Ex Parte Hess et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2016

12458376 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
12/458,376
100692 7590
AOL Inc./Finnegan
FILING DATE
0710912009
09/01/2016
901 New York Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stephen K. Hess
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.
10587.0023-00000 3448
EXAMINER
TRAN, TUYETLIEN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2179
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2016 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):
regional-desk@finnegan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHEN K. HESS, JAMES G. GRAHAM,
SCOTT W. STEINKE, and COREY L. CRAWFORD
Appeal2015-002823
Application 12/458,3761
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN F. HORVATH, AMBER L. HAGY, and SHARON PENICK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
PENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 21, 23-28, and 30-40. (Appeal Br. 1.) These are all the
claims pending in the case. (Final Action 2.) We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(l).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify MapQuest, Inc. as the real party in interest. (Appeal
Br. 3.)
Appeal2015-002823
Application 12/458,376
Invention
Appellants' invention relates to the reduction of cluttering on an
electronic map display. Information about points-of-interest (POis) to be
represented on the display are received. A determination is made, if icons
representative of the PO Is would overlap, to group those icons into an
overlapping icon group to be displayed on the electronic map display to
represent the icons in the overlapping icon group. (Abstract.)
Representative Claim
Claim 21, reproduced below with key Hrnitations emphasized, is
representative:
21. A computer-implemented method for decluttering an
electronic map display, the method comprising:
receiving location information for points-of-interest
(PO Is) to be indicated on the electronic map display by icons
representative of the PO Is;
determining, based on the location information, whether
any of the icons would overlap if displayed concurrently on the
electronic map display;
grouping any determined overlapping icons into a
plurality of overlapping icon groups;
identifYing an icon contained in two or more of the
plurality of overlapping icon groups;
computing respective centroids of the two or more
overlapping icon groups based on the location information;
determining distances from the identified icon to the
centroids of the two or more overlapping icon groups;
grouping the identified icon in the overlapping icon
group corresponding to a shortest one of the distances; and
providing information for displaying, on the electronic
map display, a group icon that represents all of the icons in the
overlapping icon group corresponding to the shortest distance at
a location corresponding to the centroid thereof.
2
Appeal2015-002823
Application 12/458,376
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 21, 23-28, and 30-40 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Dolph et al. (US 2007/0268310 Al; Nov. 22,
2007) and Gillespie et al. (US 2009/0287546 Al; pub. Nov. 19, 2009).
(Final Action 2-5.)
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Dolph and Gillespie discloses the limitation from claim 1 of
"identifying an icon contained in two or more of the plurality of overlapping
icon groups." (Appeal Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 2--4.) The Examiner finds the
teaching of this disputed limitation in Gillespie. (Final Action 3.) The
Examiner finds Dolph teaches or suggests the limitations of "determining
... whether any of the icons would overlap if displayed concurrently on the
electronic map display" and "grouping any determined overlapping icons
into a plurality of overlapping icon groups." (Id. at 2-3.)
Gillespie relates to the grouping of hotels into clusters based on
geographical similarity. (Gillespie, Abstract.) Once clusters have been
established, an additional hotel is added to a cluster by determining whether
it is within a predetermined distance from a centroid of the cluster.
(Gillespie i-fi-1 45--46.) Gillespie discloses that if a hotel to be added "is
within the predetermined distance from more than one centroid, then the
hotel analysis tool 12 may assign the ... hotel to the cluster associated with
the closest centroid." (Id. i1 46.) The Examiner finds that Gillespie's
identification that a hotel may meet the criteria of more than one cluster
3
Appeal2015-002823
Application 12/458,376
teaches or suggests the identification that the hotel is contained in two
overlapping icon groups. (Final Action 3, 7; Answer 8-10.)
Appellants argue that Gillespie does not teach overlapping icon
groups, and that Gillespie's only teaching regarding overlap relates to fair
market share of hotel chains. (Appeal Br. 12.)
We agree with the Examiner that the combination of Dolph and
Gillespie teaches or suggests the Specification's overlapping icon group.
The Specification describes an overlapping icon group and how it can be
used in the display of a number of points-of-interest by a group icon
representative of individual points-of-interest icons, which would otherwise
overlap if displayed concurrently. (Spec. i-f 8.) Similarly, hotel clusters in
Gillespie represent a number of hotels and may be displayed on a map or
other visual representation with a group icon. (Gillespie i-fi-125, 31, Fig. 6.)
Although Gillespie does not disclose that a cluster is formed when individual
hotel icons would overlap when displayed, the grouping of overlapping
icons into an overlapping icon group is taught or suggested by Dolph's
disclosure of generating a consolidated marker for display where markers
would otherwise overlap, as found by the Examiner. (Final Action 2-3.)
Appellants' argument focuses on the references individually instead of
addressing the Examiner's rejection, which is based upon what the combined
teachings would have suggested to the ordinary artisan. In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). We find no error in the Examiner's finding
that the overlapping icon groups in the disputed limitation are taught or
suggested by the prior art combination.
Appellants additionally discuss the teachings of Gillespie and argue
that the cited portions do not amount to the identification of an icon
4
Appeal2015-002823
Application 12/458,376
contained in two or more overlapping icon groups. (Appeal Br. 12; Reply
Br. 2--4.) We agree with the Examiner that Gillespie explicitly discloses
"identifying an item that may be contained in two or more of the plurality of
overlapping hotel groups." (Answer 9.) We evaluate whether the claim as a
whole would have been obvious to an ordinarily-skilled artisan in light of
the proffered combination of the prior art, accounting for "the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR
Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Although the hotel
under consideration in Gillespie, having been identified as a candidate to be
grouped with two or more clusters, is not specifically added to each
candidate cluster and then identified as belonging to two clusters and
removed from all but the cluster with the closest centroid, we find that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have found the teachings of
Gillespie, when combined with the teachings of Dolph, teach or suggest the
disputed limitation.
Appellants further argue that the Examiner has applied an improper
standard in determining obviousness, and premise this argument on a
particular statement made by the Examiner. (Appeal Br. 10-11; Reply Br.
2.) We agree with the Examiner that the statement identified by Appellants
was not part of the rejection, but was included as part of an explanation
regarding the teachings of the prior art in the Response to Arguments section
of the Final Action. (Answer 7-8; Final Action 6.)
Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding that the
prior art combination teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Therefore,
we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
5
Appeal2015-002823
Application 12/458,376
and of claims 23-28 and 30-40, which are argued on the same basis.
(Appeal Br. 13.)
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 21, 23-28, and
30-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dolph and Gillespie.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv), no time period for taking any
subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended.
AFFIRMED
6