Ex Parte Bach

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2018

12872230 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/872,230 08/31/2010
139885 7590 08/02/2018
HERE Global/ Alston & Bird
Bank of America Plaza
101 South Tryon Street, Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jeffrey R. Bach
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.
064359/500754 3196
EXAMINER
REFAI, RAMSEY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2018 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFFERY R. BACH
Appeal2017-003564
Application 12/872,230
Technology Center 3600
Before DAVID M. KOHUT, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 21, 22, and 25-34. 1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Claims 2, 10-20, 23, and 24 were previously cancelled.
Appeal2017-003564
Application 12/872,230
INVENTION
The invention relates to "a navigation system to identify and then
provide a user with a map that highlights areas and/ or locations that are
accessible from a starting location (e.g., the user's current location) by
public transit together with travel on the road and pedestrian network under
certain conditions." Spec. 3:6-9. Figure 7 illustrates a map generated by the
claimed invention.
-----------------------1
500 I
-1
1--,:,::,c:..:,;~,,,:1;;,,,,;:::,:.:,"''''rn;:,:,i:':'rn',,: ______ _.., ____ 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
!
! 534
!
!
! 512
: 522 . . .. . I . . 51a
510
: ······111~1111111111~ ! • • .........,.,,_Is,.. .r,.: 506 : 529 ~ ~. . . 504~
! 002~ :
~------------------------------1
FIG. 7
Figure 7 depicts a map 500 of a geographic region. Spec. 12:26-29. Map
500 depicts a starting location 502 and includes shaded regions around
2
Appeal2017-003564
Application 12/872,230
transit stops that identify geographic areas that are accessible via transit
within an identified time restriction. Id. at 17:20-22. In other words, from a
starting point 502, the shaded regions identify where a person can reach, via
transit and subsequent walking, within an identified amount of time.
Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced below.
1. A method of operating a navigation system comprising:
receiving into the navigation system a query for a starting
location by public transit and a maximum length of time for a
trip;
retrieving a first transit stop data record from a geographic
database, wherein a first transit stop in the first transit stop data
record is in proximity to the starting location;
calculating at least one travel route along a public transit line that
connects to the first transit stop;
retrieving a second transit stop data record from the geographic
database, wherein the second transit stop data record includes a
second transit stop on the public transit line accessible, wherein
the second transit stop data record is selected based on the
maximum length of time for the trip;
identifying an area region around the second transit stop
accessible from the second transit stop defined by the maximum
length of time for the trip and a location of the second transit
stop; and
generating a transit access map that highlights the area region by
visually distinguishing the area region around the second transit
stop accessible from the second transit stop in the maximum
length of time for the trip.
3
Appeal2017-003564
Application 12/872,230
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3-9, 21, 22, and 25-34 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final
Act. 5.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3-9, 21, 22, and 25-34 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over Kaplan et al. (US 6,401,034 Bl, iss. June
4, 2002) and Liebling (US 7,571,050 B2, iss. Aug. 4, 2009). Final Act. 5-8.
ANALYSIS
Rei ection under 3 5 US. C. § 101
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3-9, 21, 22, and 25-34 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 applying the two-part analytical framework of Alice Corp.
Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). Final Act. 5.
Applying the first part of the analysis, the Examiner concludes that claims 1,
3-9, 21, 22, and 25-34 are directed to the concept of "identifying accessible
regions around a transit stop." Id. The Examiner asserts this concept is
an abstract idea in the form of a fundamental economic practice and a
method of organizing human activity. Id. Applying the second part of the
analysis, the Examiner concludes that the additional claim elements beyond
the abstract idea are not enough to qualify as "significantly more" than the
abstract idea itself. Id. The Examiner asserts that the additional limitations
"are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and
require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer
functions that are well-understood, routine[,] and conventional activities
previously known to the industry." Id.
Beginning with the first step of the Alice framework, we must
determine "whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-
4
Appeal2017-003564
Application 12/872,230
ineligible concepts." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. In performing this
determination, we ask whether the focus of the claims is on a specific
asserted improvement in computer capabilities or, instead, on a process that
qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a
tool. Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59). Here, Appellant disputes the
Examiner's conclusion that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of
"identifying accessible regions around a transit stop." Br. 5-7. Specifically,
Appellant argues that the claimed invention is directed to a specific
application of navigation calculations on a navigation system and is not
directed to fundamental economic practices or methods of organizing human
activity. Id. at 5. Appellant further cites Enfish and asserts that the claimed
navigation system is a "computer related invention of a specific application
of the routing calculations on the combination of the transit line and the
pedestrian network." Id. at 6. Finally, Appellant argues that "the claims
include the particulars of a display, providing a look and feel for the transit
access map," as evidence that the claims contain patentable subject matter.
Id. at 7 (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed.
Cir. 2014).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. We have analyzed
independent claims 1, 21, and 30, and agree with the Examiner that the
claims are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims are directed to a
navigation system for "identifying accessible regions around a transit stop."
For example, the preamble of independent claim 1 recites "operating a
navigation system." In another example, the "Summary of the Invention"
section of the Specification refers to "operating a navigation system." Spec.
5
Appeal2017-003564
Application 12/872,230
2:5---6. Moving on to the implementation steps of independent claim 1, we
find that the claimed steps of
receiving into the navigation system a query for a starting
location by public transit and a maximum length of time for a
trip;
retrieving a first transit stop data record from a geographic
database, wherein a first transit stop in the first transit stop data
record is in proximity to the starting location;
calculating at least one travel route along a public transit line that
connects to the first transit stop;
retrieving a second transit stop data record from the geographic
database, wherein the second transit stop data record includes a
second transit stop on the public transit line accessible, wherein
the second transit stop data record is selected based on the
maximum length of time for the trip;
identifying an area region around the second transit stop
accessible from the second transit stop defined by the maximum
length of time for the trip and a location of the second transit
stop; and
generating a transit access map that highlights the area region by
visually distinguishing the area region around the second transit
stop accessible from the second transit stop in the maximum
length of time for the trip
essentially encompasses the basic steps of collecting, storing, and processing
information. The Federal Circuit has found that such steps are directed to no
more than the abstract idea of conventional information processing that can
be performed by humans and, thus, are patent-ineligible. See Electric Power
Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[M]erely
selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and
display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary
6
Appeal2017-003564
Application 12/872,230
mental processes .... "); See Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1345--48 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Because we conclude that the claims are directed to an abstract idea,
we tum to step two of the Alice analysis. In step two, we consider the
elements of the claims "individually and 'as an ordered combination' to
determine whether the additional elements 'transform the nature of the
claim' into a patent-eligible application." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting
Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 78-79 (2012)). The Examiner concludes that the
additional elements "merely perform basic computer functions that are
well-understood, routine and conventional." Ans. 3. Appellant disputes
the Examiner's characterization, and asserts that the claimed "routing
calculations are an improvement to the navigation systems in the prior art.
Because the claimed invention provides an improvement to another
technology or technical field, the claims are directed to significantly more
than an abstract idea." Br. 8. Further, Appellant asserts that claims 1, 21,
and 30 contain unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular
useful application. Id. Specifically, Appellant directs us to claim 21 reciting
calculate an area region around the second transit stop accessible
from the second transit stop defined by the maximum length of
time for the trip and a location of the second transit stop, wherein
the processor is configured to generate a map that depicts the area
region by visually distinguishing the area region around the
second transit stop accessible from the second transit stop based
on the maximum length of time for the trip.
Id. Appellant further directs us similar recitations in claims 1 and 30. Id. at
8-9.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. Appellant highlights
the calculation to determine an area region around a transit stop and the
7
Appeal2017-003564
Application 12/872,230
claimed transit access map that visually distinguishes the area region around
a transit stop. Id. We are unpersuaded, however, because Appellant merely
identifies calculations, data processing, and displaying information and does
not sufficiently explain how such elements amount to an unconventional
usage. Further, the identified steps themselves fall into the category of
abstract concepts and, thus, do not transform the claims into an inventive
concept. See Electric Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355. Consequently,
although the identified steps may confine the invention to a particular transit
application, their use alone is insufficient to rise to the level of "substantially
more."
Accordingly, we determine that claims 1, 3-9, 21, 22, and 25-34 are
directed to identifying accessible regions around a transit stop, which is an
abstract idea, and that the other claim limitations do not articulate an
inventive concept that is "significantly more" than that abstract idea in a
manner sufficient to confer patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 21, 22, and
25-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Reiection under 35 USC § 103
Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, "generating a transit
access map that highlights the area region by visually distinguishing the area
region around the second transit stop accessible from the second transit stop
in the maximum length of time for the trip." Independent claims 21 and 30
recite substantially similar limitations.
The Examiner finds that Kaplan teaches "generating a transit access
map that highlights the area region by visually distinguishing the area region
8
Appeal2017-003564
Application 12/872,230
around the second transit stop accessible from the second transit stop in the
maximum length of time for the trip." Final Act. 6 (citing Figs. 3, 10-15).
Specifically, the Examiner finds that a "map is displayed to the user that
shows the current starting position; the intermediate points of interest along
the route as well as highlighting the location and distance of the points of
interest from the route." Ans. 5 (citing Kaplan Figs. 3, 10-14, 16, 18-20).
The Examiner further finds that Leibling teaches "a transit-coordinated local
search method that determines the transit route including a list of bus stops,
routes, and travel times on a public transit system based on the first search
which describes a point of interest (destination) and the starting location."
Ans. 5 (citing Liebling 1:24--43, 3:17-55).
Appellant argues that the combination of Kaplan and Lieb ling fails to
teach or suggest "generating a transit access map that highlights the area
region by visually distinguishing the area region around the second transit
stop accessible from the second transit stop in the maximum length of time
for the trip." Br. 9-13. Specifically, Appellant argues that "Kaplan's search
area is not based on a transit stop and is not based on the length of time for
the trip." Id. at 12. Further, Appellant argues that Liebling does not
describe any transit map that highlights a region around a transit stop and
does not describe a transit map with an area defined by a length of time of a
trip. Id.
In response, the Examiner asserts that Appellant is improperly arguing
against Kaplan and Liebling individually. Ans. 4. Further, the Examiner
finds that Kaplan allows a user to specify and find a point of interest along a
route to a final destination as well as a time restriction for the intermediate
stop. Ans. 4 ( citing Abstract, Fig. 17). Hence, the Examiner asserts that
9
Appeal2017-003564
Application 12/872,230
Kaplan allows a user to specify the total maximum route time to a chosen
destination. Id. The Examiner further finds that Liebling teaches a method
of locating a particular point of interest relative to a location. Id. According
to the Examiner, Liebling's search method is transit based and determines
the required travel time to reach the particular point of interest via transit.
Id. at 5 ( citing Liebling 1:24--43, 3: 17-55, Fig. 4).
We find Appellant's argument to be persuasive of Examiner error.
The Examiner does not direct us to any disclosure in Kaplan or Liebling that
suggests "visually distinguishing the area region around the second transit
stop accessible from the second transit stop in the maximum length of time
for the trip," as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in
independent claims 21 and 30. The Examiner finds that Kaplan discloses a
navigation system that allows a user to search for a particular point of
interest that is within an area reachable within a specified time restriction.
Ans. 4 ( citing Abstract, Fig. 17). The specified time restriction along with
additional data such as vehicle speed and speed limits define an area along a
current route to search for a particular point of interest. Br. 12 ( citing
Kaplan 8:17-23, Figs. 10-14). The Examiner further finds that Leibling
describes a transit-coordinated local search method that determines the
transit route to reach a point of interest. Ans. 6, 7. Lieb ling displays a map
that identifies transit route options including the time length of the trip using
real time transit data. See Liebling Fig. 2.
The aforementioned findings do not teach or suggest the disputed
claim element because they do not disclose generating a transit map that
visually distinguishes an area around a transit stop based on a maximum
length of time of a trip. Br. 12. Although Kaplan calculates a search area,
10
Appeal2017-003564
Application 12/872,230
the search area is based upon the current vehicle location and not a transit
stop, and the Examiner has not shown that the search area is generated in a
map. Br. 12; see Kaplan 8: 11-14. Additionally, although Liebling identifies
transit routes on a map, it does not highlight an area region by visually
distinguishing the area region around a second transit stop. Br. 12; see
Liebling Fig. 2. Instead, Liebling merely visually distinguishes a transit
route from a starting point to a point of interest. See Lieb ling Fig. 2. In
summation, the Examiner has not sufficiently explained how the
combination of Kaplan and Lieb ling teaches "visually distinguishing the
area region around the second transit stop accessible from the second transit
stop in the maximum length of time for the trip," as recited in independent
claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 21 and 30.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
under§ 103.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1, 3-9, and 21, 22, and 25-34
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1, 3-9, and 21, 22, and 25-34
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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
11