Ex Parte Appleton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 14, 2017

13531484 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 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.
GGL-857 9299
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, CHAU T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2177
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/531,484 06/22/2012
100462 7590 09/14/2017
Dority & Manning P.A. and Google Inc.
Post Office Box 1449
Greenville, SC 29602
Benjamin Charles Appleton
09/14/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BENJAMIN CHARLES APPLETON and
JAMES BRIAN MCGILL
Appeal 2017-005602
Application 13/531,484
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC B. CHEN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 and 3—20. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1, 3—7, and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chithambaram (US 7,439,969 B2; Oct. 21, 2008),
McMahon (US 2006/0268406 Al; Nov. 30, 2006), Hedges (US
2009/0183083 Al; July 16, 2009), and Kinnan (US 2010/0302236 Al; Dec.
2,2010). Final Act. 2-23.1
1 The Examiner omits Kinnan from the formal statement of rejection, but
does include Kinnan in the discussion of the references.
Appeal 2017-005602
Application 13/531,484
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Chithambaram, McMahon, Hedges, Kinnan, and Andreasson (US
2010/0002012 Al; Jan. 7, 2010). Final Act. 23.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to “editing a feature within a map.”
Spec. 11. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A machine-implemented method of editing a feature
within a map, the method comprising:
receiving, by one or more computing devices, from a
server, first vector data which defines one or more features for a
map at a first level of detail;
displaying, by the one or more computing devices, the
map based on the received first vector data;
receiving, by the one or more computing devices, a user
selection of at least one feature from among the one or more
features for editing within the map;
transmitting, by the one or more computing devices, to
the server, a request for second vector data which defines the
selected at least one feature at a second level of detail while
other features within the map remain at the first level of detail,
wherein the second level of detail corresponds to a higher level
of detail than the first level of detail, and wherein the second
level of detail includes positions for all vertices of the selected
at least one feature while the first level of detail includes
positions for a subset of all vertices of the selected at least one
feature;
receiving, by the one or more computing devices, from
the server and in response to the transmitted request, the second
vector data for the selected at least one feature but not for other
features within the map, wherein the second vector data for the
selected at least one feature includes sufficient information to
create the selected at least one feature as a client side object
with which the user can interact;
2
Appeal 2017-005602
Application 13/531,484
updating, by the one or more computing devices, display
of the map based on the received second vector data for the
selected at least one feature;
receiving, by the one or more computing devices, a user
interaction for editing the selected at least one feature within the
map, wherein editing the selected at least one feature comprises
changing one or more attributes of the first and second vector
data for the selected at least one feature; and
transmitting, by the one or more computing devices, to
the server, a request to edit the selected at least one feature
based on the received user interaction, wherein the request to
edit the selected at least one feature comprises a request to
update the selected at least one feature on the server to reflect
the editing.
ANALYSIS
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1,3-7, and 9-20 over
Chithambaram, McMahon, Hedges, and Kinnan
The Examiner finds Chithambaram, McMahon, Hedges, and Kinnan
teach all limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 3—7.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
i.
Chithambaram describes how “[i]f a zoom button is tapped by
the user, the map may be displayed in a different level of
detail.” “[Zjooming out or in on the map” as described in
Chithambaram whereby an entire map is displayed in a
different level of detail is different than “second vector data
which defines the selected at least one feature at a second level
of detail while other features within the map remain at the
first level of detail,” as required by independent claim 1. In
addition, the cited portions of Chithambaram describe how a
“user may specify a layer, object ID, etc. to be displayed in a
later cycle,” but does not require that the “layer, object ID, etc.”
includes “second vector data which defines the selected at least
one feature at a second level of detail, wherein the second level
3
Appeal 2017-005602
Application 13/531,484
of detail corresponds to a higher level of detail than the first
level of detail.”
App. Br. 9-10.
ii. Kinnan does not teach (claim 1) “wherein the second level of
detail includes positions for all vertices of the selected at least one feature
while the first level of detail includes positions for a subset of all vertices of
the selected at least one feature.” See App. Br. 10-12.
iii. Kinnan does not teach (claim 1) “wherein the second vector
data for the selected at least one feature includes sufficient information to
create the selected at least one feature as a client side object with which the
user can interact.” See App. Br. 12—14.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner.
Nor do we see any error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding argument (i), the Examiner finds Chithambaram teaches
(claim 1)
transmitting, by the one or more computing devices, to the
server, a request for second vector data which defines the
selected at least one feature at a second level of detail while
other features within the map remain at the first level of detail,
wherein the second level of detail corresponds to a higher level
of detail than the first level of detail.
Final Act. 3 (citing Chithambaram col. 13,11. 62—64, claim 6); see also Ans.
25—26 (citing Chithambaram col. 8,11. 34-40, col. 9,11. 47—57, col. 12,11. 8—
37). We adopt this finding as our own.
