Denaro, Robert

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 31, 2020

12156269 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 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.
12/156,269 05/30/2008 Robert Denaro 10171-12040A
(NC58205US)
3380
101535 7590 01/31/2020
Lempia Summerfield Katz LLC/HERE
20 South Clark Street
Suite 600
Chicago, IL 60603
EXAMINER
WILLIAMS, KELLY D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2020 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):
docket-us@lsk-iplaw.com
hereipr@here.com
pair_lsk@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBERT DENARO

Appeal 2019-004161
Application 12/156,269
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–21, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Here
Global B.V.” Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004161
Application 12/156,269

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates to a method and system that
enables taking a precautionary action in a vehicle, such as providing a
warning to a vehicle driver about a potentially difficult or hazardous driving
condition on the road network.” Spec. 1:13–15. Method claims 1 and 18,
and apparatus claims 8 and 14, are independent. Claims 1 and 8 are
illustrative of the claims on appeal and are reproduced below.
1. A method for making, prior to a vehicle's approach to a
potentially hazardous location, a component configured for a
vehicle system that provides a precautionary action in a vehicle
when the vehicle approaches the potentially hazardous location,
wherein the component comprises an augmented version of a
database that represents a road network in a geographic region,
and using the component to provide a precautionary action, the
method comprising:
with a computer configured to operate under programming
instructions, evaluating data contained in a first version of the
database to identify locations along roads throughout the
geographic region where a combination of a first condition and a
second condition exist together at a same location wherein the
first condition comprises a straight road section characterized in
the database by no curvature followed by a curved road section
characterized in the database by at least some curvature and
wherein the second condition comprises a speed limit change
between the straight road section and the curved road section;
with the computer configured to operate under
programming instructions, upon determining existence of the
second condition at the location of the first condition, adding
precautionary action data in association with the location to form
the augmented version of the database, such that the vehicle
system of the vehicle, based upon the vehicle's approach to a
location, may determine whether precautionary action data exists
in the augmented version of the database in association with the
approached location and, based on the existence thereof, take a
precautionary action and wherein the vehicle system does not
Appeal 2019-004161
Application 12/156,269

3
take a precautionary action based on the precautionary action
data when precautionary action data does not exist in the
augmented version of the database in association with the
approached location;
coupling the augmented version of the database with the
vehicle system of the vehicle, the vehicle system comprising a
positioning system;
accessing the augmented version of the database based on
a location obtained from the positioning system of the vehicle
system;
determining whether precautionary action data exists in
the augmented version of the database in association with the
obtained location; and
providing the result of the determination to the vehicle
system.
8. A database stored on a non-transitory computer-readable
medium, wherein the database includes data that represents a
road network in a geographic region, wherein the database
comprises:
data records configured to represent road segments that
make up the road network;
data configured to indicate a speed limit change occurs
between a straight road section and a curved road section along
the road network; and
data configured in advance of operation of a vehicle to
indicate precautionary action locations, wherein a precautionary
action location is associated with a location where a speed limit
change occurs between a straight road section characterized in
the database by no curvature and a curved road section
characterized in the database by at least some curvature along the
road network, wherein the data indicative of a precautionary
action location is operative to enable a vehicle system of the
vehicle to take a precautionary action when the vehicle system
determines that the vehicle is approaching a location associated
with data stored in the database indicative of a precautionary
action location and not take a precautionary action when the
vehicle system determines that the vehicle is approaching a
Appeal 2019-004161
Application 12/156,269

4
location not associated with data stored in the database indicative
of a precautionary action location; and
wherein the database is further configured to be accessed
based on a location from a vehicle system having a positioning
system therein, the location provided by the positioning system,
determine whether the location is associated with data stored in
the database indicative of a precautionary action location, and
provide the result thereof to the vehicle system.
EVIDENCE
Name Reference Date
Tamura US 2001/0020902 A1 Sept. 13, 2001
Harumoto et al.
(“Harumoto”)
US 2004/0193347 A1 Sept. 30, 2004
Donath et al. (“Donath”) US 2005/0149251 A1 July 7, 2005
Kellum et al. (“Kellum”) US 2007/0050127 A1 Mar. 1, 2007
Witmer US 2009/144030 A1 June 4, 2009
REJECTIONS2
Claims 1–11 and 13–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tamura, Kellum, and Donath.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Tamura, Kellum, Donath, and Harumoto.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Tamura, Kellum, Donath, and Witmer.

