Aben, Sjoerd et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 9, 2020

2019002816 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 9, 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.
12/736,946 01/25/2011 Sjoerd Aben 1363/US 4202
75090 7590 07/09/2020
TOMTOM INTERNATIONAL B.V.
IP Creation
De Ruyterkade 154
AMSTERDAM, 1011 AC
NETHERLANDS
EXAMINER
LE, PETER D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2488
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/09/2020 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 SJOERD ABEN, ERIK THOMASSEN,
and TEUN DE HAAS

Appeal 2019-002816
Application 12/736,946
Technology Center 2400

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s Final decision to reject claims 17, 26, 28, and 38–40. Appeal
Br. 3. Claims 1–16, 18, 20–25, 27, 33, 35, 37, and 41 have been cancelled.
Id. Claims 19, 29–32, 34, and 36 are rejected, but have not been appealed.
Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies TomTom Traffic, B.V., as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002816
Application 12/736,946

2
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention generally relates to a navigation apparatus for a
vehicle. Appeal Br. 5. The navigation apparatus is controlled to respond to
the occurrence of an incident, such as recognition of a stop sign, a police car,
or sharp braking of a vehicle. Spec. 4:1–2, 22–26. The navigation
apparatus, upon detecting an incident, transmits an incident signal to a
second navigation apparatus. Id. 5:6–19. Both the first and the second
navigation apparatuses have an image recording device, and in response to
receiving an incident signal, performs an image data transmission or
recording operation, such as to a server. Id. at 4:36–5:5.
Independent claim 17 is illustrative:
17. A navigation apparatus installed in a vehicle, comprising:
detection circuitry configured to detect motion of the
vehicle, the detection circuitry detecting a motion of the vehicle
indicative of the occurrence of an incident involving the
vehicle;
an image recording device configured to continuously or
periodically record first image data, wherein continuously or
periodically recording the first image data comprises recording
image data for a first amount of time before the occurrence of
the incident;
a memory configured to store the first image data; and
a processing resource configured to, in response to the
detection circuitry detecting the occurrence of the incident,
both:
transmit, to a server, the first image data stored in
the memory, the first image data comprising the image
data recorded before the occurrence of the incident; and
directly transmit, to at least one other navigation
apparatus, an incident signal, the incident signal
Appeal 2019-002816
Application 12/736,946

3
configured to cause the at least one other navigation
apparatus to transmit, to the server, second image data
that was recorded by the at least one other navigation
apparatus for a second amount of time before the
occurrence of the incident and stored in a memory of the
at least one other navigation apparatus.
Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.). Independent claims 26 and 28 recite a method
and a computer-readable medium having limitations similar to that of claim
17. Appeal Br. 20–21. Dependent claims 38–40 each incorporate the
limitations of their respective independent claims. Id. at 22–23.

REFERENCES

Name Reference Date
Wee US 2004/0088090 A1 May 6, 2004
Paradie US 2006/0031015 A1 Feb. 9, 2006
Luke WO 2008/043842 A2 Apr. 17, 2008
Ooga et al.
(Ooga)
2009/0015684 A1 Jan. 15, 2009

REJECTIONS
Claims 17, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Wee and Ooga.
Claims 38–40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over the combination of Wee, Ooga, and Luke.
Claims 19, 30–32, 34, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over the combination of Wee and Ooga, but have not been
appealed. Appeal Br. 3. Further, claim 29 has been rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Wee, Ooga, and
Appeal 2019-002816
Application 12/736,946

4
Paradie, but has not been appealed. Id. Accordingly, we summarily sustain
those rejections. 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(c) (“An appeal, when taken, is presumed
to be taken from the rejection of all claims under rejection unless cancelled
by an amendment filed by the applicant and entered by the Office”); Rules
of Practice Before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex Parte
Appeals, 76 Fed. Reg. 72270, 72280-81 (“It has long been USPTO practice
that an appellant must either appeal from the rejection of all the rejected
claims or cancel those claims not being appealed.”) (citing In re Benjamin,
1903 Dec. Comm. Pat. 132, 134 (1903); MPEP 1205.02 (“If a ground of
rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant’s brief,
appellant has waived any challenge to that ground of rejection and the Board
may summarily sustain it.”).
OPINION
1. Obviousness
a) Claims 17, 26, and 26
We have reviewed the Examiner’s obviousness rejections (Final Act.
2–10, Ans. 15) in light of Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner has
erred (Appeal Br. 8–13). Appellant contends that the Examiner errs in
finding the combination of Wee and Ooga to teach or suggest a navigation
apparatus that transmits an incident signal to a second navigation apparatus,
where the second navigation apparatus transmits, to a server, image data
recorded by the second navigation apparatus.
The Examiner finds Wee to teach or suggest a navigation apparatus
having a video camera and a circuit detecting occurrence of a vehicle
collision, and transmitting the video images to a service center. Final Act. 3
(citing Wee ¶ 17, Fig. 1), 5 (citing Wee ¶¶ 18–19). The Examiner finds that
Appeal 2019-002816
Application 12/736,946

5
Ooga teaches directly transmitting an “accident session ID” as an incident
signal to a “drive recorder” of a target vehicle, causing the navigation
apparatus of the target vehicle to transmit stored image data to an “accident-
information collecting server.” Ans. 15 (citing Ooga ¶¶ 104–106, Fig. 8);
see also Final Act. 5–6. The Examiner further finds Ooga to teach a second
vehicle taking an image of an accident involving a first vehicle. Final Act. 3
(citing Ooga ¶ 74).
Appellant contends that neither Wee nor Ooga describe or suggest the
direct transmission of an incident signal from a navigation apparatus to other
navigation apparatuses to cause the other navigation apparatuses to transmit
recorded image data to a server. Appeal Br. 14. Appellant first argues that
Wee merely describes vehicles exchanging vehicle information, such as
vehicle number, model and color, with each other following a vehicle
accident. Id. at 11. Appellant argues that Wee does not cause the second
vehicle to send any image data to a server. Id. at 12.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument against Wee
separately. The Examiner relies on Ooga, not Wee, for causing a second
vehicle to transmit image data to a server. Final Act. 3, 5–6 (citing Ooga
¶¶ 74, 104–106). Furthermore, “one cannot show nonobviousness by
attacking references individually where, as here, the rejection[] [is] based on
combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981);
In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Consequently, we
are not persuaded, by Appellant’s arguments solely against Wee, that the
Examiner has failed to show the combination of Wee and Ooga teaches or
suggests the limitation at issue.
Appeal 2019-002816
Application 12/736,946

6
Appellant next argues that Ooga teaches that the server collects
information from devices in the vehicles, instead of a vehicle having a
navigation apparatus directly transmitting to another apparatus an incident
signal causing information to be sent to the server. Appeal Br. 12–13 (citing
Ooga ¶¶ 88, 101–105, Fig. 8,).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention of Examiner error.
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, Ooga does show a second (target) vehicle
receiving a request from the first vehicle (step S202), and in response,
transmitting data to the accident collecting server (step S208). Ooga Figure
8 is reproduced below:

Ooga’s Figure 8 shows steps taken by the drive decoder of an accident
vehicle, the drive recorder of a target vehicle, and an accident-information
collecting server to transmit requests and data relating to an accident. In
Appeal 2019-002816
Application 12/736,946

7
Step 208, Ooga transmits to the server “an image corresponding to the
accident session ID . . . among the images saved in the save memory.” Ooga
¶ 105; see also Ans. 15. Consequently, we are not persuaded, by
Appellant’s arguments solely against Ooga, that the Examiner has failed to
show the combination of Wee and Ooga teaches or suggests the limitation at
issue.
Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments against
Wee and Ooga separately. Those arguments form the basis of Appellant’s
arguments against the combination of Wee and Ooga to teach or suggest
claim 17. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 17. Claims 26 and 28 are rejected under the
same grounds of rejection as claim 17. Appellant has not argued those
claims separately, and they fall with claim 17. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17, 26, and 28.

b) Claims 38–40
Claims 38–40 are rejected under the combination of Wee and Ooga as
applied to claim 17, further in view of Luke. Claims 38–40 each contain the
additional limitation of:
wherein the incident signal transmitted to the at least one other
navigation apparatus comprises a vehicle identifier, and
wherein the incident signal is further configured to cause the at
least one other navigation apparatus to analyze the second
image data that was recorded by the at least one other
navigation apparatus for the presence of a vehicle or number
plate in based on the vehicle identifier, wherein the vehicle
identifier is representative of an identified vehicle, vehicle type
or number plate.
Appeal Br. 22–23 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-002816
Application 12/736,946

8
Appellant argues this limitation is not taught by any of Wee, Ooga, or
Luke, either individually or in combination. Appellant characterizes Luke as
“describing how vehicles search for nearby registered vehicles using image
processing.” Appeal Br. 17. Appellant argues that “Luke does not describe
or suggest a device/vehicle causing a receiving device vehicle to perform”
the claimed operations. Id. Appellant cites the following passage of Luke:
The first vehicle (1) transmits the vehicle's own current
position, the registration information and further information
such as the velocity of the vehicle, the brake signal or the like.
. . . The receiving vehicle (2) receives the data. At the same
time, the vehicle detects or searches for vehicles in the
immediately surrounding area by means of the camera (3) and,
if a vehicle has been identified, the license number (4) is
acquired and read.

Id. at 16–17 (citing Luke ¶¶ 27, 29).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments solely against Luke,
because the rejection was made over Luke in combination with Wee and
Ooga. Appellant’s argument against the combination of references is that
none of the references separately teach or suggest, and that no combination
of Wee and Ooga describes or suggests, the entirety of the disputed
limitation. Appeal Br. 17. We are not persuaded by this argument because
it fails to explain why the combination of Wee, Ooga, and Luke fails to
teach or suggest the disputed limitation.
As discussed, supra at 5–6, we agree with the Examiner that the
combination of Wee and Ooga teaches or suggests a device/vehicle causing
another device/vehicle to send image data to a server. We further agree with
the Examiner’s undisputed characterization of Luke as using a camera to
identify a vehicle image and to identify the license number of the vehicle,
Appeal 2019-002816
Application 12/736,946

9
and the Examiner’s further description of Wee as teaching transmission of
information such as a vehicle number to another vehicle. Ans. 16 (citing
Wee ¶ 12). Appellants have not provided any persuasive explanation of why
the combination of Wee, Ooga, and Luke does not teach or suggest the
invention of claims 38–40. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in
the Examiner’s combination of Wee, Ooga, and Luke to teach or suggest the
limitations of claims 38–40.
DECISION
For the above-described reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 17, 26, and 28 as being obvious over Wee and Ooga under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). We also affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 38–40
as being over Wee, Ooga, and Luke under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We
summarily affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 19, 29–32, 34, and 36,
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and not appealed by Appellant.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Grounds Affirmed Reversed
17, 19,
26, 28,
30–32,
34, 36
103(a) Wee, Ooga 17, 19, 26,
28, 30–32,
34, 36

29 103(a) Wee, Ooga, Paradie 29
38–40 103(a) Wee, Ooga, Luke 38–40
Overall
Outcome
17, 19, 26,
28–32, 34,
36, 38–40

Appeal 2019-002816
Application 12/736,946

10
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