TOMTOM TRAFFIC B.V. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2020

15110419 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2020)

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.
15/110,419 07/08/2016 Arne Kesting 1078/US 7037
75090 7590 03/30/2020
TOMTOM INTERNATIONAL B.V.
IP Creation
De Ruyterkade 154
AMSTERDAM, 1011 AC
NETHERLANDS
EXAMINER
BERNS, MICHAEL ANDREW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
patents@tomtom.com
tony@parklegal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ARNE KESTING, NIKOLAUS WITTE,
and JEAN-CLAUDE MATTELAER

Appeal 2019-005432
Application 15/110,419
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5 and 8–13. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real parties in interest as
TomTom International B.V. and TomTom Global Content B.V. Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-005432
Application 15/110,419

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A method of detecting the closure of a navigable element
forming part of a network of navigable elements within a
geographic area, the method comprising:
obtaining positional data relating to the movement of a
plurality of devices along the navigable element with respect to
time;
using the positional data to determine an elapsed time
since a device was last detected on the navigable element;
determining, for the navigable element, an expected time
interval between consecutive devices being detected on the
navigable element, the expected time interval being an amount
of time during which consecutive devices are expected to be
detected traversing the navigable element;
comparing the determined elapsed time to the expected
time interval between consecutive devices being detected on the
navigable element; and
identifying the navigable element as being potentially
closed when the determined elapsed time exceeds the expected
time interval.

Rejections
Claims 1–5 and 10–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as
anticipated by Ginsberg (US 2013/0162449 A1, pub. June 27, 2013)
(“Ginsberg”).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ginsberg and Boldyrev et al. (US 2014/0067938 A1, pub. Mar. 6,
2014) (“Boldyrev”).

Appeal 2019-005432
Application 15/110,419

3

ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 12 recite, “determining, for the navigable element, an
expected time interval between consecutive devices being detected on the
navigable element, the expected time interval being an amount of time
during which consecutive devices are expected to be detected traversing the
navigable element.” Appeal Br., Amended Claims App. (filed Oct. 24,
2018). Claim 11 includes a nearly identical recitation. Id.
The Examiner finds that Ginsberg’s disclosure in paragraph 54
corresponds to the foregoing recitations of claims 1, 11, and 12. Final
Act. 3, 4, 5. Ginsberg’s paragraph 54, with bold type omitted and italics
added, recites:
In some embodiments, traffic data collected from user
devices 110 over a period of time is stored in database 129 and
processed further by controller 120 to determine or refine routes
proposed by routing module 126. In one specific embodiment,
vehicle speed information collected over a period of time is
used to determine the presence of stop signs that were not
previously known by the system. Knowledge of where such
stop signs are located allows the system to build in appropriate
delays when considering routes that include intersections with
those stop signs. Similarly, over a long period of time it may be
evident that no user devices 110 have traversed a given portion
of a mapped road. Such data may indicate that the road was
planned but never built, that the road has been closed, or that
the road is unavailable for use for some other reason. Based
on such collected data, in some routing module 126 ignores
such road segments as being available for a proposed route.
Conversely, location and speed data from user devices 110 may
indicate that a new road has been built that is not on the base
map loaded into database 129, and if there is enough vehicular
use of such a route, then routing module 126 assumes such a
path, even though not mapped, is available for a proposed route.

Appeal 2019-005432
Application 15/110,419

4

It is the Examiner’s position that based on the foregoing disclosure
“there is necessarily and inherently, some expected time interval having no
user devices that [Ginsberg’s system] is looking for, which may be an hour
or a month.” Ans. 3. Also, the Examiner determines that “Ginsburg
disclosing a ‘long period of time’ must have some established time period.
Computers [sic] implementation of that invention means that the system will
detect a car passing by and start a clock after every car until the next car
passes and records the time between cars.” Id.
The Appellant argues that Ginsberg’s statement “over a long period of
time it may be evident that no user devices 110 have traversed a given
portion of a mapped road,” in paragraph 54, is vague and consequently, the
Examiner’s finding is inadequately supported. See Appeal Br. 10–12. The
Appellant’s argument is persuasive.
Although “over a long period of time” includes an interval of time, it
is not necessarily the case that the interval of time is “an expected time
interval between consecutive devices being detected on the navigable
element, the expected time interval being an amount of time during which
consecutive devices are expected to be detected traversing the navigable
element” that is determined. The interval of time, i.e., “over a long period of
time,” may refer to a set period of time, such as a one hour period, during
which no devices are ever detected. The lack of detection of the devices
may be used to determine that a road was planned but never built, that a road
has been closed, or that a road is unavailable for use for some other reason.
Consequently, we do not agree with the Examiner’s position that Ginsberg’s
system will detect a car passing by and start a clock after every car until the
next car passes and records the time between cars. Although the Examiner’s
Appeal 2019-005432
Application 15/110,419

5

position offers one possibility as to how Ginsberg’s system may work, it is
not necessarily the case that the system works in that manner. Therefore, the
Examiner’s rejection, based on anticipation, is not adequately supported.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 11, and
12, or claims that depend therefrom, as anticipated by Ginsberg.
Additionally, the Examiner fails to rely on Boldyrev in any manner that
would remedy the deficiency discussed above. Therefore, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 9, which depend either directly or
indirectly from claim 1, as unpatentable over Ginsberg and Boldyrev.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 10–
13
102(a)(2) Ginsberg

1–5, 10–13
8, 9 103(a) Ginsberg, Boldyrev 8, 9
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 8–13

REVERSED