2 “With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. [§] 112, Applicant's
arguments have been found persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under
35 U.S.C. [§] 112 are withdrawn.” Advisory Action dated August 15, 2018.
Appeal 2019-004161
Application 12/156,269

5
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1–11 and 13–20
as unpatentable over Tamura, Kellum, and Donath
Independent claim 1 contains limitations (that are addressed below)
which are not recited in independent claims 8, 14, and 18. Accordingly, we
address independent claim 1 (and its dependent claims 2–7) separate from
independent claims 8, 14, and 18 (and their dependent claims).
Independent claim 1
Claim 1 recites the step of “evaluating data contained in a first version
of the database” to ascertain if certain conditions “exist together at a same
location.” Claim 1 further recites that “upon determining [such] existence . .
. adding precautionary action data . . . to form the augmented version of the
database.”3 In other words, the database is augmented (provided certain
conditions exist) based upon an evaluation of itself. This is consistent with
Appellant’s Specification addressing “a data mining function” wherein the
conditions sought are “derived from data already collected and present in the
database.” Spec. 7:25–28.
The Examiner relies on Tamura for the recited database augmentation
teachings. See Final Act. 4. Appellant disagrees stating “Tamura relies on
prior accident reports in order to augment the disclosed database.” Appeal
Br. 8. Appellant explains, “in Tamura, the database is not analyzed at all to
add precautionary action data as such data is entered in the database of

3 This is so that, as claimed, “based upon the vehicle’s approach to a
location,” the vehicle “may determine whether precautionary action data
exists in the augmented version of the database in association with the
approached location.”
Appeal 2019-004161
Application 12/156,269

6
Tamura based simply on after-the-fact reports of the occurrence of an
accident at a location.” Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 2.
Tamura teaches a server that “stores accident data regarding the
conditions of vehicles involved in past accidents” that “is easy to update.”
Tamura ¶¶ 9, 10; see also ¶ 15. In other words, Tamura’s server (database)
is updated with recent past-accident data from more current sources, and not
from an evaluation of itself, as recited.4 See Appeal Br. 7–9, Reply Br. 2–4.
We agree with Appellant. The Examiner does not make clear how
Tamura’s updated database renders obvious Appellant’s evaluation of “a
first version of the database” for certain conditions associated with a certain
location, and, finding same, adding data “to form the augmented version of
the database.” Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 (and dependent claims 2–7) as
being obvious over Tamura, Kellum, and Donath.
Independent claims 8, 14, and 18
Neither of these independent claims recite evaluating a first version of
the database for certain conditions, and then adding data to that database to
form an augmented version of the database, as discussed above. Hence,
these three independent claims are addressed separately from our discussion
of claim 1 above.5 Appellant argues claims 8, 14, and 18 together (and

4 “The accident data include accident position data corresponding to
positions where accidents occurred and accident vehicle speed data
corresponding to speeds of vehicles involved in the accidents at the time the
accidents occurred.” Tamura ¶ 11.
5 For example, claim 8 recites “data configured in advance of operation of a
vehicle to indicate precautionary action locations,” claim 14 recites “a
database configured prior to operation of a vehicle,” and claim 18 recites
“accessing a database configured prior to operation of the vehicle.”
Appeal 2019-004161
Application 12/156,269

7
concurrently with claim 1). See Appeal Br. 5–14. We select claim 8 for
review, with the remaining claims standing or falling therewith. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner primarily relies on Tamura for disclosing the
limitations of claim 8, but acknowledges certain deficiencies with Tamura,
and relies on the teachings of Kellum and Donath to surmount these
deficiencies. See Final Act. 9–11. Specifically, the Examiner relies on
Kellum for disclosing a “database comprising data configured to indicate a
speed limit change occurs between a straight road section and a curved road
section.” Final Act. 10; see also Ans. 8. Regarding any ambiguity that may
arise concerning Kellum’s straight and curved road sections, the Examiner
relies on Donath for “teach[ing] that a straight road section is characterized
in the database by no curvature and a curved road section is characterized in
the database by at least some curvature.” Final Act. 10. The Examiner
expresses a reliance on Donath “as an alternative or additional technique of
defining features of a road, such as straight and curved road sections.” Final
Act. 10–11.
Because Appellant argues claims 1–11 and 13–20 together (see
Appeal Br. 5–14), we need not address Appellant’s arguments therein
regarding the lack of an augmented database in Tamura because such
limitation is not present in claim 8. See Appeal Br. 7–8. We likewise need
not address Appellant’s arguments concerning the Examiner “taking Official
Notice” regarding the relative risk of an accident between straight and
curved road sections (Appeal Br. 8) because “[t]he Examiner has not taken
Appeal 2019-004161
Application 12/156,269