4
Appeal 2017-005602
Application 13/531,484
Chithambaram (col. 13,11. 63—64) discloses “the user may specify a
layer, object ID, etc. to be displayed in a later cycle.” Chithambaram (claim
6) discloses “displaying the map on the display screen of the thin client with
a different level of detail.” Chithambaram (col. 8,11. 34-40) discloses vector
based maps including map layer data. Chithambaram (col. 8,11. 47—57)
elaborates and discloses a multi-level library of raster tiles composed from
the multiple vector layers. Chithambaram (col. 12,11. 8—37) discloses
zooming.
Taken together, a skilled artisan would have understood that these
disclosures in Chithambaram teach (claim 1) “transmitting, by the one or
more computing devices, to the server, a request for second vector data”
(Chithambaram’s user specifies an object ID to be displayed in a later cycle)
“which defines the selected at least one feature at a second level of detail”
(Chithambaram’s displaying the map with a different level of detail) “while
other features within the map remain at the first level of detail,”
(Chithambaram’s user specifies an object ID to be displayed in a later cycle)
“wherein the second level of detail corresponds to a higher level of detail
than the first level of detail” (Chithambaram’s zooming).
In reaching our decision, we emphasize that the Chithambaram
teaches the argued “transmitting” limitation, while the Examiner finds
McMahon teaches (claim 1 (emphasis added)) “receiving, by the one or
more computing devices, from the server and in response to the transmitted
request, the second vector data for the selected at least one feature but not
for other features within the map.'” See Final Act. 4 (citing || 8—14, 34—35).
Regarding argument (ii), the Examiner finds Kinnan teaches (claim 1)
“wherein the second level of detail includes positions for all vertices of the
5
Appeal 2017-005602
Application 13/531,484
selected at least one feature while the first level of detail includes positions
for a subset of all vertices of the selected at least one feature.” Final Act. 6—7
(citing Kinnan || 45—47, 52—54); see also Ans. 26—27. We adopt this finding
as our own.
Kinnan (| 46), for example, discloses
In the embodiment shown in FIG. 3, the user provides
input 322 to Map 311 that the new mode “Road” is desired.
Prior to the mode selection, Map 311 is currently presenting a
view in a viewport of a location along with an additional user
provided “child” object in the view. When the new mode
“Road” is selected, Map 311 will take the appropriate actions to
allow the current view and the associated children to be
redisplayed in the new mode.
Based on the cited disclosures, a skilled artisan would have
understood the new mode “Road” being at the second level of detail and the
old mode being at the first level of detail, as recited. See Final Act. 6—7, Ans.
26—27; see also Kinnan 146.
In reaching our decision, we emphasize that on the record before us,
the Examiner has established a prima facie case that Kinnan teaches the
argued limitation.2 Appellants are reminded that a general characterization
of the claimed invention, and a general discussion of the findings relied upon
by the Examiner in the rejection are usually not a persuasive argument. On
2 The USPTO carries its procedural burden of establishing a prima facie case
when its rejection satisfies 35 U.S.C. § 132, in “notifying] the applicant. . .
[by] stating the reasons for [its] rejection, or objection or requirement,
together with such information and references as may be useful in judging of
the propriety of continuing the prosecution of [the] application.” 35 U.S.C. §
132. This section “‘is violated when a rejection is so uninformative that it
prevents the applicant from recognizing and seeking to counter the grounds
for rejection.’” In re Jung 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011) citing
Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
6
Appeal 2017-005602
Application 13/531,484
the record before us, the Examiner has made reasonable, informative
findings supported by evidence. Appellants have not particularly rebutted
these findings. The Examiner persuades us that Kinnan teaches the argued
limitation.
Regarding argument (iii), the Examiner finds Kinnan teaches (claim
1) “wherein the second vector data for the selected at least one feature
includes sufficient information to create the selected at least one feature as a
client side object with which the user can interact.” Final Act. 6—7 (citing
Kinnan || 45—47, 52—54); see also Ans. 27—29. We adopt this finding as our
own.
Based on the cited disclosures, a skilled artisan would have
understood the new mode “Road” includes sufficient information to create
the selected at least one feature as a client side object with which the user
can interact, as recited. See Final Act. 6—7, Ans. 27—29; see also Kinnan |
46.
In reaching our decision, we emphasize that on the record before us,
the Examiner has established a prima facie case that Kinnan teaches the
argued limitation. Appellants are reminded that a general characterization of
the claimed invention, and a general discussion of the findings relied upon
by the Examiner in the rejection are usually not a persuasive argument. On
the record before us, the Examiner has made reasonable, informative
findings supported by evidence. Appellants have not particularly rebutted
these findings. The Examiner persuades us that Kinnan teaches the argued
limitation.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
7
Appeal 2017-005602
Application 13/531,484
Regarding claim 12, Appellants present the same arguments as
presented for claim 1. See App. Br. 14. We, therefore, sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 for the same reasons as discussed above for
claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Appellants present the same arguments as
presented for claim 1. See App. Br. 15. We, therefore, sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 20 for the same reasons as discussed above for
claim 1.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3—7, 9—11, and 13—
19, which are not separately argued with particularity. See App. Br. 16.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 8 over Chithambaram,
McMahon, Hedges, Kinnan, and Andreas son
Appellants do not present any particularized arguments with respect to
claim 8. See App. Br. 16.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 for the
same reasons discussed above for claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3—20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).
AFFIRMED
8