Ex Parte Alam et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 25, 2017

13300156 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2017)

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.
13/300,156 11/18/2011 Mudassir Alam 3382-87239-02 1002
26119 7590 10/27/2017
KLARQUIST SPARKMAN LLP
121 S.W. SALMON STREET
SUITE 1600
PORTLAND, OR 97204
EXAMINER
JOS, BASIL T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/27/2017 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):
docketing @klarquist.com
u sdocket @ micro soft .com
AS CChair @klarquist. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MUD AS SIR ALAM, and
JUAN PABLO CANDELAS GONZALEZ
Appeal 2016-006666
Application 13/300,156
Technology Center 3600
Before THU A. DANG, SCOTT E. BAIN, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3, 5—7, 10-18, and 20-22. Claims 2, 4, 8, 9, and
19 were previously canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to “rendering views of
a digital map in which map navigation applications are optimized using a
spatial sorting method to generate a reduced set of route points” (Spec. 16).
Appeal 2016-006666
Application 13/300,156
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below:
1. A method, implemented by a mobile electronic device, of
optimizing rendering of a prescribed route shown on a digital map, wherein
the digital map comprises a plurality of tiles, the method comprising:
receiving, by the mobile electronic device, a plurality of route points
defining the prescribed route;
determining, by the mobile electronic device, which route points, of
the plurality of route points, are relevant to each of one or more tiles of the
plurality of tiles, wherein relevance of a given route point to a given tile
means that the given route point is needed to correctly render the prescribed
route on the given tile, wherein the determining is based on a set of
relevance rules, wherein the set of relevance rules includes at least one
of:
a first rule indicating that a first route point outside a first tile and a
second route point outside the first tile are relevant to the first tile if a first
route segment connecting the first route point and the second route point
intersects the first tile; and
a second rule indicating that a third route point outside a second tile is
relevant to the second tile if a second route segment intersects the second
tile, a third route segment intersects the second tile, and the third route point
is situated between the second route segment and the third route segment
along the prescribed route; and
storing, by the mobile electronic device, an association between each
of the one or more tiles and the route points determined to be relevant
thereto.
2
Appeal 2016-006666
Application 13/300,156
C. REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10—12, and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Elliott (US 2010/0106403 Al; published
Apr. 29, 2010).
2. Claims 7, 13, and 15—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Elliott and Slavik et al. (US 2010/0114905 Al;
published May 6, 2010).
3. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Elliott, Slavik, and Huber et al. (US 7,689,621 Bl; issued
Mar. 30, 2010).
II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
finding Elliott discloses “determining . . . which route points . . . are relevant
to each of one or more tiles . . . that the given route point is needed to
correctly render the prescribed route on the given tile” (claim 1).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence:
Appellants ’ Invention
1. Appellants’ invention is directed to optimizing map navigation
applications using spatial sorting (| 6), wherein Figure 5a is reproduced
below:
3
Appeal 2016-006666
Application 13/300,156
figure 5a
Figure 5a shows a regional map 500 along with route 510 for navigation,
wherein the route begins at point 520 in Seattle, Washington, and extends
southward toward destination 530 in Fort Lewis, Washington (| 59). As
shown in Figure 5a, the regional map 500 is partitioned into 12 tiles 531—
542, segmenting the route 510 (160).
Elliott
2. Elliott discloses providing geographic data to end users from remotely
located navigation services provider (Abstract), wherein once the destination
has been specified, data indicating the destination is used to calculate route
to the destination, and intermediate exit points along the route are identified
within the initial set of geographic data (16). Figure 8 is reproduced below:
4
Appeal 2016-006666
Application 13/300,156
FIG. 8 shows a diagram illustrating determination of the route and map tile
exit points (114). As shown in FIG. 8, a mobile unit receives data
indicating locations of map tile exit points for the map tiles intersected by
the route (145). A route calculation function calculates a route from the
current position of the mobile unit to the farthest map tile exit point for
which map tile data had been received from the navigation services provider
(146). For example, as shown in FIG. 8, for the mobile unit located in map
tile (025), once data for map tiles (025) and (035) had been received, the
mobile unit calculates a route to the second map tile exit point.
5
Appeal 2016-006666
Application 13/300,156
IV. ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C.§ 102
Appellants contend that “Elliott does not perform any determination
with regard to relevance of a given route point to a given tile,” as recited in
the claims (App. Br. 12, emphasis omitted). According to Appellants,
“‘relevance’ relates to relevance of a given route point to a given tile for
purposes of rendering (or determining) a route between a starting and a
destination end points.” Id. Although Appellants concede that Elliott’s
device “calculates the route based on the exit points and the map tiles” using
a “route calculation function 375” from map tile data received from a
“‘navigation services provide 128’” (App. Br. 12), Appellants contend
Elliott fails to disclose the contested limitation.
