Ex Parte Castro et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 15, 2016

12780914 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121780,914 05/16/2010
11764 7590
Ditthavong & Steiner, P,C,
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
08/17/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Brenda Castro
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.
P4251USOO 1748
EXAMINER
MCCULLEY,RYAND
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/17/2016 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@dcpatent.com
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRENDA CASTRO, TUOMAS V AITTINEN, and
DAVID JOSEPH MURPHY
Appeal2015-001820
Application 12/780,914
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-11 and 13-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nokia Corporation.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-001820
Application 12/780,914
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to rendering a perspective view of
objects in a digital map of a location-based service of a mobile device where
the perspective view of the objects is augmented with relevant content
associated with the objects and rendering a graphic representation of the
relevant content on a surface of the object in the perspective view. See Spec.
iii! 1-3.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method comprising:
causing, at least in part, rendering of a perspective view
showing one or more objects in a field of view;
retrieving content associated with an object of the one or
more objects in the field of view;
causing, at least in part, rendering of a graphic
representation relating to the content on a surface of the object
visible in the perspective view in a user interface for a location-
based service of a mobile device;
determining a perspective of the rendering of the
perspective view in relation to the one or more objects;
determining whether a rendering of a distant object is
obstructed by a rendering of another object in the perspective
view; and
omitting a graphic representation relating to content
associated with the distant object from the perspective view
when the distant object is obstructed by the rendering of another
object in the perspective view,
wherein the distant object is distinct from the another
object.
2
Appeal2015-001820
Application 12/780,914
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-3, 5, 10, 11, 14, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ritter (US 2003/0151592 Al; Aug. 14,
2003) and Sanz-Pastor (US 2007 /0242131 Al; Oct. 18, 2007).
2. Claims 4 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ritter, Sanz-Pastor, Snavely (US 2007 /0110338 Al; May
17, 2007) and Williamson (US 2010/0123737 Al; May 20, 2010).
3. Claims 6 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ritter, Sanz-Pastor, and Bachelder (US 2010/0245387 Al;
Sep. 30, 2010).
4. Claims 7 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ritter, Sanz-Pastor, and Snavely.
5. Claims 8, 9, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Ritter, Sanz-Pastor, Snavely, and Bachelder.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue2 Ritter and Sanz-Pastor "fail[] to disclose
determining whether a distant object is obstructed by another object that is
2 Appellants make several arguments for the first time in their Reply Brief.
See Reply Br. 3--4 (arguing "the Examiner never addresses the distinction
between a 'perspective view' and a 'field view' as recited in the claim
feature"; see also Reply Br. 5 (arguing the Examiner has failed to meet
burden for establishing Ritter inherently teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation). Appellants have waived these arguments by not presenting them
in the Appeal Brief. See 37 CPR§ 41.4l(b)(2) (2012) ("Any argument
raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or is not
responsive to an argument raised in the examiner's answer, including any
designated new ground of rejection, will not be considered by the Board for
purposes of the present appeal, unless good cause is shown.").
3
Appeal2015-001820
Application 12/780,914
distinct from the distant object." App. Br. 7. With respect to Ritter,
Appellants argue:
Ritter fails to expressly disclose a determination of an
obstruction of one of the two graphical objects 151 by the other.
Neither does Ritter disclose any such determination of an
obstruction with respect to particular aspects of a particular
object (e.g., obstruction of a rear-facing side by a front-facing
side of graphical object 151 ). In fact, Ritter is conspicuously
silent with respect to the relative physical or spatial positions of
graphical objects 151 as being distant or near.
App. Br. 8.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument. Instead, we agree with
the Examiner that Figure 5 of Ritter teaches or suggests "determining
whether a rendering of a distant object is obstructed by a rendering of
another object," as recited in claim 1. Figure 5 depicts a three-dimensional
perspective view of a city map where renderings of three-dimensional
objects block other objects that are more distant. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that, for example, the front wall of building 151 obstructs the rear
wall of the same building3 and that the rear wall is a distinct object that is
more distant than the front wall. Ans. 2-3. We agree with the Examiner
that this teaches "determining whether a rendering of a distant object is
obstructed by a rendering of another object in the perspective view."
Regarding Sanz-Pastor Appellants argue:
At best, Sanz-Pastor et al. merely teaches the decision to
selectively display messages if the screen is becoming cluttered.
However, the occlusion determination in Sanz-Pastor et al.
cannot reasonably be interpreted as disclosing, 'determining
whether a rendering of a distant object is obstructed' (emphasis
3 Buildings 151 also obstruct other more distant graphical objects, such as
streets, in the map view of Figure 5.
4
Appeal2015-001820
Application 12/780,914
added), as recited in independent claim 1, at least because the
messages lack any pre-existing spatial positions.
App. Br. 9. Appellants also argue "the messages are not taught or suggested
as relating to content associated with a distant object" and that "Sanz-Pastor
does not teach or suggest why or how the messages are to be occluded."
Reply Br. 7.
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive because they attack the
references individually and do not address the Examiner's findings as a
whole. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner
relies upon Ritter, not Sanz-Pastor, as teaching determining whether a
distant object is obstructed by another object, and for teaching graphic
representation of content associated with objects. Final Act. 6. The
Examiner relies upon Sanz-Pastor as teaching that graphical representations
of content (e.g. messages) may be occluded when they obstruct each other.
Final Act. 7 (citing Sanz-Pastor i-f 29). Thus, we agree with the Examiner
that the combination of the two references teaches or suggests determmmg
whether a distant object is obstructed by another object and omitting graphic
representations of content associated with the distant object when the distant
object is obstructed by another object.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and of
claims 3, 10, and 19, which Appellants argue together. See App. Br. 9--10.
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2, 4--9, 11,
13-18, and 20 for the same reasons.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-20 is affirmed.
5
Appeal2015-001820
Application 12/780,914
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6