8
Official Notice” on this point (Ans. 4).6 We further need not address
Appellant’s arguments regarding Tamura’s database “never be[ing] as
complete as Appellant’s claimed database” because the Examiner is
modifying “the teachings of Tamura with the aforementioned teachings of
Kellum.” Appeal Br. 9; Final Act. 10. In other words, the Examiner is not
relying on Tamura’s database alone, but is also relying on the teachings of
Kellum whose database identifies locations where a straight road section is
followed by a curved road section, and the posted speed of that curve. See
Final Act. 10 (referencing Kellum ¶ 19, Fig. 3); see also Kellum Fig. 7
(illustrating transitions from an “In-Straight” position to an “Entering
Curve” position to an “Exiting Curve” position), Ans. 6. Kellum states that
such analysis is to assist the driver “to negotiate the curve” and that such
data can “be delivered to the driver when the vehicle 10 is within some
distance of or some time before the Curve Start.” Kellum ¶¶ 26, 27. Thus,
Appellant’s focus on Tamura’s database as not being complete is not
responsive to the Examiner’s rejection that relies on the combination of the
teachings of Tamura and Kellum (and that of Donath). See Final Act. 9–11.
When addressing Kellum, Appellant contends, “Kellum teaches only
examining individual road segments as opposed to the relationship among
adjacent road segments.” Appeal Br. 10: see also id. at 11, 12; Reply Br. 5–

6 The Examiner explains, “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would
readily expect that there is a higher risk of an accident occurring along a
curved road section associated with an advisory speed limit (which is lower
than a posted speed limit) because, by their nature, advisory speed limits for
curved road sections are designed to suggest that the driver slow down and
take caution as the safe speed for negotiating the road section is below the
legal posted speed.” Ans. 5.
Appeal 2019-004161
Application 12/156,269

9
8. Appellant acknowledges “Kellum’s disclosure of separately calculating
curvature for each road segment,” but contends that Kellum “does not
disclose identification of adjacent straight and curved road segments having
different speed limits there between.” Appeal Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 5
(“Segment by segment analysis is not the same as analyzing a given segment
in combination with another segment.”).
It is not disputed that Kellum teaches “map databases [that] use a
series of points to represent a roadway,” with straight roadways “represented
by as few as two points” and curved roadways “represented by a plurality of
closely spaced points.” Kellum ¶ 16. Further, Paragraph 2 of Kellum states
that “[c]urved roadways can be a significant source of roadway departures”
because the upcoming curve is not identified “in time to slow down with the
result being that the vehicle enters the curve too fast.” Additionally, Figure
3 of Kellum illustrates an exemplary dashboard which displays an advisory
speed for an upcoming curve (as compared with present speed). See Kellum
¶ 28 (“the vehicle 10 may enter a curve at a speed that exceeds the estimated
negotiable speed.”). Consequently, Kellum is able to distinguish an
upcoming curved roadway section and provide a warning of the approaching
curve to the driver, as well as an advisory speed for that curve. See also
Kellum ¶ 15, Ans. 8. Thus, Appellant’s contention that “Kellum teaches
only examining individual road segments as opposed to the relationship
among adjacent road segments” (Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 5) is puzzling in
view of such explicit disclosures in Kellum of assessing the vehicle’s
approach to curved road sections. Further, it is clear from at least Figure 3
of Kellum that this reference discloses an upcoming road segment having a
different speed limit. See also Kellum Abstract, Figure 1 (box 14
Appeal 2019-004161
Application 12/156,269

10
(“calculating estimated negotiable speed”)). Accordingly, Appellant’s
contentions of Examiner error due to a reliance on Kellum are not well-
founded.
Appellant further seeks to distinguish Kellum because Kellum’s “True
Curves are determined from candidate curves, meaning that there must be
other types of curves other than True Curves in the system of Kellum.”
Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 7. However, the Examiner seems to already be
aware of some possible ambiguity in Kellum regarding curved road
segments, and hence the Examiner’s additional reliance on Donath. See
Final Act. 10–11 (addressing the teachings of Donath as “an alternative or
additional technique of defining features of a road.”). As stated above, the
Examiner relied on Donath for “teach[ing] that a straight road section is
characterized in the database by no curvature and a curved road section is
characterized in the database by at least some curvature.” Final Act. 10.
Thus, Appellant’s focus on Kellum on this point is not persuasive of error.
Regarding Donath, Appellant contends, “the Examiner has failed to
show a sufficient motivation to combine.” Appeal Br. 12. However, as
previously expressed, the Examiner notes Donath’s teachings “as an
alternative or additional technique.” Final Act. 10–11; see also Ans. 9. We
have been instructed that “if a technique has been used to improve one
device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Here, Appellant does not explain
how the implementation of Donath’s distinction between curved and straight
road sections is beyond the ability of one skilled in the art. In other words,
Appeal 2019-004161
Application 12/156,269

11
Appellant is not persuasive that Donath’s differentiation between these
segments cannot be an “alternative or additional technique” in discerning
between such sections.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 8, 14, and 18, and their
dependent claims 9–11, 13, 15–17, 19, and 20.
The rejection of claim 12
as unpatentable over Tamura, Kellum, Donath, and Harumoto
Claim 12 depends from claim 8. Appellant contends that the
additional reliance on “Harumoto does not fill the gaps identified above”
with respect to claim 8. Appeal Br. 13. We are not persuaded there are
“gaps” in the teachings of Tamura, Kellum, and Donath as indicated above.
See also Ans. 9. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
12 as being obvious over Tamura, Kellum, Donath, and Harumoto.
The rejection of claim 21
as unpatentable over Tamura, Kellum, Donath, and Witmer
Claim 21 depends directly from claim 1. Witmer does not cure the
defect of the lack of an augmented database as discussed with respect to
claim 1 above. Thus, for similar reasons, we likewise do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 as being obvious in view of Tamura,
Kellum, Donath, and Witmer.
However, to address Appellant’s contentions, we note that claim 21
further recites, “no shape points” being stored in association with a straight
road section, and “at least one shape point” being stored in association with
a curved road section. The Examiner relies on Witmer for such teachings.
See Final Act. 18 (referencing Witmer Fig. 3). Appellant’s Specification
Appeal 2019-004161
Application 12/156,269

12
differentiates between the recited “shape points” and what are described and
illustrated as “nodes.” See Spec. Fig. 3; see also Spec. 4:21–29 (“Shape
points indicate the geographic coordinates at points along the road segment
between the nodes.”). Witmer, on the other hand, does not differentiate
between shape points and nodes, calling all such locations along the
roadway “shape points.” See, e.g., Witmer ¶ 84, Fig. 3; see also Appeal Br.
13–14, Reply Br. 10 (both stating “Witmer specifically teaches that the
points 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307 are ALL shape points.”).
As a consequence, Appellant contends, “there is no teaching in
Witmer of a straight road segment stored in a database with NO shape points
as claimed by Appellant.” Appeal Br. 14, Reply Br. 10. This is because in
Witmer, the end points 302, 303 of a straight road section are described as
“shape points” whereas in accordance with Figure 1B of Appellant’s
Specification, a corresponding straight section has end points 30, 32
described as “nodes.” See Reply Br. 9 (“‘node’/‘endpoints’ 30 and 32”).
Thus, Appellant makes the above assertion that Witmer lacks a teaching of a
straight road segment “with NO shape points.”
Addressing this disparity in terminology, the Examiner analogizes the
two straight road sections “comparing Applicant’s Fig. 1B and Witmer’s
Fig. 3.” But for a difference in the terminology used to describe their
respective end points, there is no difference. See Ans. 10–11. In other
words, should one skilled in the art apply Appellant’s terminology to
Witmer’s disclosure, Appellant does not explain how the limitation of claim
21 would not have been disclosed.
Accordingly, although we are not persuaded by Appellant’s “shape
points” arguments specific to claim 21, we nevertheless reverse the
Appeal 2019-004161
Application 12/156,269

13
Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 in view of a lack of an augmented database
as recited in parent claim 1. We thus reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 21 as being obvious over Tamura, Kellum, Donath, and Witmer.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–7 103(a) Tamura, Kellum,
Donath
1–7
8–11, 13–20 103(a) Tamura, Kellum,
Donath
8–11, 13–20
12 103(a) Tamura, Kellum,
Donath, Harumoto
12
21 103(a) Tamura, Kellum,
Donath, Witmer
21
Overall
Outcome
8–20 1–7, 21
No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART