Magic Leap, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 9, 2022

2020006525 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2022)

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. 14/705,985 05/07/2015 Samuel A. MILLER ML-0227USCON8 3639 132471 7590 02/09/2022 Vista IP Law Group, LLP (Magic Leap, Inc.) 2160 Lundy Ave., Ste. 230 San Jose, CA 95131 EXAMINER WANG, JIN CHENG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2613 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/09/2022 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): docketing@viplawgroup.com sp@viplawgroup.com vlm@viplawgroup.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SAMUEL A. MILLER, RANDALL E. HAND, and RICHMOND B. CHAN ____________ Appeal 2020-006525 Application 14/705,985 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CATHERINE SHIANG, and CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application. Appeal Br. 23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Magic Leap, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief dated March 6, 2020 p. 2. Appeal 2020-006525 Application 14/705,985 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The invention relates to “systems and methods configured to facilitate interactive virtual or augmented reality environments for one or more users.” Spec. ¶ 2. In particular, [a]n augmented reality display system comprises a passable world model data comprises a set of map points corresponding to one or more objects of the real world. The augmented reality system also comprises a processor to communicate with one or more individual augmented reality display systems to pass a portion of the passable world model data to the one or more individual augmented reality display systems, wherein the piece of the passable world model data is passed based at least in part on respective locations corresponding to the one or more individual augmented reality display systems. Spec., Abstr. Independent claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method of displaying augmented reality, comprising (with emphases added to denote disputed limitations): storing a set of fingerprint data corresponding to a plurality of locations of a real world, wherein the set of fingerprint data uniquely, respectively identifies the plurality of locations; capturing a set of data corresponding to surroundings of a user through one or more sensors of an augmented reality display system used by the user, the set of data comprising a set of keyframes or images captured for a location by at least one sensor of the one or more sensors; generating or updating a topological map at least by performing a set of acts that comprises: constructing first fingerprint data for the location from at least a portion of the set of data for the location; Appeal 2020-006525 Application 14/705,985 3 representing the location of the plurality of locations of the real world as a point node of a plurality of point nodes in a topological map2 using the first fingerprint data for the location; and storing the first fingerprint data but not information about features or points that have been captured in the set of keyframes or images in the topological map for the point node; storing, in a passable world model on a remote computing system rather than in the topological map, the set of keyframes or images of the set of data associated with the point node; identifying a location of the user with a granular localization process that comprises identifying a first point node in the topological map for the location, rather than by using GPS (global positioning system) data or information or data obtained from points or features extracted from the set of keyframes or images that is- associated with respective poses, based at least in part on fingerprint data for the location and corresponding fingerprint data for the first point node in the set of fingerprint data; and rendering virtual contents for display to the user at least by retrieving geometric information and one or more keyframes pertaining to the location of the user from the remote computing system to determine where to display the virtual contents to the user. 2 If prosecution reopens, we recommend Appellant consider whether the limitation should be “the topological map” instead. Appeal 2020-006525 Application 14/705,985 4 References and Rejections3 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1-20 112(a) Written Description 1-20 112(b) Indefiniteness 1-3, 5-6, 8- 20 103 Hofmann (US 2015/0070347 A1, publ. Mar. 12, 2015), Gourlay (US 2015/0145985 A1, publ. May 28, 2015), D. Xiong, et al., “Topological Localization Based on Key-frames Selection and Vocabulary Tree for Mobile Robots”, Proc. of the IEEE International Conf. on Robotics and Biometrics (ROBIO), Shenzhen, China, Dec. 2013, pp. 2505-2510 (“Xiong”), Schmalstieg (US 2014/0321702 A1, publ. Oct. 30, 2014), KIS (US 2014/0232748 A1, publ. Aug. 21, 2014), Pirchheim (US 2012/0300979 A1, publ. Nov. 29, 2012), Martini (US 20150209673 A1, publ. July 30, 2015), Swaminathan (US 2014/0059037 A1, publ. Feb. 27, 2014), Official Notice (based on Lim (US 8,913,055 B2, iss. Dec. 16, 2014), Ahn (US 2013/0166137, A1, iss. June 27, 2013)) 4 103 Hofmann, Gourlay, Xiong, Schmalstieg, KIS, Pirchheim, Martini, Swaminathan, Official Notice (based on Lim, Ahn), Pan (US 2014/0279860 A1, publ. Sept. 8, 2014) 7 103 Hofmann, Gourlay, Xiong, Schmalstieg, KIS, Pirchheim, Martini, Swaminathan, Official Notice (based on Lim, Ahn), Keating (US 2014/0028714 A1, publ. Jan. 30, 2014) 3 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Final Office Action dated Oct. 4, 2019 (“Final Act.”); (2) Appeal Brief dated Apr. 20, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); (3) Examiner’s Answer dated July 17, 2020 (“Ans.”); and (4) Reply Brief dated Sept. 17, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2020-006525 Application 14/705,985 5 ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) The Examiner determines claims 1-20 fail to comply with the written description requirement with respect to the limitations of storing the first fingerprint data but not information