Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 25, 2021

2020001521 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 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.
15/411,394 01/20/2017 Felix Gerard Torquil Ifor Andrew 400938-US-NP 1037
69316 7590 05/25/2021
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
COFINO, JONATHAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2619
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/25/2021 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):
chriochs@microsoft.com
jkarr@microsoft.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte FELIX GERARD TORQUIL IFOR ANDREW,
JEFF WEST, and CHAD ESTES

Appeal 2020-001521
Application 15/411,394
Technology Center 2600

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., DAVID M. KOHUT, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–22. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use “Appellant” to reference the 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 2020-001521
Application 15/411,394

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant describes the invention as follows:
A map application is provided that allows a user to create
layers that can be used to modify a map. A layer may include
features such as points of interest, routes, and polygons that are
created or selected by the user. When the user enables a created
layer, the generated features are displayed on the map until the
user chooses to disable the layer. The features that are
displayed in a layer are independent of any features currently
being displayed on the map. The features associated with a
layer may be static or may be dynamic.
Spec. Abstr. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of argued subject
matter.
1. A system for generating a layer for a map, and for
providing the generated layer, the system comprising:
at least one computing device; and
a map engine stored in memory and adapted to:
receive a selection of a map;
receive, from a user computing device, an indication of
at least one route on the map, an indication of at least one
point of interest on the map, and an indication of at least one
polygon on the map;
generate a layer for the selected map comprising a
plurality of static features and dynamic features, wherein the
static features and the dynamic features comprise the at least
one route, the at least one point of interest, and the at least one
polygon;
provide the generated layer to a plurality of other user
computing devices;
receive an update to location information associated
with one or more of the dynamic features;
Appeal 2020-001521
Application 15/411,394

3
change the generated layer to alter a geographical
representation of the one or more dynamic features
responsive to the update; and
provide the changed generated layer to the user
computing device and to the plurality of other user computing
devices responsive to receipt of the updated location
information and to the change in the geographic representation
of the one or more of the plurality of dynamic features.
Appeal Br. 16 (emphasis added).
Rejections
Claims 1–7, 9–19, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Jeon (US 2018/0145941 A1; May 24, 2018),
Van Seggelen (US 2013/0131986 A1; May 23, 2013), Jawerth
(US 2007/0139411 A1; June 21, 2007), and Letz (US 2014/0062790 A1;
Mar. 6, 2014). Final Act. 2–17.
Claims 8, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jeon, Van Seggelen, Jawerth, Letz, and Moczydlowski
(US 9,043,325 B1; May 26, 2015). Final Act. 17–20.
OPINION
Claims 1–21
In contesting the rejections of claims 1–21, Appellant presents
substantively identical arguments for the independent claims and states the
dependent claims stand on the patentability of their independent claims.
See Appeal Br. 6–14. We address the arguments with reference to claim 1.
For the following reasons, we are unpersuaded of error and thus sustain the
rejections of claims 1–21.
Appellant contends the Examiner has not shown the references teach
or suggest the following claim limitation: “a mapping engine that receives
Appeal 2020-001521
Application 15/411,394

4
certain user-designated mapping information (e.g., a route or a point of
interest) from a user computing device and generates a layer for the map that
comprises ‘dynamic features.’” Appeal Br. 6. We have highlighted
respective claim limitations within the above-reproduced claim 1. We
reference, below, this argued “layer for the map that comprises ‘dynamic
features’” (id.) as the claimed dynamic layer.
In support, Appellant contends:
[T]he Office argues that Jawerth teaches “generating a layer for
the selected map” and that Letz discloses generally discloses
“dynamic features” that are used in route calculation.
See Final Act. 5; Advisory Action (April 10, 2019), Cont’n
Sheet 1. . . .
. . . .
. . . . The cited portions of Jawerth merely disclose that
map data may be “arranged into a hierarchy of layers.”
Jawerth ¶ 38. Jawerth discusses map data as including static
features such as “line features like roads, railroads,
hydrography, and transportation and utility lines[.]”
Jawerth ¶ 41. . . .
. . . .
. . . . Letz does not disclose maps or map layers. . . .
Letz discloses a route prediction algorithm that is shared from
one device in transit to another[.] Letz ¶¶ 31–32. Relevant
cited portions of Letz discuss that predicted routes may be
dynamically adapted based on dynamic information such as
“traffic information.” Letz ¶ 40. The Office characterizes
[this] . . . “traffic information”[] as a dynamic feature
(Final Act. 6–7) but neglects [that the information] is never
geographically rendered or represented in any visual form.
Information that is never visually rendered cannot [teach or
suggest] dynamic features for a map layer, as [is claimed].
Appeal 2020-001521
Application 15/411,394

5
Appeal Br. 7–9 (headings omitted; two paragraphs combined; citations
reformatted). We are unpersuaded of error because, for the below reasons,
the arguments do not address the Examiner’s determinations with sufficient
particularity.
The Examiner finds: Jeon’s engine (i.e., software) receives and
renders a map, a user-generated route for the map, and points-of interest
(herein “POI” or “POIs”) for the map (Final Act. 3–4 (citing Jeon ¶ 212));
Jawerth’s engine creates top layers of a map that can be changed without
re-rendering the entire map (i.e., without changing the other layers) and thus
include respective landmarks prone to updates (Ans. 3 (citing
Jawerth ¶ 125)); Letz’s engine shares updates for a mobile device’s
predicted future locations and the respective estimated times of arrival
(herein “ETA” or “ETAs”). Ans. 3 (citing Letz ¶¶ 31, 52). In view of Jeon,
Jawerth, and Letz, the Examiner determines it would have been obvious to:
receive and render a map, user-generated route, and POIs (in view of Jeon);
update such POIs in the map by including and re-rendering them in
respective top layers of the map (Jawerth); and receive updates to the
respective locations of such POIs (Letz). Ans. 3–4.
We agree the proposed combination of prior art teachings presents a
prima facie case of obviousness for the claimed dynamic layer. As shown
by the Examiner’s above citations to the references, Jeon includes a
user-generated route and POIs within a map. Jeon ¶ 212. Jawerth includes a
POI within a top layer of a map. Jawerth ¶ 125. Letz updates a POI to
include a respective ETA. Letz ¶¶ 31, 52. Combining these features—i.e.,
modifying Jeon’s above features in view of Jawerth’s and Letz’s above
features—achieves a map that includes a user-generated route and respective
Appeal 2020-001521
Application 15/411,394

6
POI, isolates the POI within a top layer for easier updating of the POI,
receives a change to a respective ETA, and accordingly updates the POI
within the top layer. Final Act. 8–9; Ans. 3.
Appellant does not persuasively rebut this combination. For example,
Appellant does not show the combination lacks a feature of the claimed
dynamic layer or is an unpredictable modification of Jeon’s map. See KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“If a person of ordinary
skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its
patentability.”). Rather, Appellant contends that neither Jawerth nor Letz
teaches the claimed dynamic layer, which is immaterial. See In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of
references.”).
Appellant also contends:
[The] modification of the cited art . . . entails substantial and
significant changes to the software and hardware infrastructure
of Letz and Jawerth[. F]or example, [the modification entails]
system alterations to provide a mechanism for determining and
rendering dynamic features, system alterations for determining
when associated location information has changed, and system
alterations for dynamically updating geographical
representations of the dynamic features [in] response to such
changes.
Appeal Br. 10. We are unpersuaded of error because the alleged difficulties
of achieving the Examiner’s proposed modifications is not supported by
presented evidence. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
(“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just
attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to
rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). For example, the argument does
Appeal 2020-001521
Application 15/411,394

7
not show the above-discussed modifications of Jeon’s map (supra 5–6)
would have entailed an unexpected accomplishment in system alterations.
See id. at 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[N]aked attorney argument is insufficient
to establish unexpected results.” (internal quotations omitted)); see also
Leapfrog Enter., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (“Leapfrog presents no evidence that the inclusion of a reader in this
type of device was uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill
in the art.” (citing KSR)).
Claim 22
Claim 22 depends from claim 1 and adds: “wherein the at least one
route on the map received from the user computing device is a user-
generated route.” Appeal Br. 20. Appellant contends:
The Office relies on Jeon as disclosing these features of
claim 22[.]
. . . .
The cited portions of Jeon discuss an interface that allow
a user to draw a path on an electronic map. . . . Jeon ¶ 212;
Fig. 14. Letz, in contrast, discloses a route prediction system
that utilizes a user’s present location and one or more
designated future location points to predict a route. . . . Letz
¶¶ 29–031[.] If Letz’s system were modified as suggested by
the Office to receive a “user-generated route,” the route would
be known to the receiving system and there would be no need
to predict the route. Since the intended purpose of Letz is to
predict routes and share predicted routes, this proposed
modification would frustrate that purpose by rendering Letz’s
route prediction system entirely unnecessary.
Appeal Br. 13–14 (some underlining omitted; citations reformatted).
Appeal 2020-001521
Application 15/411,394

8
We are unpersuaded of error because Letz’s invention is not modified
to achieve the Examiner’s proposed combination of prior art teachings.
See supra 5–6 (explaining the combination). Rather, as explained for base
claim 1, features of Jeon are modified. Id. The same features and
modifications are proposed for claim 22 and include, in relevant part, the
user-selected route of Jeon’s map. Final Act. 17. As the Examiner
confirms, the features and modifications do not include Letz’s automated
prediction of a route. Ans. 5. And as the Examiner notes, the teachings of
routes by Jeon and Letz is complementary because POIs of any driven route
(be it user-generated or an automated prediction) have locations and
respective ETAs. Id.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–22.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 9–19, 22 103 Jeon, Van Seggelen, Jawerth, Letz
1–7, 9–19,
22
8, 20, 21 103
Jeon, Van Seggelen,
Jawerth, Letz,
Moczydlowski
8, 20, 21
Overall
Outcome 1–22

TIME PERIOD FOR 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) (2018).

Appeal 2020-001521
Application 15/411,394

9
AFFIRMED