Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 19, 2021

2019005350 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2021)

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.
14/252,414 04/14/2014 Isaac Kenneth Kunen /340520-US-NP 2184
141674 7590 01/19/2021
Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (Microsoft)
1500 K Street, N.W.
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
EXAMINER
MAZUMDER, SAPTARSHI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/19/2021 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):
DBRIPDocket@faegredrinker.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ISAAC KENNETH KUNEN, ROMUALDO IMPAS,
DONALD A. BARNETT, JUAN PABLO CANDELAS GONZALEZ,
BRENTON GUNNING, and DAVID BUERER
Appeal 2019-005350
Application 14/252,414
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–11 and 13–21. See Final Act. 1.

1 We refer to the Specification, filed April 14, 2014 (“Spec.”); Final Office
Action, mailed June 4, 2018 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed February 1,
2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed May 2, 2019 (“Ans.”);
and Reply Brief, filed July 2, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Microsoft
Technology Licensing, LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-005350
Application 14/252,414
2
Claim 12 is canceled. Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims relate to integration of labels into a 3d geospatial model.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system, comprising:
at least one processor; and
a memory operatively coupled to the at least one
processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed
by the at least one processor, perform a method for rendering
three-dimensional labels on a geographical mapping application,
comprising:
receiving logical hierarchical information associated with
various regions of a geographical map;
generating the geographical map using the logical
hierarchical information;
providing the geographical map for display in the
geographical mapping application; and
drawing a label as a three-dimensional label object in a
geospatial three-dimensional scene within the geographical
mapping application, wherein the label identifies a name of at
least one region of the various regions of the geographical map,
and wherein drawing the label as the three-dimensional label
object comprises:
drawing the three-dimensional label object according to a
label orientation and one or more label object properties
associated with the at least one region;
drawing the three-dimensional label object with an
elevation within the geographical mapping application relative to
a geospatial three-dimensional scene object based on the label
object properties associated with the at least one region; and
redrawing the three-dimensional label object in a different
position or orientation in response to received input.
Appeal 2019-005350
Application 14/252,414
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Frank US 2008/0010605 A1 Jan. 10, 2008
Fong US 2012/0019513 A1 Jan. 26, 2012
Spindler US 2012/0245841 A1 Sept. 27, 2012
Sai US 2013/0042180 A1 Feb. 14, 2013
Moore US 2013/0321402 A1 Dec. 5, 2013
Miserendino US 2013/0321458 A1 Dec. 5, 2013
Adlers US 2014/0354629 A1 Dec. 4, 2014
Stefan Maass & Jürgen Döllner, Efficient View Management for Dynamic
Annotation Placement in Virtual Landscapes, LNCS 4073, Smart Graphics,
6th International Symposium, SG 2006 Vancouver, Canada, July 2006,
Proceedings, pp. 1–12 (hereinafter “Maass”).

REJECTIONS3
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite
for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Final Act.
15–16.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 16, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable Miserendino, Maass, Fong, and Adlers. Final
Act. 16–33.
Claims 3, 5, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Miserendino, Maass, Fong, Adlers, and Spindler. Final
Act. 33–39, 41–42.

3 The rejection of claims 1–11, 13–14, and 16–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 (Final Act 2–15) has been withdrawn. Ans. 3.

Appeal 2019-005350
Application 14/252,414
4
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Miserendino, Maass, Fong, Adlers, and Sai. Final Act. 39–40.
Claims 9, 10, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Miserendino, Maass, and Moore. Final Act. 42–48.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Miserendino, Maass, Moore, and Spindler. Final Act. 48–49.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Miserendino, Maass, Moore, and Frank. Final Act. 49–50.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Miserendino, Maass, Moore, and Fong. Final Act. 51.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments
Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant
could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
To the extent consistent with our analysis herein, we adopt as our own
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in (1) the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellant’s Appeal Brief, and concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Appeal 2019-005350
Application 14/252,414
5

REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Appellant does not contest the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b). See Final Act. 15–16. We, therefore, summarily sustain the
rejection. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d at 1075.

REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
Examiner’s Findings and Appellant’s Contentions of Error
The Examiner finds Miserendino’s system for generating a
visualization from configurable network space maps, wherein an IP address
can be layered on top of an IP-space map, teaches the majority of the
limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 16–18 (citing Miserendino, Figs. 1, 10,
¶¶ 10, 21, 27, 42, 744). The Examiner finds Maass’s dynamic annotation
(e.g., label) placement in virtual landscapes “teaches[] rendering [a] three-
dimensional label, drawing the label as a three-dimensional label, [and]
drawing the three dimensional label object according to a label orientation”
as required by claim 1. Id. at 19 (citing Maass 4, ll. 60–62). The Examiner
applies Fong’s 3D layering of map metadata, wherein text labels appear
above a surface layer with details geographic features appearing at different
metadata altitudes, for teaching “drawing label object with an elevation
relative to a geospatial three-dimensional scene object based on a label
object property associated with at least one region” as recited by claim 1. Id.
at 20 (citing Fong, Fig. 1, ¶¶ 29, 32, 33, 39). Addressing the final limitation
of claim 1, the Examiner finds Adlers’s mapping application that responds to

4 Although the Examiner cites to paragraph 74 of Miserendino, the language
quoted in the Action appears in paragraph 73 of the reference.
Appeal 2019-005350
Application 14/252,414
6
user input to rotate a map display and flip location labels teaches “redrawing
the three-dimensional label object in a different position or orientation in
response to received input” as recited by claim 1. Id. at 21 (citing Adlers
¶¶ 41, 43). In addition to finding the prior art teaches each of the recited
limitations of claim 1, the Examiner provides reasoning for making the
asserted combinations. Id. at 19, 21, 22.
Appellant contends the rejection is improper for the following
reasons:
1. Appellant contends, “[a]lthough Miserendino discloses and shows
that it’s [sic] map has labels”
a. “Miserendino does not draw labels ‘according to a label
orientation and one or more label object properties
associated with the at least one region’”
b. “nor does it disclose or suggest that each of the label objects
are drawn ‘with an elevation within the geographical
mapping application relative to a geospatial three-
dimensional scene object based on the label object
properties associated with the at least one region.”
Appeal Br. 19.
2. Appellant contends, although Maass’s annotations are elevated to
avoid occluding each other, they are not hierarchically arranged
based on region. Id. at 19–20.
3. Appellant contends, Fong’s “rendering [of] labels based on view
altitudes is not equivalent to the requirement . . . that each region is
associated with a set of display properties. Id. at 20.
Appeal 2019-005350
Application 14/252,414
7
4. Appellant contends Adlers fails to teach properties of geographic
regions. Id.
5. Appellant contends, “Miserendino cannot be combined with the
other references in the manner set forth in the Office action.” Id. at
20.
Analysis
1. Miserendino
Appellant argues, “[a]lthough Miserendino discloses and shows that
it’s [sic] map has labels, Miserendino does not draw labels ‘according to a
label orientation and one or more label object properties associated with the
at least one region.’” Appeal Br. 19. According to Appellant, the Examiner
errs “because Miserendino discloses that each level of a network architecture
can be associated with a ‘styling file’ that controls how boxes for that layer
can be rendered, that Miserendino discloses that each region has specific
label object properties.” Id. (citing Final Act. 18). Instead, Appellant argues
“[t]here is nothing in Miserendino that suggests that each box in a level of a
network architecture is a specific region.” Id.
The Examiner replies,
Miserendino Fig. 1 . . . and [0027] [discloses that element 130]
receives FILES and MAP DATA [120]”. Paragraph [0027]
defines the contents of map data. The map data is a hierarchical
information. These hierarchical information are geospatial
hierarchical information. According to paragraph [0034] and
Fig. 3, “Global” has five layers of hierarchical information of
geographic location and “Location” also has five layers of
Appeal 2019-005350
Application 14/252,414
8
hierarchical geospatial locations. Miserendino [425] indicates
that labels are drawn according to hierarchical information of
geospatial location. See [42], “Then, visually separate hierarchy
levels by color, boarder line thickness, and label font size with
higher level tiers given thicker boarders and larger label font
sizes”. Thus Miserendino draws labels based on hierarchical
information that is associated with various regions in a mapping
application. As there is a styling file . . . for each layer and each
layer has [a] different hierarchical region, so each styling file
contains properties for [a] geographic region of the layer.
Ans. 6.
Appellant replies, “[i]f the Examiner is asserting that each tile shown
in FIG. 2 [of Miserendino (reproduced below)], is equivalent to a region,
then each of the tiles must be associated with a name.” Reply 4. Appellant
argues
[A]s shown in FIG. 2 [reproduced below], each of the tiles are
not associated with a name. As such, Appellant submits that the
tiles disclosed by Miserendino are not equivalent to the claimed
regions. Appellant further submits that the tiers of the hierarchy
are also not equivalent to regions as set forth in the claims. More
specifically, the tiers of the hierarchy also lack a label that
identifies a name of the region.
Id. Appellant concludes, “Indeed, Miserendino is silent regarding
determining label object properties based on a particular region[].” Id.

