Ex Parte Arikan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2017

13631998 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 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.
13/631,998 09/30/2012 Okan Arikan 337722-337904/P15581US1 7817
133036 7590 05/02/2017
DLA Piper LLP (US)
2000 University Avenue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2215
EXAMINER
LIU, ZHENGXI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2017 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):
ApplePros Admin @ dlapiper.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OKAN ARIKAN, VINCENT DUMONT,
GUILLAUME A. CARBONNEAU, and BILLY P. CHEN
Appeal 2016-004516
Application 13/631,99s1
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JOHN R. KENNY, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—12, 14—25, and 27—31. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants’ Brief (“App. Br.”) identifies the real party in interest as Apple
Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-004516
Application 13/631,998
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to generation of road data in digital maps
using aggregate roads defined from multiple junctions and road segments.
Spec. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A non-transitory machine readable medium storing
a program which when executed by at least one processing unit
processes input map data to generate output map data for use in
providing mapping information to a plurality of requestors, the
program comprising sets of instructions for:
receiving input map data comprising a set of road
segments and a set of junctions for a map region, the set of road
segments including a first road segment and a second road
segment that intersect at a particular junction, each of a plurality
of the road segments comprising location data, start and end
junctions, and a set of road properties;
determining whether the first road segment and the second
road segment are separate segments of a same road based at least
on whether the set of road properties of the first road segment are
the same as a corresponding set of road properties of the second
road segment;
when the first and second road segments are separate
segments of the same road, defining an aggregate road that
references the first road segment, second road segment, and
particular junction; and
storing the aggregate road for later use in providing the
mapping information to requesting mapping applications for the
mapping applications to perform one or more mapping
operations, wherein the stored aggregate road references a
plurality of road segments and a plurality of junctions that
connect the plurality of road segments.
App. Br. 39 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal 2016-004516
Application 13/631,998
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Jawerth US 2003/0231190 Al Dec. 18, 2003
Gieseke US 2006/0015249 Al Jan. 19, 2006
Parker US 2008/0059889 Al Mar. 6, 2008
Mikuriya US 2008/0091344 Al Apr. 17, 2008
Davis US 2009/0150373 Al June 11, 2009
Broadbent US 2010/0250536 Al Sep. 30, 2010
Kmiecik US 2010/0266161 Al Oct. 21,2010
Vervaet US 2012/0197839 Al Aug. 2, 2012
Boldyrev US 2013/0176334 Al July 11,2013
Dal Poz et al., “Automated Extraction of Road Network from Medium-
and High-Resolution Images,” Pattern Recognition and Image
Analysis, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 239—248, Pleiades Publishing, Inc., 2006.
REJECTIONS
Claims 24, 25, and 27—30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1—5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jawerth and Broadbent.
Claims 6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jawerth, Broadbent, and Davis.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jawerth, Broadbent, Davis, and Dal Poz.
Claims 17 and 20—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jawerth, Davis, and Dal Poz.
Claims 9, 10, 12, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Jawerth, Broadbent, and Parker.
3
Appeal 2016-004516
Application 13/631,998
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jawerth, Broadbent, Parker, and Dal Poz.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jawerth, Broadbent, Parker, and Boldyrev.
Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jawerth, Broadbent, Parker, and Kmiecik.
Claims 18, 19, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Jawerth, Davis, Dal Poz, and Mikuriya.
Claims 24, 25, 27, and 30* 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Jawerth, Vervaet, Broadbent, and Gieseke.
Claims 28 and 293 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jawerth, Broadbent, Vervaet, Gieseke, and Kmiecik.
OPINION
Claims 24, 25, and 27—30—Affirmed
Claims 24, 25, and 27—30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph as lacking written description. The Examiner finds the last three
limitations recited in independent claim 24 are not supported by Appellants’
The rejection of claims 24, 25, 27, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jawerth, Vervaet, Broadbent, and Gieseke, has been
withdrawn by the Examiner, so we do not consider them in this decision.
Ans. 40.3 The rejection of claims 28 and 29under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Jawerth, Broadbent, Vervaet, Gieseke, and
Kmiecik, has been withdrawn by the Examiner, so we do not consider them
in this decision. Ans. 40.
3 The rejection of claims 28 and 29under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jawerth, Broadbent, Vervaet, Gieseke, and Kmiecik, has
been withdrawn by the Examiner, so we do not consider them in this
decision. Ans. 40.
