Ex Parte Appleton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 8, 2018

13531447 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 8, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/531,447 06/22/2012
100462 7590 06/12/2018
Dority & Manning P.A. and Google LLC
Post Office Box 1449
Greenville, SC 29602
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Benjamin Charles Appleton
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
GGL-708 4911
EXAMINER
BLACKWELL, JAMES H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2177
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/12/2018 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):
usdocketing@dority-manning.com
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
Appeal2018-000589
Application 13/531,44 7
Technology Center 2100
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, BETH Z. SHAW, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Non-Final Rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-20, which represent
all the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2018-000589
Application 13/531,44 7
INVENTION
Appellants' invention is for providing differentiated display of a map
feature. See Spec. i-f 1.
Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below:
1. A computer-implemented method of providing differentiated
display of a map feature, the method comprising:
receiving, by one or more computing devices, vector data which
defines one or more features for a map;
displaying, by the one or more computing devices, the map based on
the received 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 differentiated
display within the map, and
providing, by the one or more computing devices, for differentiated
display of the at least one feature within the map, based on the vector data
received from the server and on the received user selection, wherein the
providing for differentiated display comprises:
identifying, by the one or more computing devices, one or more
rendered tiles that are currently presented in the map;
exposing, by the one or more computing devices, a set of one or more
feature identifiers and class identifiers for all features in the one or more
rendered tiles that are currently presented in the map, wherein a feature
identifier corresponds to the at least one feature within the map and a class
identifier corresponds to a class for all of the one or more features for the
map;
storing, by the one or more computing devices, a bounding rectangle
for the at least one feature for differentiated display, the bounding rectangle
defining the portion of the at least one feature for differentiated display that
lies within each of the one or more rendered tiles that are currently presented
within the map;
synchronously repainting, by the one or more computing devices,
vector data for the at least one feature for differentiated display within the
same one or more rendered tiles that are currently presented within the map
in a single repaint operation of the same one or more rendered tiles by
consulting the exposed set of one or more feature identifiers and class
identifiers and by consulting the bounding rectangle for each feature for
differentiated display within each of the one or more rendered tiles; and
2
Appeal2018-000589
Application 13/531,44 7
refraining from repainting, by the one or more computing devices,
vector data which does not correspond to the at least one feature for
differentiated display within the same one or more rendered tiles that are
currently presented within the map by consulting the exposed set of one or
more feature identifiers and class identifiers and by consulting the bounding
rectangle for each feature for differentiated display within each of the one or
more rendered tiles;
wherein vector data is repainted in the same one or more rendered
tiles only for the at least one feature for differentiated display having a
feature or class identifier corresponding to a feature in the one or more
rendered tiles that are currently presented in the map and that is contained
within the bounding box in one or more rendered tiles currently presented in
the map.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-7 and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Chithambaram et al. (hereinafter
Chithambaram, US 7,439,969 B2, filed 10/18/2006, issued 10/21/2008),
Bales et al. (hereinafter Bales, US 2011/0313649Al, filed 06/18/2010,
published 12/22/2011 ), Rohlf et al. (hereinafter Rohlf, US 7,353,114 B 1,
filed 06/27/2006, issued 04/01/2008), and Jawerth et al. (hereinafter Jawerth,
US 2003/0231190Al, filed 03/17/2003, published 12/18/2003). Final Act.
2.
The Examiner rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chithambaram, Bales, Rohlf, Jawerth, and Aseem Kishore
(hereinafter Kishore, "How to Permanently Stop Dock Icons from
Bouncing," from SWITCHINGTOMAC blog posted 06/10/2009, 2 screen-
captured pages). Final Act. 37.
The Examiner rejected claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chithambaram, Bales, Rohlf, Jawerth, and Whiton et al.
3
Appeal2018-000589
Application 13/531,44 7
(hereinafter Whiton, US 8,510,043 Bl, filed 03/15/2012, issued
08/13/2013). Final Act. 38.
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding various limitations of
claim 1. Br. 7-13. Appellants do not persuade us of error in the Examiner's
findings. We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions
in the Final Rejection and Answer, as discussed in more detail below. See
Final Act. 2-39; Ans. 2---6.
Appellants argue Rohlf fails to teach "storing a bounding rectangle for
the at least one feature for differentiated display, the bounding rectangle
defining the portion of the at least one feature for differentiated display that
lies within each of the one or more rendered tiles that are currently presented
within the map" because the Examiner states that Rohlf fails to explicitly use
the term "bounding box" in association with its geographic features. Br. 11.
We disagree because even though Rohlf may not explicitly use the term
"bounding rectangle," Rohlf teaches the limitation. Rohlf describes an
interactive geographic information systems (GIS) and an associated Keyhole
Markup Language (KML) for modeling, storing and displaying geographic
features such as points, lines, images and polygons for display by the client.
Ans. 4; Rohlf 20:58---67. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have understood that
an object rendered for display would have a bounding region that contains
the object and helps to differentiate that object from other rendered objects.
Ans. 3. Objects in the shape of polygons (as taught by Rohlf, see 34:34--36),
e.g., rectangles, comprise a number of sides, and therefore each rendered
4
Appeal2018-000589
Application 13/531,44 7
object has a "bounding rectangle" associated with it, and that bounding
rectangle is stored along with the object in the KML file described by Rohlf.
Ans. at 3--4. In particular, Rohlf describes styles associated with
placemarks, and one child of the placemark tag is the