5 As recognized by Appellant (Reply Br. 3), the language quoted by the
Examiner appears in paragraph 42 of Miserendino rather than paragraph 74
cited in the Examiner’s Answer.
Appeal 2019-005350
Application 14/252,414
9

Figure 2 of Miserendino illustrating an example visualization from
configurable network space maps.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
During examination of a patent application, pending claims are given their
broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the
broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms are given their
ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech.,
Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). During patent prosecution when
claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and
breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed. See In re Zletz, 893
F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Construing claims broadly during
Appeal 2019-005350
Application 14/252,414
10
prosecution is not unfair to the applicant because the applicant has the
opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d at 1364.
Appellant neither provides evidence of the meaning to be attributed to
the term “region” with which, according to claim 1, label object properties
are associated, nor does Appellant direct attention to any special meaning to
be afforded the term based on its usage in the Specification. The
Specification discloses displaying labels “hovering above their respective
regions (map objects or ‘entities’).” Spec. ¶ 30. In another example, “a map
804 is presented with a ‘Seattle’ label object 806 associated with an
underlying Seattle map object 808.” Spec. ¶ 38 (referencing Figure 8).
Appellant does not provide a definition for a map object, and reference
characters “808” appearing in Figure 8 do not indicate what object or portion
of the drawing is a map object. Thus, contrary to Appellant’s argument
(Reply Br. 4), a broad but reasonable interpretation of a region includes
Miserendino’s tiles that are reasonably characterized as map objects.
Furthermore, contrary to Appellant’s argument, Miserendino discloses
labels associated with various tiles including (i) the label “Europe” in a large
font positioned in the middle of the upper right grouping of tiles enclosed by
a thick black line and (ii) smaller labels identifying sub-groupings of tiles
such as “United Kingdom,” “Germany,” “France,” and “Italy” within the
Europe grouping of tiles. Miserendino, Fig. 2. The labeling scheme
depicted in Figure 2 is further consistent with the hierarchy depicted in
Figure 3, having a “Global” organizational structure, partitioning a map by
continent and country and further by ISP, organization and host/subnet.
Also depicted in Figure 3 of Miserendino is “[a] location hierarchy . . .
Appeal 2019-005350
Application 14/252,414
11
where a large organization is broken up into its physical locations first by
region, then building, then floor, and finally down to an individual office.”
Miserendino ¶ 35. Thus, Miserendino teaches or suggest label objects and
their properties (e.g., font size) based on a particular region (e.g., font size
related to a level of tile grouping).
We are also unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that Miserendino is
deficient because, according to Appellant, “each of the tiles are not
associated with a name.” Reply Br. 4. This argument is not commensurate
in scope with claim 1, which only requires drawing a (i.e., one) label as a
label object according to object properties associated with at least one
region. Thus, it is sufficient that Miserendino discloses one tile be
associated with a name, not that each of plural tiles, much every tile, be
associated with a name or even respective different names. Instead, as
described above, Miserendino discloses associating one or more tiles of a
group of geographically related tiles (i.e., network nodes located in a
particular country) with a name (i.e., country name) and associating groups
of nodes with a higher level geographic grouping designation (i.e., name of
the continent in which the nodes are located). Thus, we agree with the
Examiner in finding that Miserendino teaches or suggests drawing a label in
a geospatial three-dimensional scene within the geographical mapping
application, wherein the label identifies a name of at least one region of the
various regions of the geographical map. See Final Act. 18.
We further find unpersuasive Appellant’s argument that Miserendino
fails to teach drawing label objects with an elevation based on properties
Appeal 2019-005350
Application 14/252,414
12
associated with at least one region. Appeal Br. 19. In particular, Appellant
argues,
[T]here is no disclosure in Miserendino that its styling file is
organized based on a geographic region. Indeed, Miserendino
explicitly states that the styling file is associated with a layer.
According to Miserendino a layer may be a list of IP addresses
representing discrete points on the IP map, connected IP
addresses, or IP address/number pairs representing attribute
values at that IP address. (See Miserendino, para. [0070]). These
IP addresses are not geographic regions as claimed.
Id.
As with the previous argument, Appellant’s argument is not
commensurate in scope with claim 1. Although Appellant argues
Miserendino’s IP addresses are not “geographic regions as claimed” (Appeal
Br. 19), no such language appears in claim 1. That is, although claim 1
recites “various regions of [a] geographic map”, the regions are not defined
as geographic regions (e.g., defined geographic masses such as cities, states,
and countries) but, as discussed above, as “map objects.” See, e.g., Spec.
¶ 30. Accordingly, as also discussed above, Miserendino’s tiles representing
IP addresses are reasonably interpreted as teaching or suggesting the claimed
regions.
Furthermore, as found by the Examiner, Miserendino’s map includes
groupings of tiles corresponding to geographic areas, e.g., “global”
structures organized by continent and countries within each continent. Thus,
Miserendino teaches bounded geographic areas corresponding to groups of
IP addresses that are reasonably characterized as geographic regions.
Finally, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that
Miserendino’s styling file is associated with a layer and, therefore, fails to
Appeal 2019-005350
Application 14/252,414
13
teach object properties associated with a region. Appeal Br. 19. As
explained by the Examiner, “[a]s there is a styling file . . . for each layer and
each layer has different hierarchical region, so each styling file contains
properties for geographic region of the layer.” Ans. 6.
2. Maass
Appellant argues Maass’s annotations are arranged to avoid occluding
each other, not hierarchically arranged in elevation based on region as
recited by claim 1. Appeal Br. 19–20. The Examiner responds, “Maass was
included to show the limitation of rendering [a] three dimensional label,
drawing the label as a three-dimensional label, [and] drawing the three
dimensional label object according to a label orientation. . . . not . . . for [the]
argued limitation relating elevation.” Ans. 7.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive for the reason articulated by the
Examiner. In particular, Appellant’s argument fails to address the
Examiner’s finding that Fong, not the argued Maass reference, teaches
drawing a label object with an elevation relative to a geospatial three-
dimensional scene object based on a label object property associated with at
least one region. See Final Act. 20.
3. Fong
Appellant argues that Fong’s labels are rendered based on a view
altitude of a user, not based on display properties associated with each
region. Appeal Br. 20. The Examiner responds, as follows:
Fong indicates [a] hierarchy of geospatial position[s] of [a
location in] Seattle [as follows]: Washington (state), Seattle
(City), Washington District (district), Washington square
(smaller area of a district), Jackson St (street). Text label[s] for
these hierarchical features are organized at different height[s].
Thus Fong teaches a label object has an elevation relative to a
Appeal 2019-005350
Application 14/252,414
14
geospatial three-dimensional scene object based on the logical
hierarchical information.
Ans. 7–8 (citing Fong, Fig. 1, ¶¶ 32–33).
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
We agree with the Examiner in
finding that Figure 1 of Fong
(reproduced at right) depicts
metadata, e.g., geographic regions,
at different elevations with
“[l]arge-scale features such as
countries and big states . . .
associated with higher altitudes . . .
[and s]mall scale features such a
buildings and small streets . . .
associated with lower altitudes”
(Fong ¶ 30) and teaches or
suggests drawing a label object
with an elevation (i.e., altitude)
relative to a geospatial three-dimensional scene object based on label object
properties associated with the at least one region (e.g., large versus small
geographic scale size of the feature). See Final Act. 20; Ans. 7–8.
4. Adlers
Appellant argue Adlers fails to teach properties of geographic regions.
Appeal Br. 20. The Examiner responds, explaining, “Adlers is not used to
reject the argued limitation.” Ans. 8.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive for the reason given by the
Examiner. The Examiner finds Miserendino, not the argued Adlers
Figure 1 of Fong illustrating
different metadata altitudes of map
metadata text labels in 3D space.
Appeal 2019-005350
Application 14/252,414
15