4
Appeal 2016-004516
Application 13/631,998
Specification. Ans. 56—60. In finding claim 24 lacks written description,
the Examiner finds the claim is “significantly broader than what has been
described in the disclosure” because Appellants combine two distinct
embodiments to find support for the claim, and the required conditions
described for utilizing the second combined embodiments are very specific.
Ans. 60.
Appellants argue the disputed limitations in claim 24 are supported by
the discussion on page 32 which provides an example of automatically
filling in the height of a road segment data structure, in a situation where “a
particular set of road segments [ ] intersect in the plane but do not meet at a
junction,” Spec. p. 32,11. 12—17, and also by the teaching that “[s]ome
embodiments automatically fill in values for at least some of the missing
data of a road segment when possible, either using other information from
the road segment or information from neighboring road segments.” App. Br.
26-28 (citing Spec. 32,11. 12-17, 31,11. 9-10).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Here, claim 24
recites “using information from the second road segment and the third road
segment to automatically fill in the missing information for the particular
road property of the first road segment.” App. Br. 44 (Claims Appendix).
Appellants only point to a single example, that of elevation data (see App.
Br. 27—28), in which missing information for road property of the first road
segment is automatically supplied using information from both a combined
second road segment and a non-combined third road segment. Nor do we
discern any additional disclosure in the Specification indicating that a
broader way of using information from both the second and third road
segment is contemplated. As a result, we find the Specification does not
5
Appeal 2016-004516
Application 13/631,998
reasonably convey possession of the full scope of claim 24. Therefore, we
sustain the rejection of claim 24, as well as dependent claims 25 and 27—30,
which fall with claim 24.
Claim 1—Affirmed
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and
presents two arguments for reversal:
First, Jawerth and Broadbent do not disclose or suggest defining
an aggregate road that references the first road segment, second
road segment, and particular junction. Second, the Office Action
fails to provide a sufficient reason why it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements
of Jawerth and Broadbent to arrive at the claimed invention.
App. Br. 15. We are not persuaded by either argument, and address each in
turn.
Claim 1 recites “defining an aggregate road that references the first
road segment, second road segment, and particular junction.” In rejecting
claim 1, the Examiner finds Broadbent “is directed to a method for
integrating road names recorded in a source data, particularly comprising
steps of merging all interconnected segments having this road name into a
user road group and merging these user road groups if they belongs [sic] to
the same physical road entity.” Ans. 41 (quoting Broadbent Abstract). The
Examiner further finds Broadbent discloses the use of a group data structure
which organizes data as a road group, an example of which is shown in Fig.
6, in which each road name references multiple road segments. Ans. 41 42.
The Examiner additionally finds Broadbent teaches the road group
references multiple junctions, citing paragraphs 24 and 44. Ans. 42.
Combining Jawerth and Broadbent, the Examiner finds a person of ordinary
6
Appeal 2016-004516
Application 13/631,998
skill in the art would have done so to “improve navigation database quality
by integrating/aggregating road segments into roads.” Final Act. 12.
Appellants contend the Examiner has failed to show Jawerth and
Broadbent teach or suggest “defining an aggregate road that references the
first road segment, second road segment, and particular junction” because
Broadbent “merely mention[s] merging road segments with no mention of
the resulting structure” and more specifically “gives no indication of them
referencing junctions at all.” App. Br. 14—16. As a result, according to
Appellants, “[njeither Broadbent nor Jawerth disclose an aggregate road
referencing a ‘particular junction’ or a ‘plurality of junctions.’” Reply
Br. 11. Appellants further contend the Examiner’s reliance on paragraph 24
of Broadbent is misplaced because paragraph 24 relates to map software,
which may have other methods of accessing junction data. Reply Br. 12.
Appellants also contend the Examiner’s cite to paragraph 44 is insufficient
to support the rejection because “the depiction in Figure 6 merely depicts a
‘user road group’referencing road segments.” Reply Br. 12. Appellants
also contend the Examiner’s reasoning for combining the references contend
the Examiner’s finding is not supported because “the purposes, as defined by
the Office Action, of the aggregation in each reference are at odds with each
other.” App. Br. 17. According to Appellants, because Jawerth is directed
to simplifying databases and Broadbent to improving the quality of data,
they “cannot be combined without sacrificing either the simplicity or the
quality of the final product.” App. Br. 17.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Appellants
emphasize the table shown in Figure 6 of Broadbent “merely depicts a ‘user
road group’ referencing road segments,” and does not show junction
7
Appeal 2016-004516
Application 13/631,998
information. Reply Br. 12. But the Examiner does not rely on Figure 6
alone. Rather, the Examiner additionally cites the description in paragraph
24 and also in paragraph 44, which teach road segments include both “road
geometry and junctions,” and are grouped “based on their connectivity
across junctions.” Ans. 42 (citing Broadbent || 24, 44).
We agree with the Examiner that Broadbent teaches road groups
which are collections of road segments as shown in Figure 6. Broadbent
Fig. 6. We also agree with the Examiner that Broadbent teaches storing road
segments which include both “road geometry and junctions . . . Broadbent
124. Thus when Broadbent’s road groups reference road segments, they
also reference those junctions included in the road segments. See also,
Broadbent, claim 1. It follows then, we are unpersuaded the combination
fails to teach “defining an aggregate road that references the first road
segment, second road segment, and particular junction.”
As noted above, Appellants contend the purposes of Jawerth and
Broadbent are at odds with each other and cannot be combined without
sacrificing either the simplicity or the quality of the final product. App.
Br. 17.
We are not persuaded by this argument because although a proposed
modification of a reference may impede some of its functionality, a
combination of references is still proper. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L.,
437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has
simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily
obviate motivation to combine”). Jawerth does not discredit the approach
taken by Broadbent, nor does Broadbent discredit the Jawerth approach.
8
Appeal 2016-004516
Application 13/631,998
Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred by
improperly combining the teachings of Jawerth and Broadbent.
Claim 9—Affirmed
Claim 9 recites as follows4:
A method for defining a set of data structures for a set of
roads in a map region for an electronic mapping service that
provides map tiles at a plurality of different zoom levels in
response to user requests, the method comprising:
defining a set of road segment data structures for portions
of roads in the map region for which all road property
information is constant, the road segment data structures for
storing the road property information;
defining a set of junction data structures for locations in
the map region at which at least two road segments intersect;
defining a set of road data structures as ordered lists of
road segments that link together at junctions as continuous roads
in the map region; and
storing a the set of road data structures that each
reference a plurality of the junction data structures and a
plurality of the road segment data structures, the defined road
data structures for use in generating map tiles for the map region
at a plurality of different zoom levels.
App. Br. 41 (Claim Appendix) (italics added to show disputed limitations).
The Examiner rejects claim 9 as obvious over Jawerth, Broadbent, and
Park. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in three respects. First,
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Jawerth discloses “defining a
set of road data structures as ordered lists of road segments that link together
at junctions as continuous roads in the map region.” App. Br. 19. Second,
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Broadbent discloses “storing
4 We note the typographical error in the last limitation of claim 9: “storing a
the set of road data . . . .” In the event of further prosecution, Appellants
should address this error.
9
Appeal 2016-004516
Application 13/631,998
a set of road data structures that each reference a plurality of the junction
data structures and a plurality of the road segment data structures.” App. Br,
19—20. Third, Appellants argue the Examiner failed to provide a sufficient
reason for combining Jawerth, Broadbent, and Parker.
With respect to Appellants’ first argument, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. The Examiner finds “Jawerth explicitly teaches an ordered
list of road segments that link together at junctions,” and provides Figures
15—17 as examples of ordered lists of road segments. Ans. 46-48. The
Examiner explains that in Jawerth Figure 16, “road 1 comprises an ordered
list of road segment Al—A3, junction point A3, and road segment A3—A5.”
Ans. 48-49. The Examiner further cites paragraph 240 of Jawerth, which
states “[w]e define the intersection nodes as Junction Nodes, including A3,
and B3.”
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and reasoning , and further
note Jawerth teaches the map data illustrated in Figures 15—17 is defined as
an ordered list because it “is defined in a one-dimensional dBASE file.”
Jawerth 1241.
We also are not persuaded by Appellants’ contention that Broadbent
fails to disclose “storing a set of road data structures that each reference a
plurality of the junction data structures and a plurality of the road segment
data structures.” The analysis here is similar to the analysis of claim 1.
Appellants contend Broadbent does not teach referencing junctions. In
finding Broadbent teaches this limitation, the Examiner cites, as he did with
claim 1, paragraphs 24, 44, and Figure 6. For the same reasons discussed
above, we find the combination teaches
10
Appeal 2016-004516
Application 13/631,998
defining a set of road data structures as ordered lists of road
segments that link together at junctions as continuous roads in
the map region; and
storing a the set of road data structures that each reference a
plurality of the junction data structures and a plurality of the road
segment data structures.
Appellants also challenge the combination of references used in
rejecting claim 9. In arguing the combination of Jawerth and Broadbent is
improper, Appellants present substantially similar arguments as those
discussed supra in connection with claim 1. For the same reasons, we are
not persuaded the Examiner erred in combining Jawerth and Broadbent.
Appellants also contend “[t]he Office Action does not allege that the
addition of Parker adds to the obviousness of this claim limitation,” but
provides no specific reason for why the addition of Parker is improper. App.
Br. 22. Accordingly, Appellants have not proffered sufficient argument or
evidence to persuade us the Examiner has failed to provide sufficient
reasoning in support of the combination relied upon to reject claim 9.
Claim 17—Affirmed
The Examiner rejects independent claim 17 as obvious over Jawerth,
Davis, and Dal Poz. Claim 17 recites as follows:
A method comprising:
receiving, for a map region, a plurality of road segments
and a plurality of junctions at which at least two road segments
meet, each road segment storing road properties defining the road
segment and location data indicating a path taken by the road
segment through the map region;
identifying a junction of the plurality of junctions at which
first and second road segments of the plurality of road segments
meet;
computing a score for the first and second road segments
that accounts for similarity of names of the first and second road
11
Appeal 2016-004516
Application 13/631,998
segments, an angular difference between the first and second
road segments, and road properties of the first and second road
segments', and
automatically combining the first and second road
segments into an aggregate road that references the first and
second road segments when the score is above a certain
threshold.
App. Br. 42 43 (Claims Appendix) (italics added). Appellants contend the
Examiner erred in concluding claim 17 would have been obvious because
the combination does not teach “computing a score for the first and second
road segments that accounts for similarity of names of the first and second
road segments, an angular difference between the first and second road
segments, and road properties of the first and second road segments.”
In rejecting claim 17, the Examiner finds the combination of Jawerth,
Davis, and Dal Poz teaches the “computing” limitation. More specifically,
the Examiner finds Jawerth discloses determining connectivity probabilities
based on similarity of names of first and second road segments and also
based on road properties of first and second road segments. Final Act. 22
(citing Jawerth | 56), Ans. 53—54 (citing Jawerth | 62). The Examiner
further finds Dal Poz discloses considering angular differences between road
segments. Final Act. 24 (citing Dal Poz p. 243, section 2.2.1). The
Examiner explains that Dal Poz “discloses when road segments
approximately form a straight line, they are more likely to belong to the
same road.” Ans. 55. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have been motivated to add Dal Poz’s consideration of
angular differences so that additional relevant information could be used to
determine whether two road segments are part of the same road. Final
Act. 25. Because neither Jawerth nor Dal Poz explicitly disclose computing
12
Appeal 2016-004516
Application 13/631,998
a scope, the Examiner relies on Davis to show that computing a score for a
plurality of considerations was known, finding it “reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which the applicant was concerned” and further
explaining that Davis teaches that “[s]coring is a commonly used method
when multiple factors need to be considered.” Final Act. 23, Ans. 54.
According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to combine the teachings of Davis with Jawerth because the
skilled artisan would have sought to use the concept of probabilities “to
make [a] determination when available information is not perfect for such
determination.” Final Act 23.
Appellants argue Jawerth is deficient because “[determining whether
two road segments share the same name is different from computing a score
that accounts for similarity of names.” App. Br. 23. However, Jawerth need
not show computing a score that accounts for similarity of names. Rather,
the Examiner relies on Jawerth to show taking into account name similarity
in a general sense, a teaching of Jawerth not disputed by Appellants. The
Examiner does not rely on Jawerth to teach “computing a score,” as the
Examiner finds instead that Davis provides this teaching. Thus, Appellants’
argument disputes a finding not made by the Examiner.
Appellants further contend starting and ending nodes of road
segments cannot be considered “road properties,” so the Examiner’s finding
that Jawerth teaches the use of road properties is unsupported. App. Br. 23—
24. According to Appellants, shared junctions cannot be considered “road
properties” because the “claim identifies a shared junction as a prerequisite
for computing the score.” Reply Br. 14—15.
13
Appeal 2016-004516
Application 13/631,998
We see nothing in the language of the claim or the disclosure of
Appellants’ Specification precluding nodes of road segments, such as
junction nodes, from being considered road properties within the meaning of
claim 17. Indeed, the Specification teaches “[r]oad segment data [includes]
properties of roads,” Spec. 22,11. 8—9, and “the locations of junctions (also
referred to as junctions) is part of the road segment data.” Spec. 22,11. 11—
13. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the recited “road properties” cannot
include junction information as argued by Appellants. Appellants also
contend Jawerth is lacking because “[t]here is no computation of a score or
any other value being assigned to the similarity of the two road segments
disclosed in Jawerth.” Reply Br. 14. This argument is unpersuasive
because, as we explained above, the Examiner does not rely on Jawerth to
teach “computing a score,” as Davis provides this teaching.
With respect to Dal Poz, Appellants argue Dal Poz does not teach any
comparison of angular difference between first and second road segments
because it relates to extracting road information from photographs, and not
to processing received map data. App. Br. 24—25. Appellants also contend
Dal Poz is deficient because it only discloses thresholding operations
measuring distance and collinearity. According to Appellants, these
thresholding operations do not disclose computing a score based on angular
differences. App. Br. 25.
We are not persuaded. Measuring whether two identified
quadrilaterals are sufficiently parallel, which Appellants acknowledge is
taught by Dal Poz, is a comparison of angular difference. That is, to
determine whether two quadrilaterals are parallel, their angles with respect
14
Appeal 2016-004516
Application 13/631,998
to each other must also be determined. Accordingly, we are not persuaded
the Examiner’s reliance on Dal Poz is misplaced.
Appellants also take issue with the Examiner’s use of Davis, arguing
that because “Davis relates to determining whether to replace one piece of
data with a newer piece of data, it is unclear how this is relevant to a
threshold score for aggregating roads.” App. Br. 24. As noted by the
Examiner, Appellants appear to be arguing Davis is non-analogous art. Ans.
55. We are not persuaded, however, that the teachings of Davis are not
pertinent to Appellants claims. The Examiner cites Davis as evidence that
the use of probability scores to make determinations based on available data
when multiple factors need to be considered, was a commonly used method.
Ans. 55. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to improve
Jawerth by adding scoring as taught by Davis because Jawerth considered
two different factors in determining the similarity of two road segments, and
weighting these factors using Davis’ scoring would have been a logical way
to make a similarity determination, as shown in the examples set forth by the
Examiner. Ans. 55. Accordingly, we do not agree with Appellants that the
teachings of Davis are inapposite or that a skilled artisan would not have
combined Davis with Jawerth.
Claim 6—Affirmed
Appellants separately argue Claim 6, which depends from claim 1,
recites the limitation:
wherein the set of instructions for determining whether the first
road segment and the second road segment are separate segments
of the same road comprises a set of instructions for computing a
score that measures the likelihood of the second road segment
being a continuation of the first road segment.
15
Appeal 2016-004516
Application 13/631,998
App. Br. 41 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner rejects claim 6 as being
obvious over Jawerth, Broadbent, and Davis. Similar to the disputed
limitation discussed in connection with claim 17, the Examiner finds Jawerth
teaches measuring “the likelihood of the second road segment being a
continuation of the first road segment,” because it teaches that “[wjhile
identifying junctions, one can merge poly-lines if they share the same street
name and one of the starting and the ending nodes.” Final Act. 14—15. The
Examiner finds Davis teaches “computing a score” because Davis “discloses
computing a score that measures the likelihood using available relevant
information for a determination.” Final Act. 15 (citing Davis 195).
Appellants argue Davis’ probability score is incompatible to the
problem of determining when to combine road segments, and therefore
incompatible with the simple heuristics employed by Jawerth. App. Br. 33—
34. For the same reasons we discussed above in connection with claim 17,
we are not persuaded the Examiner improperly combined the teaching of
Jawerth and Davis. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent
claim 6.
Claims 8 and 20—Reversed
Appellants separately argue the rejection of claim 8, which depends
from claim 6 and recites:
wherein a third road segment intersects the first and
second road segments at the particular junction, wherein the set
of instructions for determining whether the first road segment
and the second road segment are segments of a same road
comprises sets of instructions for:
computing a score that measures the likelihood of
the third road segment being a continuation of the first
road segment; and
16
Appeal 2016-004516
Application 13/631,998
comparing the score computed for the second road
segment to the score computed for the third road segment.
App. Br. 40-41 (Claims Appendix). Claim 8 further recites a step wherein a
third road segment intersects at the same junction at which the first and
second road segments intersect. According to claim 8, scores are calculated
measuring the likelihood that the first and second segment are the same road
and the first and third segments are the same road. Id. Those scores are then
compared with each other. Id.
In rejecting claim 8, the Examiner again relies on Jawerth, Broadbent,
and Davis. Final Act. 16. The Examiner finds, however, that the cited
combination does not explicitly disclose “computing a score that measures
the likelihood of the third road segment being a continuation of the first road
segment,” and “comparing the score computed for the second road segment
to the score computed for the third road segment.” The Examiner concludes,
without citing evidence, claim 8 would have been obvious finding “[i]t
would have been well-known in the art that a ranking method may be used
to determine the best candidate.” Final Act. 16—17.
Appellants contend the Examiner’s reliance on what is “well-known”
is insufficient to support obviousness because the probability scores in Davis
are not used to score multiple candidates and chose the best one. App.
Br. 34.
We agree with Appellants. Here, the Examiner has not provided a
sufficient explanation for why a skilled artisan would have sought to
supplement the teachings of Jawerth, Broadbent, and Davis in the manner
claimed. The Examiner posits that “the combination of the first and second
road segments and the combination of the first and third road segments are
possible options.” Final Act. 17. This explanation is too speculative.
17
Appeal 2016-004516
Application 13/631,998
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 8. Moreover, for the
same reason, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 20, which recites the
use of multiple scores and “when the second score is greater than the first
score, combining the second and third road segments into a second aggregate
road and removing the second road segment from the first aggregate road.”
App. Br. 43 (Claims Appendix).
Claim 10—Reversed
Appellants also separately argue claim 10, which depends from claim
9. App. Br. 35—36. Claim 10 recites “[t]he method of claim 9 further
comprising defining a set of edge data structure, wherein each edge
references a single road segment.” The Examiner rejects claim 10 as
obvious over Jawerth, Broadbent, and Parker. Final Act. 33—34. With
respect to claim 10, the Examiner finds paragraph 62 of Jawerth discloses
claim 10 because it describes merging poly-lines, and each poly-line
corresponds to an edge reference. Final Act. 34. We note that in rejecting
independent claim 9, the Examiner finds Jawerth’s poly-lines also
correspond to the recited “road segment data structures.” Final Act. 29.
Appellants argue the merging of poly-lines relied upon by the
Examiner does not teach the limitation of “defining a set of edge data
structures, wherein each edge references a single road segment” because an
edge data structure is a separate element from the road segment data
structures and the junction data structures.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown how
Jawerth’s poly-lines can be considered edge data structures within the
meaning of claim 10. Both the plain language of the claim and the
Specification supports Appellants’ contention that the recited “edge data
18
Appeal 2016-004516
Application 13/631,998
structure” is distinct from the other recited data structures (found in claim 9,
from which claim 10 depends). See, e.g., Specification Fig. 8 (showing the
various data structures as distinct), p. 27,11. 1—9. Because the Examiner has
not explained how Jawerth’s poly-lines can be simultaneously considered
both “road segment data structures” and “edge data structures,” we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 10. For the same reason, we also reverse the
rejections of claim 11 and claim 125 which depend from claim 10.
Remaining Claims
Appellants do not separately argue for patentability of claims 2—5, 7,
14—16, 18, 19, 21—23, 25, and 27—31. As a result, they fall with the
independent claims from which they depend.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 8, 10-12, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are reversed.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—7, 9, 14—19, 21—24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 25, and 27—31 under 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
5 Because we do not sustain the rejection of claim 10, we need not address
Appellants’ separate argument pertaining to claim 12.
19
Appeal 2016-004516
Application 13/631,998
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
20