about features or points that have been captured in the set of keyframes or images in the topological map for the point node; . . . . identifying a location of the user with a granular localization process that comprises identifying a first point node in the topological map for the location, rather than by using GPS (global positioning system) data or information or data obtained from points or features extracted from the set of keyframes or images that is-associated with respective poses, based at least in part on fingerprint data for the location and corresponding fingerprint data for the first point node in the set of fingerprint data, as recited in claim 1, and corresponding dependent claims 2-20. See Final Act. 30-35; Ans. 5-16. According to the Examiner, claim 1 recites “[s]toring the first fingerprint data but not information about features or points that have been captured in the set of keyframes or images; . . . Identifying a location of the user with a granular localization process that comprises identifying a first point node in the topological map for the location, rather than by using GPS (global positioning system) data or information or data obtained from points or features extracted from the set of keyframes or images that is associated with respective poses, based at least in part on fingerprint data for the location, and corresponding fingerprint data for the first point node in the set of fingerprint data”. However, the claimed first fingerprint data in the storing step constitutes information about features that have been captured in the set of keyframes. Applicant’s claimed storing step is self-contradictory. The claimed fingerprint data in the Appeal 2020-006525 Application 14/705,985 6 identifying step constitutes information or data obtained from features extracted from the set of keyframes . . . . Applicant’s specification never precludes the fingerprint data from being a subset of {GPS data, information, data obtained from points or features extracted from the set of keyframes}. Applicant’s specification never precludes the fingerprint data from being a subset of {information about features or points that have been captured in the set of keyframes or images}. In fact, the fingerprint data such as the color histograms extracted from the set of keyframes is a subset of information about features or points that have been captured in the set of keyframes. Final Act. 31 (emphases omitted). The features such as histograms (or color histograms) extracted from the set of keyframes are used as the fingerprint data as applicant’s specification discloses. Moreover, the fingerprint data constitutes information. By excluding any of the GPS data, information, and data obtained from points or features extracted from the set of keyframes, applicant has also excluded using the fingerprint data to identify the user’s location. Applicant’s storing step recites the negative limitation of “but not information about features or points that have been captured in the set of keyframes or images”. However, the fingerprint data comprising the color histograms extracted from the keyframes is a subset of {features or points that have been captured in the set of keyframes or images}. Applicant’s fingerprint data constitutes information about features (color histograms) or points that have been captured in the set of keyframes or images. Final Act. 32 (emphasis omitted). “Applicant’s identifying step recites the negative limitation of identifying location of the user . . . ‘rather than by using GPS data or information or data obtained from points or features extracted from the set of keyframes’ . . . .” Final Act. 32 (emphasis omitted). “Applicant’s Appeal 2020-006525 Application 14/705,985 7 specification never discloses the negative claim limitation ‘rather than using’ the set of data that contains the fingerprint data while using the fingerprint data of the location to identify the location of the user.” Final Act. 34. Appellant argues the Examiner erred. See Appeal Br. 60-73; Reply Br. 4-20. In particular, with respect to the limitation “storing the first fingerprint data but not information about features or points that have been captured in the set of keyframes or images in the topological map for the point node,” Appellant cites paragraphs 313, 314, 316, 318, and 319 of the Specification and argues: ¶ [0313] first describes the claimed granular localization and the shortcoming of traditional localization approaches in that “[a]n integral part of the passable world model is to create maps of very minute areas of the real world”, that “[f]or example, in order to render virtual content in relation to physical objects, very detailed localization is required”, and that “[s]uch localization may not be achieved simply through GPS or traditional location detection techniques.” In order to address what “GPS or traditional location detection techniques” fail to do (e.g., creating maps of very minute areas of the real world”), ¶ [0313] further describes that “granular localization must be done in a cost-effective manner such that not too many resources are consumed unnecessarily”. ¶ [0314] continues from this description and describes that “[to this end, the AR system may use topological maps for localization purposes instead of GPS or retrieving detailed geometric maps created from extracted points and pose tagged images (e.g., the geometric points may be too specific, and hence most costly)”, and that “[i]n one or more embodiments, the topological map is a simplified representation of physical spaces in the real world that is easily accessible from the cloud and only presents a fingerprint of a space, and the relationship between various spaces.” Appeal Br. 68-69 (emphases omitted). Appeal 2020-006525 Application 14/705,985 8 ¶ [0318] further describes that various sources and types of data from which a “topological map may be derived” and provides an example where a “topological map may be created by histograms (e.g., a color histogram) of various rooms/areas/spaces, and be reduced to a node on the topological map.” ¶ [0318] further describes that “[i]t should be appreciated that on some level, the histogram of a particular space will be mostly constant over time (e.g., the color of the walls, the color of objects of the room, etc.)”, that “[i]n other words, each room or space has a distinct signature that is different from any other room or place”, that “[t]his unique histogram may be compared to other histograms of other spaces/areas and identified”, and that “[n]ow that the AR system knows what room the user is in, the remaining granular information may be easily accessed and downloaded.” ¶ [0319] further describes that “[t]hus, although the histogram will not contain particular information about all the features and points that have been captured by various cameras (keyframes), the system may immediately detect, based on the histogram, where the user is, and then retrieve all the more particular geometric information associated with that particular room or place”, and that “[i]n other words, rather than sorting through the vast amount of geometric and parametric information that encompasses that passable world model, the topological map allows for a quick and efficient way to localize the AR user.” Appeal Br. 69 (emphases omitted). Appellant concludes: to the extent that the claimed “first fingerprint data” includes a “color histogram” of a space, at least paragraphs describe[] that a node of the claimed topological map may “not contain particular information about all the features and points that have been captured by various cameras (keyframes)”, and that “the vast amount of geometric and parametric information” is stored in the passable world model, but not a “topological map”. Rather, ¶ [0316] describes where such detailed data is stored - “the AR system captures different types of information about Appeal 2020-006525 Application 14/705,985 9 the user’s surroundings (e.g., map points, features, pose tagged images, objects in a scene, etc.). This information is processed and stored in the cloud such that it can be retrieved as needed.” Therefore, Appellant . . . submits that at least these paragraphs provide explicit and adequate written description for the claimed limitations “storing the first fingerprint data but not information about features or points that have been captured in the set of keyframes or images in the topological map for the point node”. Appeal Br. 69-70 (emphases omitted); see also Reply Br. 4-20. With respect to the limitation identifying a location of the user with a granular localization process that comprises identifying a first point node in the topological map for the location, rather than by using GPS (global positioning system) data or information or data obtained from points or features extracted from the set of keyframes or images that is-associated with respective poses, based at least in part on fingerprint data for the location and corresponding fingerprint data for the first point node in the set of fingerprint data, Appellant cites paragraphs 313, 314, and 318 of the Specification and argues: To the extent that the claimed “data obtained from points or features extracted from the set of keyframes or images that is associated with respective poses” includes “detailed geometric maps” or a portion thereof described in ¶ [0314] and reproduced immediately above, Appellant . . . submits that at least the aforementioned paragraphs provide explicit and adequate written description for the claimed limitations “identifying a location of the user with a granular localization process . . . . , rather than by using GPS (global positioning system) data or information or data obtained from points or features extracted from the set of keyframes or images that is associated with respective poses”. Appeal Br. 71; see also Reply Br. 4-20. Appeal 2020-006525 Application 14/705,985 10 To the extent that the claimed “fingerprint data for the location” corresponds to the “histogram of a room” described in ¶ [0318], and the claimed “corresponding fingerprint data for the first point node in the set of fingerprint data” corresponds to the “other histograms of other spaces/areas” to which the “histogram” is compared as described in ¶ [0318], Appellant . . . submits that at least the aforementioned paragraphs provide explicit and adequate written description for the claimed limitations “identifying a location of the user with a granular localization process that comprises identifying a first point node in the topological map for the location . . . based at least in part on fingerprint data for the location and corresponding fingerprint data for the first point node in the set of fingerprint data” As such, Appellant . . . submits that at least the aforementioned paragraphs provide explicit and adequate written description for the claimed limitations “identifying a location of the user with a granular localization process that comprises identifying a first point node in the topological map for the location, rather than by using GPS (global positioning system) data or information or data obtained from points or features extracted from the set of keyframes or images that is associated with respective poses, based at least in part on fingerprint data for the location and corresponding fingerprint data for the first point node in the set of fingerprint data”. (Italics added). Appeal Br. 72; see also Reply Br. 4-20. Appellant has not shown Examiner error. “The specification shall contain a written description of the invention . . . .” 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). To satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure must reasonably convey to skilled artisans that Appellant possessed the claimed invention as of the filing date. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Specifically, the description must “clearly Appeal 2020-006525 Application 14/705,985 11 allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed” and the test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed. Id. (alteration in original) (internal quotations and citations omitted). [T]he test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed. . . . . [T]he level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology. For generic claims, we have set forth a number of factors for evaluating the adequacy of the disclosure, including “the existing knowledge in the particular field, the extent and content of the prior art, the maturity of the science or technology, [and] the predictability of the aspect at issue.” Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). “[T]he description requirement does not demand any particular form of disclosure, or that the specification recite the claimed invention in haec verba . . . .” Id. at 1352 (citations omitted). Further, the written description statute “requires that the written description actually or inherently disclose the claim element.” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306-07 (Fed. Cir. 2008). [I]t is []not a question of whether one skilled in the art might be able to construct the patentee’s device from the teachings of the disclosure . . . . Rather, it is a question whether the application necessarily discloses that particular device[]. . . . A description Appeal 2020-006525 Application 14/705,985 12 which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphases added). In this case, although Appellant cites several paragraphs of the Specification (discussed above), Appellant has not shown the cited Specification excerpts actually or inherently disclose storing the first fingerprint data but not information about features or points that have been captured in the set of keyframes or images in the topological map for the point node; . . . . identifying a location of the user with a granular localization process that comprises identifying a first point node in the topological map for the location, rather than by using GPS (global positioning system) data or information or data obtained from points or features extracted from the set of keyframes or images that is-associated with respective poses, based at least in part on fingerprint data for the location and corresponding fingerprint data for the first point node in the set of fingerprint data, as required by claim 1 (emphases added). In particular, as pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 11), the Specification describes the claimed “fingerprint data” as follows: “the fingerprint data comprises a color histogram of a location” (Spec. ¶ 50), “the fingerprint data of a location is a combination of data pertaining to the location” (Spec. ¶ 51), “the fingerprint data comprises a GPS data” (Spec. ¶ 56), and “the fingerprint data of a location is generated by combining a set of data pertaining to the location” (Spec. ¶ 57). Further, the Specification explains “the topological map may be derived through global positioning system (GPS) data, Wi-Fi data, histograms (e.g., color histograms of a room), received signal strength (RSS) Appeal 2020-006525 Application 14/705,985 13 data, etc.” and “the AR system may take a single image (or other information ) and construct a color histogram of the image. . . . on some level, the histogram of a particular space will be mostly constant over time (e.g., the color of the walls, the color of objects of the room, etc.).” Spec. ¶ 318. In addition, “the histogram will not contain particular information about all the features and points that have been captured by various cameras (keyframes)” (Spec. ¶ 319), and Appellant acknowledges “a histogram, according to the Specification, is constructed from a keyframe, an image . . ., or ‘other information’” (Reply Br. 15). Consistent with the Specification’s description of the claimed “fingerprint data” discussed above, dependent claim 3 recites “wherein the fingerprint data comprises a color histogram of the location”; and dependent claim 4 recites “wherein the fingerprint data comprises received signal strength (RSS) data or a GPS (global positioning system) data.” Claims 3-4. The recitations of dependent claims 3 and 4 further demonstrate the storing and identifying limitations are not adequately supported by the Specification. As a result, contrary to Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 69-70), the Specification’s descriptions that “the histogram will not contain particular information about all the features and points that have been captured by various cameras (keyframes),” and “rather than sorting through the vast amount of geometric and parametric information that encompasses that passable world model, the topological map allows for a quick and efficient way to localize the AR user” (Spec. ¶ 319) are insufficient to show the Specification actually or inherently discloses “storing the first fingerprint data but not information about features or points that have been captured in Appeal 2020-006525 Application 14/705,985 14 the set of keyframes or images in the topological map for the point node,” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added). See PowerOasis, 522 F.3d at 1306-07. Nor has Appellant adequately explained why the cited paragraphs of the Specification actually or inherently discloses identifying a location of the user with a granular localization process that comprises identifying a first point node in the topological map for the location, rather than by using GPS (global positioning system) data or information or data obtained from points or features extracted from the set of keyframes or images that is-associated with respective poses, based at least in part on fingerprint data for the location and corresponding fingerprint data for the first point node in the set of fingerprint data, as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added). See PowerOasis, 522 F.3d at 1306- 07. Therefore, Appellant has not shown the Specification reasonably conveys to skilled artisans that as of the filing date, Appellant possessed the claimed invention with respect to the above claim limitations. See Ariad Pharms., 598 F.3d at 1351. Nor has Appellant shown the “specification . . . describe[s] an invention understandable to th[e] skilled artisan and show[s] that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed” with respect to the above claim limitations. Ariad Pharms., 598 F.3d at 1351. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and corresponding dependent claims 2-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement. Appeal 2020-006525 Application 14/705,985 15 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) I The Examiner determines claims 1-20 are indefinite in light of the limitations of storing the first fingerprint data but not information about features or points that have been captured in the set of keyframes or images in the topological map for the point node; . . . . identifying a location of the user with a granular localization process that comprises identifying a first point node in the topological map for the location, rather than by using GPS (global positioning system) data or information or data obtained from points or features extracted from the set of keyframes or images that is-associated with respective poses, based at least in part on fingerprint data for the location and corresponding fingerprint data for the first point node in the set of fingerprint data, as recited in claim 1 and corresponding dependent claims 2-20. See Final Act. 35-39; Ans. 5-16. According to the Examiner, the claimed first fingerprint data in the storing step constitutes information about features that have been captured in the set of keyframes. Applicant’s claimed storing step is self- contradictory. The claimed fingerprint data in the identifying step constitutes information or data obtained from features extracted from the set of keyframes. Applicant's claimed identifying step is self-contradictory. Final Act. 36 (emphases omitted). Further, “applicant’s identifying a location of the user based on the fingerprint data comprising either GPS or features of the location. This is contradictory to the claim limitation of ‘rather than by using’ GPS data or information or features of the location.” Final Act. 39. Appeal 2020-006525 Application 14/705,985 16 Appellant argues the Examiner has erred, and cites similar arguments discussed above for the written description requirement inquiry. See Appeal Br. 49; Reply Br. 4-20. Appellant has not shown Examiner error. “The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). We apply the indefiniteness test approved by In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (per curiam): “[a] claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear,” and “claims are required to be cast in clear-as opposed to ambiguous, vague, indefinite-terms.” See Packard, 751 F.3d at 1310, 1313; Ex parte McAward, Appeal No. 2015- 006416, 2017 WL 3669566, at *4-6 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2017) (precedential) (explaining that due to different approaches to indefiniteness before the PTAB and the courts, the PTAB continues to follow Packard after the Supreme Court’s Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014) decision). [W]hen the USPTO has initially issued a well-grounded rejection that identifies ways in which language in a claim is ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention, and thereafter the applicant fails to provide a satisfactory response, the USPTO can properly reject the claim as failing to meet the statutory requirements of § 112(b). Packard, 751 F.3d at 1311. In this case, as discussed above, the Specification describes the claimed “fingerprint data” as follows, “the fingerprint data comprises a color histogram of a location” (Spec. ¶ 50), “the fingerprint data of a location is a Appeal 2020-006525 Application 14/705,985 17 combination of data pertaining to the location” (Spec. ¶ 51), “the fingerprint data comprises a GPS data” (Spec. ¶ 56), and “the fingerprint data of a location is generated by combining a set of data pertaining to the location” (Spec. ¶ 57). Further, the Specification explains “the topological map may be derived through global positioning system (GPS) data, Wi-Fi data, histograms (e.g., color histograms of a room), received signal strength (RSS) data, etc.” and “the AR system may take a single image (or other information ) and construct a color histogram of the image. . . . on some level, the histogram of a particular space will be mostly constant over time (e.g., the color of the walls, the color of objects of the room, etc.).” Spec. ¶ 318. In addition, “the histogram will not contain particular information about all the features and points that have been captured by various cameras (keyframes)” (Spec. ¶ 319), and Appellant acknowledges “a histogram, according to the Specification, is constructed from a keyframe, an image . . ., or ‘other information’” (Reply Br. 15). Consistent with the Specification’s description of the claimed “fingerprint data” discussed above, dependent claim 3 recites “wherein the fingerprint data comprises a color histogram of the location”; and dependent claim 4 recites “wherein the fingerprint data comprises received signal strength (RSS) data or a GPS (global positioning system) data.” Claims 3-4. The recitations of dependent claims 3 and 4 further demonstrate the meanings of the storing and identifying limitations are unclear. Therefore, Appellant has not persuasively countered the Examiner’s determination that “storing the first fingerprint data but not information about features or points that have been captured in the set of keyframes or Appeal 2020-006525 Application 14/705,985 18 images in the topological map for the point node” includes contradictory language due to the language of “but not information about features or points that have been captured in the set of keyframes or images in the topological map for the point node.” As a result, Appellant has not shown the Examiner errs in determining the meaning of the storing limitation is unclear to one skilled in the art. See Packard, 751 F.3d at 1310. Similarly, Appellant has not persuasively countered the Examiner’s determination that identifying a location of the user with a granular localization process that comprises identifying a first point node in the topological map for the location, rather than by using GPS (global positioning system) data or information or data obtained from points or features extracted from the set of keyframes or images that is-associated with respective poses, based at least in part on fingerprint data for the location and corresponding fingerprint data for the first point node in the set of fingerprint data, as recited in claim 1, includes contradictory language due to the language of “rather than by using GPS (global positioning system) data or information or data obtained from points or features extracted from the set of keyframes or images that is-associated with respective poses.” As a result, Appellant has not shown the Examiner errs in determining the meaning of the identifying limitation is unclear to one skilled in the art. See Packard, 751 F.3d at 1310. Because Appellant has not persuaded us of error, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and corresponding dependent claims 2-20 as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) in light of storing the first fingerprint data but not information about features or points that have been captured in the set of keyframes or images in the topological map for the point node; Appeal 2020-006525 Application 14/705,985 19 . . . . identifying a location of the user with a granular localization process that comprises identifying a first point node in the topological map for the location, rather than by using GPS (global positioning system) data or information or data obtained from points or features extracted from the set of keyframes or images that is-associated with respective poses, based at least in part on fingerprint data for the location and corresponding fingerprint data for the first point node in the set of fingerprint data, as required by claim 1 (emphases added). II The Examiner determines claims 1-20 are indefinite in light of the limitation of “storing the first fingerprint data but not information about features or points that have been captured in the set of keyframes or images in the topological map for the point node,” as recited in claim 1, and corresponding dependent claims 2-20. See Ans. 4-5. According to the Examiner, the claim limitation “storing the first fingerprint data but not information about features or points that have been captured in the set of keyframes or images in the topological map for the point node” is ambiguous because it could mean “storing the first fingerprint data, but not {information about features or points that have been captured in the set of keyframes or images in the topological map for the point node}” or “storing the first fingerprint data, but not {information about features or points that have been captured in the set of keyframes or images}, in the topological map for the point node.” The claimed storing step has at least two distinct meanings, rendering the claim invention uncertain. It may mean storing the first fingerprint data in the topological map for the point node, or storing the first fingerprint data [in a storage Appeal 2020-006525 Application 14/705,985 20 device] but not {information about features or points that have been captured in the set of keyframes or images in the topological map for the point node}. By the recitation, it is not clear whether it is meant by storing the first fingerprint data in the topological map for the point node, or storing the first fingerprint data [in a storage device], but not {information about features or points in the topological map for the point node}. Ans. 5 (emphases omitted). Appellant argues the Examiner has erred. See Reply Br. 4-9. In particular, Appellant argues: Independent claim 1 . . . recites, inter alia, the following claimed limitations: storing, in a passable world model on a remote computing system rather than in the topological map, the set of keyframes or images of the set of data associated with the point node; Well-accepted grammatical construction rules dictate that the prepositional phrase “in a passable world model on a remote computing system rather than in the topological map” separated by commas modifies the act of “storing”. According to the claimed limitations reproduced above, what is stored includes “the set of keyframes or images of the set of data associated with the point node”. That is, the aforementioned prepositional phrase is used as an adverbial phrase to modify the gerund “storing”, and the claimed limitations at issue explicitly recite that the set of keyframes or images of the set of data associated with the point node is stored “in a passable world model . . . rather than in the topological map”. The Examiner’s Answer nevertheless interprets the above claimed limitations as “‘rather than followed by four ‘or’ limitations”. Appellant respectfully submits that this interpretation is clearly erroneous Reply Br. 7-8 (emphasis omitted). Appeal 2020-006525 Application 14/705,985 21 Appellant has not persuaded us of error. In particular, Appellant’s above arguments (Reply Br. 7-8) are directed to a different storing limitation of claim 1-not the disputed limitation of “storing the first fingerprint data but not information about features or points that have been captured in the set of keyframes or images in the topological map for the point node.” Further, Appellant has not persuasively countered the Examiner’s determination that one skilled in the art could interpret the limitation “storing the first fingerprint data but not information about features or points that have been captured in the set of keyframes or images in the topological map for the point node” in at least two ways. Specifically, one skilled in the art could interpret that limitation to mean “storing the first fingerprint data[,] but not information about features or points that have been captured in the set of keyframes or images in the topological map for the point node.” Alternatively, one skilled in the art could interpret that limitation to mean “storing the first fingerprint data[,] but not information about features or points that have been captured in the set of keyframes or images[,] in the topological map for the point node.” As a result, Appellant has not shown the Examiner errs in determining the meaning of the storing limitation is unclear to one skilled in the art. See Packard, 751 F.3d at 1310. Because Appellant has not persuaded us of error, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and corresponding dependent claims 2-20 as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) in light of the limitation “storing the first fingerprint data but not information about features or points that have been captured in the set of keyframes or images in the topological map for the point node,” as required by claim 1. Appeal 2020-006525 Application 14/705,985 22 . III The Examiner determines claims 1-20 are indefinite in light of the limitation of identifying a location of the user with a granular localization process that comprises identifying a first point node in the topological map for the location, rather than by using GPS (global positioning system) data or information or data obtained from points or features extracted from the set of keyframes or images that is-associated with respective poses, based at least in part on fingerprint data for the location and corresponding fingerprint data for the first point node in the set of fingerprint data, as recited in claim 1 and corresponding dependent claims 2-20. See Ans. 4- 16. According to the Examiner, Appellants’ claim invention is obscured by the claim limitation “rather than” followed by four “or” limitations. The claimed identifying comprises “or” limitations which further obscure the claim invention of the claim 1. The identifying step is so ambiguously recited that the scope of claim invention is uncertainly defined. Appellants recite “GPS data or information or data obtained from points or features . . . .} could alternatively include 1) {GPS data or information} as an integral entity wherein information is part of GPS information, 2) {information} standing alone as an entity separately from and in parallel with {GPS data} and { data obtained from points or features . . . .}, 3) { information or data obtained from points or features . . . .} standing alone as an integral entity separately from and in parallel with {GPS data}. At least for the reasons that the claim invention is ambiguous . . . . Ans. 4-5 (emphases omitted). Appellant argues the Examiner has erred. See Reply Br. 4-9. In particular, Appellant argues: Appeal 2020-006525 Application 14/705,985 23 what is explicitly, exactly recited in the above claimed limitations is an adverbial phrase leading by the preposition “rather than” as evidenced by the two separate commas that separate the aforementioned adverbial phrase from the remainder of the aforementioned claimed limitations. Furthermore, in the adverbial phrase “rather than by using GPS (global positioning system) data or information or data obtained from points or features extracted from the set of keyframes or images that is associated with respective poses”, Appellant . . . notes that the conjunction “or” does not include any comma. According to well-accepted grammatical construction rules, the only reasonable construction of the elements linked by the “or” conjunction are “GPS (global positioning system) data or information or data obtained from points” OR “data obtained from points or features extracted from the set of keyframes or images” because a comma is not needed to separate TWO elements linked by a conjunction. Reply Br. 7-8 (original emphases omitted; emphasis added). Appellant has not persuaded us of error. In particular, Appellant’s argument that “the only reasonable construction of the elements linked by the ‘or’ conjunction are ‘GPS (global positioning system) data or information or data obtained from points’ OR ‘data obtained from points or features extracted from the set of keyframes or images’” (Reply Br. 8 (emphasis added)) demonstrates the meaning of the limitation is unclear: Appellant groups the claimed “data obtained from points” with both the claimed “GPS (global positioning system) data” and the claimed “features extracted from the set of keyframes or images.” As a result, Appellant interprets the claimed “GPS (global positioning system) data or information or data obtained from points or features extracted from the set of keyframes or images” in at least two ways: (i) “GPS (global positioning system) data or Appeal 2020-006525 Application 14/705,985 24 information or data obtained from points[,] or features extracted from the set of keyframes or images”; or (ii) “GPS (global positioning system) data or information[,] or data obtained from points or features extracted from the set of keyframes or images.” In short, Appellant has not persuasively countered the Examiner’s determination that one skilled in the art could interpret the claim 1 limitation identifying a location of the user with a granular localization process that comprises identifying a first point node in the topological map for the location, rather than by using GPS (global positioning system) data or information or data obtained from points or features extracted from the set of keyframes or images that is-associated with respective poses, based at least in part on fingerprint data for the location and corresponding fingerprint data for the first point node in the set of fingerprint data, in at least two different ways. Consistent with Appellant’s above acknowledgement of multiple interpretations of the limitation, one skilled in the art could also interpret the claim 1 limitation to mean identifying a location of the user with a granular localization process that comprises identifying a first point node in the topological map for the location, rather than by using GPS (global positioning system) data or information[,] or data obtained from points or features extracted from the set of keyframes or images that is-associated with respective poses, based at least in part on fingerprint data for the location and corresponding fingerprint data for the first point node in the set of fingerprint data. Alternatively, one skilled in the art could interpret the claim 1 limitation to mean Appeal 2020-006525 Application 14/705,985 25 identifying a location of the user with a granular localization process that comprises identifying a first point node in the topological map for the location, rather than by using GPS (global positioning system) data[,] or information or data obtained from points or features extracted from the set of keyframes or images that is-associated with respective poses, based at least in part on fingerprint data for the location and corresponding fingerprint data for the first point node in the set of fingerprint data As a result, Appellant has not shown the Examiner errs in determining the meaning of the identifying limitation is unclear to one skilled in the art. See Packard, 751 F.3d at 1310. Because Appellant has not persuaded us of error, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and corresponding dependent claims 2-20 as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) in light of the limitation identifying a location of the user with a granular localization process that comprises identifying a first point node in the topological map for the location, rather than by using GPS (global positioning system) data or information or data obtained from points or features extracted from the set of keyframes or images that is-associated with respective poses, based at least in part on fingerprint data for the location and corresponding fingerprint data for the first point node in the set of fingerprint data, as required by claim 1 (emphasis added). . 35 U.S.C. § 103 We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellant’s Appeal 2020-006525 Application 14/705,985 26 contentions that the Examiner erred in determining the cited portions of Hofmann and Gourlay collectively teach generating or updating a topological map at least by performing a set of acts that comprises: constructing first fingerprint data for the location from at least a portion of the set of data for the location; representing the location of the plurality of locations of the real world as a point node of a plurality of point nodes in a topological map using the first fingerprint data for the location; and storing the first fingerprint data but not information about features or points that have been captured in the set of keyframes or images in the topological map for the point node; as recited in independent claim 1 (emphases added). See Appeal Br. 30-38; Reply Br. 20-24. The Examiner cites Gourlay’s Figure 12A for teaching the claimed “topological map” and finds: the claimed topological map as embodied in appellant’s own FIG. 13 is exactly what has been described in Gourlay’s FIG. 12A. The examiner has mapped the topological map of FIG. 12A of Gourlay to the claimed topological map in the same manner as appellant’s specification (e.g., FIG. 13) wherein the simplified pose graph of FIG. 12A of Gouraly is a topological graph of nodes and edges/links. Ans. 18; see also Final Act. 45. Starting with claim construction, as discussed above, there are multiple ways to interpret the limitation “storing the first fingerprint data but not information about features or points that have been captured in the set of keyframes or images in the topological map for the point node.” For our prior art analysis, we interpret the limitation to mean “storing the first Appeal 2020-006525 Application 14/705,985 27 fingerprint data[,] but not information about features or points that have been captured in the set of keyframes or images[,] in the topological map for the point node.” Turning to Appellant’s arguments, as pointed out by Appellant (Reply Br. 23), Gourlay explains: “FIG. 12A depicts an example of a pose graph 1200 which represents poses of a rig in a physical space. A pose graph includes nodes connected by links. A node comprises an image of a physical space as captured by a visible light camera, and an associated coordinate system.” Gourlay ¶ 118 (emphasis added). Contrary to the claim requirement of “storing the first fingerprint data but not information about features or points that have been captured in the set of keyframes or images in the topological map for the point node” (claim 1 (emphasis added)), Gourlay’s Figure 12A depicts a pose graph that includes nodes, and a node includes an image of a physical space as captured by a visible light camera. See Gourlay ¶ 118. As a result, we agree with Appellant that Gourlay’s Figure 12A does not satisfy the requirement for the claimed “topological map,” which requires “storing the first fingerprint data but not information about features or points that have been captured in the set of keyframes or images in the topological map for the point node” (claim 1 (emphases added)). Therefore, the Examiner has erred in citing Gourlay’s Figure 12A for teaching the claimed “topological map.” Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent claims 2-20. Although the Examiner cites additional references for rejecting Appeal 2020-006525 Application 14/705,985 28 some dependent claims, the Examiner has not shown the additional reference overcome the deficiency discussed above in the rejection of claim 1. We note Appellant raises additional arguments regarding the prior art rejection. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal with respect to the prior art rejection, we do not address the additional arguments. See, e.g., Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (an administrative agency’s “judicious use of a single dispositive issue approach . . . can . . . save . . . unnecessary cost and effort”). CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because we affirm at least one ground of rejection with respect to each claim on appeal, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1- 20. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1). Appeal 2020-006525 Application 14/705,985 29 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-20 112(a) Written Description 1-20 1-20 112(b) Indefiniteness 1-20 1-3, 5-6, 8- 20 103 Hofmann, Gourlay, Xiong, Schmalstieg, KIS, Pirchheim, Martini, Swaminathan, Official Notice (based on Lim and Ahn) 1-3, 5-6, 8- 20 4 103 Hofmann, Gourlay, Xiong, Schmalstieg, KIS, Pirchheim, Martini, Swaminathan, Official Notice (based on Lim and Ahn), Pan 4 7 103 Hofmann, Gourlay, Xiong, Schmalstieg, KIS, Pirchheim, Martini, Swaminathan, Official Notice (based on Lim and Ahn), Keating 7 Overall Outcome 1-20 Appeal 2020-006525 Application 14/705,985 30 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