Heiko Mund et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 4, 2019

13977793 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 4, 2019)

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.
13/977,793 09/23/2013 Heiko Mund 2258/US 6000
75090 7590 09/04/2019
TOMTOM INTERNATIONAL B.V.
IP Creation
De Ruyterkade 154
AMSTERDAM, 1011 AC
NETHERLANDS
EXAMINER
TRAN, KIM THANH THI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/04/2019 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):
patents@tomtom.com
tony@parklegal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte HEIKO MUND and HANNES SCHARMANN
____________________

Appeal 2018-008289
Application 13/977,7931
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–18, and 21–23. Claims 3, 19, and 20 are
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1 Appellants’ Brief (“Br.”) identifies Tom Tom Global Content, B.V. as the
real party in interest. Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-008289
Application 13/977,793

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to matching probe traces to a digital vector
map. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method for matching traces derived from probe data to
one or more line segments in a digital map, said digital map
configured to store a plurality of line segments spatially
associated within a coordinate system, the method comprising:
providing at least one probe trace having a plurality of
spatially associated trace points located within the coordinate
system of the digital map;
determining, by a processor, a matching candidate for each
line segment within a specified distance of each trace point;
generating, by the processor, a graph, the graph having a
plurality of sequential levels, each level corresponding to a trace
point, with adjacent trace points corresponding to adjacent levels
in the graph, the generating comprising adding the matching
candidates for each trace point to the graph as nodes in a level
corresponding to the trace point and connecting an edge between
the node for each matching candidate and nodes for one or more
matching candidates in adjacent levels of the graph;
selecting, by the processor, at least one path of matching
candidates of the graph as a match result; and
generating, by the processor, a digital map based on the
match result.
Br. 24 (Claims Appendix).

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Smartt US 2006/0155464 A1 July 13, 2006
Wells US 2007/0104389 A1 May 10, 2007
Hagan US 2013/0030692 A1 Jan 31, 2013
Appeal 2018-008289
Application 13/977,793

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4–12, 14–18, and 21–23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hagan and Smartt. Final Act. 6.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hagan, Smartt and Wells. Final Act. 13.

ISSUES
First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Hagan and Smartt
teach or suggest the limitations “generating . . . a graph . . .” as recited in
independent claims 1 and 16?
Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Hagan teaches or
suggests “selecting . . . at least one path of matching candidates of the graph
as a match result,” as recited in claims 1 and 16?
Third Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Hagan and Smartt
teach or suggest “two nodes of the graph are connected with an edge if a
local topological connection exists between both matching candidates in the
digital map,” as recited in dependent claims 2 and 17?
Fourth Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Hagan and Smartt
teach or suggest “scoring the graph,” as recited in dependent claim 4?
Fifth Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Hagan and Smartt
teach or suggest “said scoring includes establishing scoring criteria based on
at least one of the number of connected matching candidates in a path and
the mean distance,” as recited in claim 5?
Sixth Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Hagan and Smartt
teach or suggest “simplifying the graph,” as recited in claim 9?
Appeal 2018-008289
Application 13/977,793

4
Seventh Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Hagan and Smartt
teach or suggest “said simplifying includes removing at least one node
having the same level like any node of a previously selected path from the
graph,” as recited in claim 10?
Eighth Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Hagan and Smartt
teach or suggest “said simplifying includes removing nodes with a distance
between the matching candidate and the corresponding trace point greater
than a predefined maximal distance,” as recited in claim 11?

ANALYSIS
First Issue—“generating a graph”
In rejecting claim 1 as obvious over Hagan and Smartt, the Examiner
finds that Hagan teaches most of the limitations, but does not teach the
“generating . . . a graph” limitation of claim 1. Final Act. 6–7 (“H[a]gan
does not teach ‘generating, by the processor, a graph. . . .”). The Examiner
introduces Smartt to cure Hagan’s deficiency. Final Act. 7 (citing Smartt
¶¶ 39–40, 67; Figs. 3–5); Ans. 12–13 (citing Smartt, Table 1, ¶¶ 43, 44, 47,
53, and 67; Figs. 7, 8, and 11B). The Examiner explains that Smartt
suggests the “generating . . . a graph” limitation because Table 1 of Smartt
depicts “[m]atching statistics of GPU trace to roadway graph elements” and
because Smartt describes that “the graph . . . has connection between
points.” Ans. 12 (emphasis omitted).
Appellants argue the rejection is in error because “Smartt does not
describe or suggest a graph such as in the independent claims and/or any
operation involving a graph.” Br. 11–12. Appellants further argue that
“Hagan does not describe or suggest a graph with matching candidates as
Appeal 2018-008289
Application 13/977,793

5
nodes such as in the independent claim and/or selecting at least one path of
matching candidates of the graph as a match result.” Br. 13.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. In issues involving
claims under examination, we interpret Appellants' claims according to their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re
ICON Health & Fitness, 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The claim
term “graph” is not defined in the Specification and therefore we consider
the plain language of the claim in determining the scope of the claim term
“graph.” We agree with the Examiner that Smartt’s Table 1 teaches
generating a graph. In particular, Smartt’s Table 1 explicitly states that
“Match[es] statistics of GPS trace to roadway graph elements.” As such, we
are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Smartt fails to teach or
suggest “generating . . . a graph” as recited in claim 1. We further note that
the Examiner provides additional explanation and support in the Examiner’s
Answer. See Ans. 12–13. Appellants’ arguments do not address these
findings because Appellants did not file a Reply Brief. As such, the
additional findings in the Answer are uncontested in the record, and
Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s determination that
Smartt teaches the “generating . . . a graph” limitation.
Second Issue—the “selecting” limitation
Appellants also contend Hagan does not teach or suggest “selecting,
by the processor, at least one path of matching candidates of the graph as
a match result.” Br. 13. Appellants, referencing the Examiner’s citation to
paragraph 241 of Hagan, specifically argue: “In no way does this section of
Hagan describe or suggest ‘selecting, by the processor, at least one path of
matching candidates of the graph as a match result.’” Id.
Appeal 2018-008289
Application 13/977,793

6
Although the Examiner cites to only paragraph 241 of Hagan for this
disputed limitation in the Final Action, the Examiner provides additional
findings and clarifications in his Answer. Ans. 14, citing Hagan ¶¶ 21, 26,
33. Specifically, the Examiner finds Hagan’s curvature or elevation
information is used to determine which of the candidate nodes or lines or
segments in the second map is the best match to the node. Id. As mentioned
above, Appellants did not file a Reply Brief in response the Examiner’s
additional findings. Without any evidence or argument to the contrary, we
accept the Examiner’s findings and agree that Hagan’s selection of a most
likely candidate node and/or candidate line or segment for use in the route
calculation teaches or at least suggests the disputed limitation.
Because we do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive of
Examiner error, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 6–8, 12–15, 18, and 21–23, for which Appellants do not present
separate arguments.
Third Issue—Claims 2 and 17
Appellants argue separately for patentability of claims 2 and 17
contending that the Examiner has erred in finding Hagan teaches the
limitation “two nodes of the graph are connected with an edge if a local
topological connection exists between both matching candidates in the
digital map.” Br. 14–15. Appellants argue that, because the Examiner
acknowledges that Hagan does not teach the “generating a graph” limitation
in claim 1, it is impossible for Hagan to teach “two nodes of the graph are
connected with an edge if a local topological connection exists between both
matching candidates in the digital map” as recited in claim 2. Appellants
Appeal 2018-008289
Application 13/977,793

7
further assert that the description in Hagan cited by the Examiner “has
nothing to do with the language of dependent claims 2 and 17” because it
merely describes “how a match in longitudinal and latitudinal coordinates an
LRP (“location reference point”) and two candidate nodes is resolved.”
Br 15. We are not persuaded of Examiner error.
In the Answer, the Examiner explains that the rejection is based both
on the teachings of Smartt and on the teachings of Hagan:
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument, because
Smartt fairly teaches the graph (Please see argument at claim 1
above). Hagan [par. 142] discloses the length of the starting node
to ending nodes and add up the length, since Applicant does not
particularly define the “scoring” or how to scoring the graph.
Therefore, the combination of Hagan and Smartt fairly teaches
the claim[ed] invention.
Ans. 15–16. As noted above, Appellants have not filed a Reply Brief. As
such, this additional explanation is not addressed by any argument made by
Appellants and stands uncontested in this record. Appellants’ argument, as
set forth in their brief, is unpersuasive of Examiner error because it attacks
Hagan singly, while the rejection is based on the combined teachings of
Smartt and Hagan. Consequently, we sustain the rejection of claim 2 and
claim 17.
Fourth Issue—Claim 4
Appellants also argue separately for patentability of dependent
claim 4. Br. 15–17. Claim 4 depends from claim 1, and recites the
additional limitation of “scoring the graph.” The Examiner cites paragraph
142 of Hagan as teaching “scoring the graph.” Appellants argue, as they did
with claim 2, that because the Examiner acknowledges Hagan does not teach
a graph, it cannot teach “scoring a graph.” Br. 16. This argument is not
Appeal 2018-008289
Application 13/977,793

8
persuasive because in the Answer, the Examiner again clarifies that Hagan is
not relied upon for the graph, but instead is cited to show scoring of nodes in
combination with Smartt’s graph. Ans. 15.
Appellants further contend “the cited paragraph of Hagan has nothing
to do with . . . scoring a graph.” Br. 16. However, we agree with the
Examiner that Hagan’s teaching of adding distances between the nodes
shown in Figure 3 is a form of scoring. Ans. 15. Appellants do not address
the Examiner’s explanation because they did not file a Reply Brief. As such,
the Examiner’s reasonable explanation stands uncontested in the record, and
we sustain the rejection of claim 4.
Fifth Issue—Claim 5
Claim 5 depends from claim 4, and additionally recites “said scoring
includes establishing scoring criteria based on at least one of the number of
connected matching candidates in a path and the mean distance.” Br. 25
(Claims Appendix). The Examiner finds that Hagan teaches this limitation.
Final Act. 10 (citing Hagan ¶¶ 143–144). Appellants present the same
argument regarding Hagan’s failure to teach a graph, which we do not find
persuasive for the reasons discussed above. Br. 17. Appellants further argue
the cited portion of Hagan “has nothing to do with . . . establishing a
specified scoring criteria for scoring a graph” and instead relates to an
encoding process for checking a location for validity. Br. 17.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. In the Answer, the
Examiner provides additional findings and explanation. In particular, the
Examiner additionally cites paragraph 161 in Hagan, and explains that it
teaches scoring multiple candidate nodes in the map by using longitudinal
and latitudinal coordinate information (i.e., distance). Ans. 16 (citing Hagan
Appeal 2018-008289
Application 13/977,793

9
¶ 161). Because they did not file a Reply Brief, Appellants have not
responded to this additional explanation and finding, which stands
uncontested in this record. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred with respect to claim 5, and we sustain its rejection.
Sixth Issue—Claim 9
Appellants also advance separate arguments for claim 9, which
depends from claim 1 and recites “further comprising simplifying the
graph.” In rejecting claim 9, the Examiner again cites Hagan. Final Act. 11
(citing Hagan ¶ 172). Appellants offer the same argument regarding
Hagan’s failure to teach a graph, which we do not find persuasive for the
reasons discussed above. Br. 19. Appellants additionally contend “[t]he
cited paragraph of Hagan has nothing to do with the language of claim 9”
and instead merely describes “using a shortest path algorithm to determine a
route through a digital map.” Br. 20. We disagree.
As explained by the Examiner, claim 9 does not require any specific
technique be used in simplifying the graph. Ans. 17 (“Applicant does not
particularly claim how to simplify[] the graph.”) Hagan teaches that a
shortest path may be defined through candidate nodes, “providing a
concatenated format . . . trimming the concatenated shortest-path according
to the offsets retrieved.” Hagan ¶ 172. We agree with the Examiner that the
“concatenated format” described by Hagan is a “simplification” within the
meaning of claim 9. Appellants’ argument fails to persuasively explain why
a concatenated format does not teach or suggest the recited “simplifying.”
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of Examiner error, and we sustain the
rejection of claim 9.
Appeal 2018-008289
Application 13/977,793

10
Seventh Issue—Claim 10
Claim 10 depends from claim 9 and recites “wherein said simplifying
includes removing at least one node having the same level like any node of a
previously selected path from the graph.” The Examiner rejects claim 10
citing Hagan. Final Act. 11 (citing Hagan, Fig. 19 and ¶ 240). Final
Act. 11. Appellants argue Hagan does not teach the recited limitation
because it “is describing data format rules that are used during an encoding
or decoding process that relate to types of nodes to be avoided.” Br. 21. We
are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Although Hagan does not explicitly teach the removal of a node, it
describes avoiding a certain nodes which are not part of the path. Avoiding
these nodes effectively removes the nodes from consideration. As such, we
agree with the Examiner that Hagan at least suggests the argued limitation,
and we sustain the rejection of claim 10.
Eighth Issue—Claim 11
Claim 11 also depends from claim 9 and recites the additional
limitation “wherein said simplifying includes removing nodes with a
distance between the matching candidate and the corresponding trace point
greater than a predefined maximal distance.” The Examiner finds claim 11
rendered obvious by Hagan’s rules definitions (Table A5), which define a
maximum distance between LRP and also define avoidable nodes. Final
Act. 11 (citing Hagan ¶ 243). Appellants argue Hagan is deficient because it
merely summarizes “data format rules that are used during an encoding or
decoding process.” Br. 22. We agree with Appellants.
The maximum difference defined by Hagan relates to the largest
difference between location reference points. Hagan ¶ 232. Hagan explains
Appeal 2018-008289
Application 13/977,793

11
that “[t]he maximum distance between two consecutive location reference
points is restricted in order to speed up shortest-path computation because
several short routes can be computed quicker than one large route.” Hagan
¶ 233. When this maximum difference is exceeded, Hagan teaches that “a
sufficient number of LRPs shall be inserted.” Hagan ¶ 232. Thus, Hagan
teaches adding nodes when the distance threshold is met, while the claim
recites “removing nodes.” As such, we are persuaded that the Examiner has
erred in determining that claim 11 is unpatentable, and we do not sustain its
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–10, 12–18,
and 21–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 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)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART