Ex Parte BEAUREPAIRE

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2018

13950827 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/950,827 07/25/2013
101535 7590 09/27/2018
Lempia Summerfield Katz LLC/HERE
20 South Clark Street
Suite 600
Chicago, IL 60603
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jerome BEAUREPAIRE
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.
10171-15047A
(NC81854US)
CONFIRMATION NO.
2904
EXAMINER
LONG, ANDREA NATAE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2018 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):
docket-us@lsk-iplaw.com
pair_lsk@firsttofile.com
hereipr@here.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEROME BEAUREP AIRE 1
Appeal2018-002337
Application 13/950,827
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JASON V. MORGAN, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 36-59. Claims 1-35 are canceled. Appeal Br. 13. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant is the applicant, HERE Global B.V., identified in the Appeal
Brief as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-002337
Application 13/950,827
Invention
The Specification discloses causing modification of a displayed image
by displaying a tear in the image in response to an applied edge tearing
gesture. Abstract.
Representative Claim (key limitations emphasized)
36. A method, comprising:
causing presentation of a map image on a display of a deformable
apparatus;
causing modification of the map image by displaying at least one tear
feature within the map image responsive to detecting at least one edge
tearing gesture applied to the deformable apparatus, the at least one
edge tearing gesture having a strain exceeding a threshold value
around an edge of the deformable apparatus;
the at least one edge tearing gesture causing the deformable apparatus
to flex;
the at least one edge tearing gesture having an initial start position, a
direction, and a magnitude of the edge tearing gesture determined by
the strain; and
propagating the at least one tear feature along a cartographic feature
in the map image.
Re} ections and References
The Examiner rejects claims 36, 39--42, 44, 46, and 55-58 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2014/0062976
Al; published Mar. 6, 2014) ("Park"), Awad (US 2013/0275058 Al;
published Oct. 17, 2013), and Weng et al. (US 2013/0311916 Al; published
Nov. 21, 2013) ("Weng"). Final Act. 2---6.
The Examiner rejects claims 37 and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Park, Awad, Weng, and Yoo et al. (US 2012/
0050184 Al; published Mar. 1, 2012) ("Yoo"). Final Act. 7-8.
2
Appeal2018-002337
Application 13/950,827
The Examiner rejects claim 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Park, Awad, Weng, Yoo, and Lynton et al. (US 2009/
0287990 Al; published Nov. 19, 2009) ("Lynton"). Final Act. 8.
The Examiner rejects claim 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Park, Awad, Weng, and Choe (US 2011/0047460 Al;
published Feb. 24, 2011). Final Act. 9.
The Examiner rejects claims 47 and 50-54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Park and Weng. Ans. 10-12.
The Examiner rejects claim 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Park, Weng, and Yoo. Final Act. 12-13.
The Examiner rejects claim 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Park, Weng, Yoo, and Lynton. Final Act. 13.
The Examiner rejects claim 59 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Park, Awad, Weng, and Lyton. Final Act. 14.
ADOPTION OF EXAMINER'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts
and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this
appeal was taken. We have considered Appellant's arguments, but do not
find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
CLAIMS 36-46, 56, and 57
Findings and Contentions
In rejecting claim 36 as obvious, the Examiner relies on Park's
teaching of gradually moving a plurality of divided regions in response to
sensing that a flexible display is being bent to teach or suggest propagating
at least one tear feature along a feature of an image. Final Act. 3 ( citing
3
Appeal2018-002337
Application 13/950,827
Park ,r 98). The Examiner relies on Awad, which teaches a map viewer
application, to teach or suggest the image being a map image. Final Act. 3;
see also Appeal Br. 6 (citing, e.g., Awad ,r 62). The Examiner relies on
Weng' s application of a gesture ( such as a line) to a map feature ( such as a
street) to teach or suggest the feature being cartographic. Final Act. 4
(citing Weng ,r,r 3, 41, Fig. 3).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because the Examiner
acknowledges "Park does not explicitly teach the image as a map image or
propagating the tear feature along a cartographic feature in the map image."
Appeal Br. 6 ( emphases added) ( quoting Final Act. 3). Appellant argues
"Awad teaches a zoom feature and scroll feature, but not the operation of a
tear feature in a map viewer application." Appeal Br. 6-7 ( emphasis
added). Appellant also argues "Weng teaches a touch screen, tracking
camera, voice, or keyboard input. ... As such, Weng cannot pro[pa]gate a
tearing gesture." Id. at 7 (emphasis added) (citing Weng ,r 30).
Analysis
The Examiner emphasizes the basis of the rejection is:
The combination of Park's propagating of a tear within the user
interface combined with a mapping system of A wad and the
identification of a feature in the map based on the location of the
gesture reasonably teaches the claimed limitation of propagating
the tear feature along a cartographic feature in the map image.
Ans. 16
Rather than show error in the combined teachings and suggestions of
Park, Awad, and Weng, Appellant unpersuasively attacks each reference
separately. That is, with each reference, Appellant merely identifies
acknowledged deficiencies without showing error in the Examiners reliance
4
Appeal2018-002337
Application 13/950,827
on the other references to cure the acknowledged deficiency. For example,
Appellant argues "Weng cannot pro[pa]gate a tearing gesture" (Appeal Br.
7) even though the Examiner relies on Park, not Weng, to teach or suggest
propagating a tearing gesture (Final Act. 3 (citing Park ,r 98)). The
remaining arguments with respect to the Examiner's rejection of claim 36
are similarly unresponsive to the Examiner's findings and conclusions. See
Appeal Br. 6-7. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the
combination of Park, Awad, and Weng teaches or suggests "propagating the
at least one tear feature along a cartographic feature in the map image," as
recited in claim 36. See Final Act. 3--4.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 36, and the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 37--46,
56, and 57, which Appellant does not argue separately. See Appeal Br. 5-7.
CLAIMS 4 7-54
Findings and Contentions
Claim 47's recitations include computer program code configured to
cause an apparatus to propagate an at least one tear feature along a feature
in an image. The Examiner's findings with respect to this recitation are
similar to the Examiner's findings with respect to the similarly worded
recitation of claim 36. Compare Final Act. 10-11 with id. at 3--4; also
compare Ans. 17-18 with id. at 15-16. Appellant's corresponding
arguments are similar. Compare Appeal Br. 8-9 with id. at 6-7. Claim 4 7
does not recite that the image is a "map image." Thus, the Examiner does
not rely on and Appellant does not present arguments with respect to Awad.
5
Appeal2018-002337
Application 13/950,827
Analysis
There are minor discrepancies between the Examiner's rejections of
claims 47 and 36. For Example, the Examiner finds, with respect to claim
4 7, that Park teaches or suggests "propagating the at least one tear feature in
the image" (Final Act. 10 ( citing Park ,r 98, Fig. 6)), but fails to "explicitly
teach propagating the at least one tear feature along a feature in the image"
(Final Act. 10). Yet, with respect to claim 36, the Examiner finds Park
teaches or suggests "propagating the at least one tear feature along a feature
in the image." Id. at 3 (citing Park ,r 98). Nonetheless, as noted, the major
difference between the two recitations is that the Examiner does not rely on
Awad in rejecting claim 47. Therefore, The Examiner's findings regarding
Park and Weng, as they relate to claim 36, are similarly applicable with
respect to claim 4 7.
Appellant's arguments with respect to claim 47 (Appeal Br. 8-9)
differ somewhat from those presented with respect to claim 36 (id. at 6-7).
However, Appellant similarly challenges Park and Weng separately without
showing error in the combined teachings and suggestions of Park and Weng.
See id. at 6-7; Ans. 18. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the
combination of Park and Weng teaches or suggests computer program code
configured to cause an apparatus to "propagate an at least one tear feature
along a feature in an image," as recited in claim 47. See Final Act. 10-11.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 47, and the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 48-54,
which Appellant does not argue separately. Appeal Br. 8-9.
6
Appeal2018-002337
Application 13/950,827
CLAIMS 55, 58, and 59
Findings and Contentions
Claim 55 includes a recitation to "propagate the at least one tear
feature along the road feature in the map image" ( emphasis added), a more
specific variation of the propagating recitation of claim 3 6, which broadly
recites a "cartographic feature." Thus, the Examiner's rejection of claim 55,
with respect to the propagate recitation, relies on the "same rationale" as
proffered with respect to the propagating recitation of claim 36. Final
Act. 6.
Claim 55 further recites generating "metadata associated with the
modified map image comprising coordinate data, related to the at least one
tear feature and the cartographic feature." The Examiner finds that Weng's
identification of the midpoint of a street as a destination location-based on
a line gesture or the like-teaches or suggests generating the claimed
coordinate metadata. Final Act. 6 ( citing Weng ,r 59); see also Ans. 19.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 55 for
similar reason proffered with respect to claim 3 6. Compare Appeal Br. 10-
11 with id. at 6-7. Appellant also contends the Examiner erred because
neither Park nor Awad teach or suggest the recitation directed to generating
metadata. Id. at 11. Appellant argues Weng fails to cure this deficiency
because "Weng is silent regarding metadata associated with the modified
map image [and] does not provide coordinate data relating to the tear
feature." Id. at 12.
Analysis
Appellant's arguments with respect to the propagating recitation of
claim 55 are unpersuasive for the same reasons discussed above with respect
7
Appeal2018-002337
Application 13/950,827
to claim 36. Furthermore, Appellant fails to distinguish the claimed
coordinate data from Weng's identified midpoint of a street. See Appeal Br.
11-12. As such, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Park,
Awad, and Weng teaches or suggests generating "metadata associated with
the modified map image comprising coordinate data, related to the at least
one tear feature and the cartographic feature," as recited in claim 55. See
Final Act. 6; Ans. 19.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 55, and the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 56, 58,
59, which Appellant does not argue separately. Appeal Br. 9-12.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 36-59.
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.
§ 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
8