In view of all of Appellants’ arguments and evidence presented, we
are unpersuaded the Examiner erred in concluding Elliott anticipates the
claims.
As Appellants concede, Elliott’s device calculates a route “based on
the exit points and the map tiles” (App. Br. 12). Here, similar to Appellants’
invention as set forth in Figure 5a (FF 1), Elliott discloses a route that begins
at a “new current position,” and extends southward toward destination,
wherein the regional map is partitioned into tiles, segmenting the route (FF
2). In Elliott’s Figure 8, exit points (route points) exiting each tile that form
the prescribed route (i.e., relevant to each of the tiles and needed to correctly
render the prescribed route) are determined (identified) from the initial set of
geographic data. Id.
As the Examiner finds, “Fig. 8 of Elliott like Fig. 5a of [Appellants’]
disclosure displays a route which is represented by a geometric curve which
6
Appeal 2016-006666
Application 13/300,156
passes through a number of tiles” (Ans. 3). As the Examiner explains, “[i]t
is clearly seen in FIG. 8 of Elliott that if any single point along the curve is
not rendered, the route itself will no longer be correctly rendered but will
instead be broken into at least two separate geometric curves” (id.). We
agree with the Examiner that “every point along the route curve is relevant
to the tile in which it is located as disclosed by Appellants].” Id. Thus, we
agree with the Examiner that “Elliott does indeed disclose ‘relevance of a
given route point to a given tile means that the given route point is needed to
correctly render the prescribed route on the given tile’” (id.).
Although Appellants contend “independent claims recite the specific
use of a ‘first rule’ and a ‘second rule’ for purposes of determining whether
a given route point is relevant to a given tile” (App. Br. 12), we note that the
claims merely recite “the set of relevance rules includes at least one of. a
first rule . . . and a second rule . . .” (claim 1, emphasis added). That is,
contrary to Appellants contentions, the claims do not require a “first rule”
and a “second rule.” Here, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that
Elliott discloses “at least one” rule (Ans. 4). As Appellants concede, Elliott
discloses a “route calculation function 375” to calculate the route (App. Br.
12—13), wherein Elliott renders the route by determining the exit points on
the tiles necessary for the route. As Appellants stress, “‘relevance’ relates to
relevance of a given route point to a given tile for purposes of rendering (or
determining) a route between a starting and a destination end points.” Id.
On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
and its dependent claims 3 and 10 (App. Br. 14), as being anticipated by
Elliott.
7
Appeal 2016-006666
Application 13/300,156
Although for claims 5 and 6, Appellants add that Elliott does not
disclose any selection of a subset of route points (App. Br. 15—16), we do
not find any error in the Examiner’s finding that Elliott discloses a “subset”
of route points (Ans. 4—5).
Regarding claim 22, the Examiner finds “as in the case with the first
and second rules discussed in earlier sections, it is trivial to select points and
segments along the geometric route curve that satisfy said third and fourth
rule” (Ans. 5). We, however, agree with Appellants’ contention that the
Examiner does not specifically point out where Elliott discloses the “first
rule,” “second rule,” “third rule,” and “fourth rule” (App. Br. 17). That is,
contrary to claim 1 from which claim 22 depends, which merely recites “at
least one of [the rules],” claim 22 requires that the set of relevance rules
“includes each of’ the rules (claim 22, emphasis added). Here, the
Examiner has not established that Elliott teaches that the relevance rules
include “each” of the rules, as required in an anticipation rejection.
Therefore, on this record, we are constrained to reverse the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of dependent claim 22.
35 U.S.C. §103
As for claims 7 and 13, Appellants merely contend that Slavik does
not disclose the contested limitation (App. Br. 18—20), and for claims 15 and
18, Appellants merely contend that Elliott does not disclose the contested
limitation (App. Br. 20—21). However, the test for obviousness is not what
the references show individually, but what the combined teachings would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co.,
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). On this record, we are
8
Appeal 2016-006666
Application 13/300,156
unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in concluding that the claims would
have been obvious over the combined teachings of Elliott and Slavik.
Appellants do not provide substantive arguments for claim 14
separately from claims 1,3, and 10 from which it depends. Accordingly, we
also affirm the rejection of claim 14 over Elliott and Slavik in further view
of Huber.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10-12, 20 and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and of claims 7, and 13—18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are
affirmed. However, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9