, are persuaded by the Examiner's findings in the
Answer, particularly the additional cited portions of Kuhn and Guensler, and
not rebutted by Appellants. Guensler ,r,r 26, 27; Kuhn ,r,r 63, 141.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 9.
8
Appeal2018-004326
Application 14/3 83,710
Appellants argue the references individually while the rejection is
based on the combination of the teachings of the cited references. In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413,426 (CCPA 1981) ("[O]ne cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references" (citations omitted).); In
re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellants also argue an unreasonably narrow teaching of the cited
references and an overly demanding standard of obviousness. The test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that
the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Keller, 642 F .2d
at 425.
As stated by the Supreme Court, the Examiner's obviousness rejection
must be based on: "'[S]ome articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness."' ...
"[H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007)
(quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
The Examiner's findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan
would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of
a puzzle" since the skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21.
9
Appeal2018-004326
Application 14/3 83,710
Based upon the teachings of the references and the fact that each
claimed element was well-known in the art, we agree with the Examiner
because the combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Id. at 415-16.
Furthermore, on this record, Appellants do not present sufficient or
persuasive evidence that the combination of the cited references was
"uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or
"represented an unobvious step over the prior art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550
U.S. at 419-21). Nor have Appellants provided objective evidence of
secondary considerations, which our reviewing court guides "operates as a
beneficial check on hindsight." Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese &
Powder Sys., Inc., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-13 and 15.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
10