references, teaches, or suggests label object properties associated with a
region. See Final Act. 18.
5. Combination of Miserendino with Maass, Fong, and Alders
Appellant contends modifying Miserendino to incorporate Maass’s
3D labeling environment, Fong’s elevation stacking of labels, and/or Alder’s
manipulation of labels conflicts with Miserendino’s purpose to “provide
users a visualization of cyber domain information in order to enhance a
user’s understanding of network events and to enable a common view of
cyberspace via configurable Internet Protocol space maps.” Appeal Br. 20.
According to Appellant,
a) “[I]f Miserendino were combined with Maass for the purposes
suggested by the Examiner, the labels of the geographic areas in
Miserendino would be displayed such that they are more visible
than the network events. Thus, the combination of Miserendino
and Maass would render Miserendino unsuitable for its principle
operation.” Id. at 21.
b) “[T]he primary purpose of Miserendino is to determine network
events, not render labels of geographic areas more readable.
Indeed, causing the labels in Miserendino to be more visible [as
taught by Fong] could inhibit a user’s understanding of the
displayed network events.” Id.
c) “A user of the Internet Protocol space map described in
Miserendino does not need to decide on ‘further manipulation’ and
label placement [as taught by Alders] to determine network
events.” Id.
Appeal 2019-005350
Application 14/252,414
16
The Examiner responds to Appellant’s contentions concerning the
combination of Miserendino and Maass, concluding “[t]he goal of
Miserendino is to overlay organization schema on network map and
Miserendino [0042] itself provides larger font size of label according to
hierarchy of geographical area. Thus including three dimensional label and
drawing label according to orientation doesn’t render Miserendino
unsuitable for its principle operation.” Ans. 10. Addressing Fong, the
Examiner responds, “[i]n order to determine [a] network event from a map, a
person needs to see [the] geographical location i.e. [the] label of
geographical area. Thus [rendering a] more readable . . . label is a need for
Miserendino.” Id. at 11.
Appellant’s contentions are unpersuasive of reversible Examiner
error. As an initial issue, Appellant’s contentions that the proposed
modifications would render Miserendino unsuitable for its principle
operation, i.e., its intended purpose, are conclusory attorney argument
unsupported by evidence, which has little probative value. See In re Geisler,
116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, the alleged results of
making the asserted combinations, including rendering geographic areas in
Miserendino more visible than the network events, are, at most,
disadvantages rather than defeating of the intended purpose of Miserendino
of providing network information. Notably,
[A] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages
and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate
motivation to combine. See [Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang,
202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n. 8 (Fed. Cir. 2000)] (“The fact that the
motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit,
however, should not nullity its use as a basis to modify the
disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another.
Appeal 2019-005350
Application 14/252,414
17
Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed
against one another.”).
Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
We are also unpersuaded the Examiner’s reasoning for modifying
Miserendino to incorporate Adlers’s manipulatable user viewing position is
“nonsensical.” Appeal Br. 21. Appellant provides insufficient evidence in
support of its argument that “[a] user of the Internet Protocol space map
described in Miserendino does not need to decide on ‘further manipulation’
and label placement to determine network events.” Id. Instead, we agree
with the Examiner that, at least one reason for redrawing a label in a
different position or orientation in response to received input as taught by
Alders “is to provide the label in a way which is easily readable by the user
and not to overlap label with other map features.” Final Act. 22.
In summary, the Examiner has articulated reasoning with rational
underpinnings sufficient to justify the legal conclusion of obviousness (see
Final Act. 19, 21, 22), and Appellant has provided insufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us that combining Miserendino with Maass, Fond, or
Alders would render Miserendino unsuitable for its intended purpose or
otherwise be improper. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s
argument that the Examiner’s combination of references is inadequate or
improper.

Summary
For the reasons discussed above, we disagree with Appellant that the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Miserendino, Maass, Fong,
and Adlers teaches or suggests the disputed limitations or that the
Appeal 2019-005350
Application 14/252,414
18
combination of references is improper. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of independent claim 1. Independent claim 16 is argued on the
basis of claim 1 (Appeal Br. 22) and, accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claim 16 for the reasons set forth in connection with claim 1.
In connection with claim 9, in addition to asserting the arguments
presented in connection with claim 1, Appellant argues “Moore does not
make up for the deficiencies of Miserendino and Maass.” Id. Because
Appellant’s prior arguments are unpersuasive in showing that Miserendino
and Maass are deficient, this argument is similarly unpersuasive. Although
Appellant further contends the rejection of claim 9 is improper, arguing, “the
references cannot be combined in the manner suggested in the Office
action,” no additional explanation, details, or evidence is provided, and
Appellant does not address the Examiner’s reasoning (see Final Act. 46).
Without further explanation, we are not persuaded that the Examiner’s
reasoning is inadequate or is otherwise in error. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claim 9 for the same reasons as discussed in connection with
claim 1.
Finally, we sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2–7, 9–13, 16–
19, 21, and 22, which are not argued separately with particularity.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 112(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 16,
17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable Miserendino,
Maass, Fong, and Adlers.
Appeal 2019-005350
Application 14/252,414
19
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 3, 5, 18, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Miserendino, Maass,
Fong, Adlers, and Spindler.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Miserendino, Maass, Fong, Adlers, and
Sai.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 9, 10, 13, and 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Miserendino, Maass, and
Moore.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Miserendino, Maass, Moore, and Spindler.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Miserendino, Maass, Moore, and Frank.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Miserendino, Maass, Moore, and Fong.

Appeal 2019-005350
Application 14/252,414
20
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
21 112(b) Indefiniteness 21
1, 2, 4, 7,
8, 16, 17,
19
103 Miserendino, Maass, Fong,
Adlers
1, 2, 4, 7,
8, 16, 17,
19

3, 5, 18,
20
103 Miserendino, Maass, Fong,
Adlers, Spindler
3, 5, 20
6 103 Miserendino, Maass, Fong,
Alders, Sai
6
9, 10, 13,
14
103 Miserendino, Maass, Moore 9, 10, 13,
14

11 Miserendino, Maass, Moore,
Spindler
11
15 Miserendino, Maass, Moore,
Frank
15
21 Miserendino, Maass, Moore,
Fong
21
Overall
Outcome
1–10, 13,
14, 16–
21

RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED