Ex Parte Holm et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2017

13610412 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 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.
13/610,412 09/11/2012 Jukka Antero Holm P6706US00 1330
11764 7590
Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C.
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
09/28/2017 EXAMINER
CHEUNG, MARY DA ZHI WANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2017 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):
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 JUKKA ANTERO HOLM, JUHA HENRIK ARRASVUORI,
ANTTI JOHANNES ERONEN, and ARTO JUHANI LEHTINIEMI
Appeal 2016-0007201
Application 13/610,4122
Technology Center 3600
Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our Decision references Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
May 15, 2015) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Oct. 16, 2015), and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Aug. 28, 2015) and Final Office Action
(“Final Act.,” mailed Nov. 17, 2014).
2 Appellants identify Nokia Corporation as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-000720
Application 13/610,412
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed apparatus relates to “providing alternate route
recommendations based on progress information of a user along an alternate
route.” See Spec. 125.
Claims 1 and 11 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 11,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
11. An apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory including computer program code for
one or more programs,
the at least one memory and the computer program code
configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus
to perform at least the following,
determine at least one alternate route to a route,
wherein the at least one alternate route is taken by at least
one user of at least one device;
determine progress information of the at least one
user of the at least one device along the at least one
alternate route, the progress information based, at least in
part, on location information associated with the at least
one device; and
determine whether to cause, at least in part, a
recommendation of the at least one alternate route to at
least one other user associated with at least one other
device based, at least in part, on the progress information.
REJECTION
Claims 1—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Chowanic (US 2002/0128773 Al, pub. Sept. 12, 2002) and Hanson
(US 6,253,145 Bl, iss. June 26, 2001).
2
Appeal 2016-000720
Application 13/610,412
ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 11, and Dependent Claims 12—20
We are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), because Hanson does not disclose or suggest
“determin[ing] whether to cause, at least in part, a recommendation of the at
least one alternate route to at least one other user associated with at least one
other device based, at least in part, on the progress information,” as recited
in claim 11. See App. Br. 7—10; see also Reply Br. 2-4. The Examiner
relies on Hanson as disclosing the argued limitation. Final Act. 3^4 (citing
Hanson, Abstract, col. 4,11. 32-43, col. 8,11. 51—64, col. 9,1. 31 — col. 10,1.
16), 6. We have reviewed the portions of Hanson cited by the Examiner.
Yet, we find nothing that discloses or suggests the argued limitation.
Hanson describes a service for calling a subscriber if the subscriber’s
customary commuting route is congested. Hanson, Abstract. Specifically,
Hanson describes collecting traffic conditions through a variety of methods,
such as through traffic reporters (e.g., traffic helicopters), speed sensors in
roadways, and transponders in cars (such as E-ZPass® (“E-ZPass”)). Id. at
col. 4,11. 33—38. A traffic information center program receives and stores
information from sources, such as municipal traffic monitoring centers and
commercial traffic reporting services. Id. at col. 8,11. 23—27.
Hanson describes storing a congestion metric for each street segment.
Id. at col. 8,11. 52—55. Each street segment also has a corresponding trial
alternate route. Id. at col. 8,11. 55—56. When a subscriber’s customary
commuting route is congested, Hanson’s system first tests the trial alternate
route for congestion. If the trial alternate route is found to be congested,
then Hanson’s system sequentially tests other nearby streets in search of a
3
Appeal 2016-000720
Application 13/610,412
suitable alternate route. Id. at col. 8,11. 55—56; see also id. at col. 9,1. 31 —
col. 10,1. 17.
The Examiner takes the position that Hanson’s description of
collecting traffic information accumulated from E-ZPass transponders
teaches determining progress along at least one alternate route. Yet, we find
nothing in Hanson that teaches or suggests detecting progress information of
an E-ZPass user along an alternate route based on location information
associated with the transponder, as required by claim 11. Instead, Hanson
describes collecting traffic conditions from various sources, unassociated
with any one user, to determine traffic conditions. In contrast, Appellants’
Specification provides that determining progress information of a user along
an alternate route allows the claimed invention to provide alternate routing,
even when there is a lack of conventional traffic detection mechanisms (such
as E-ZPass readers) associated with the roads. See Spec. 128.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claim 11 and dependent claims 12—20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
Independent Claim 1, and Dependent Claims 1—10
Independent claim 1 includes language substantially similar to the
language of independent claim 11, and stands rejected under the same
reasoning as applied to claim 11. See Final Act. 6. Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claim 1, and
dependent claims 2—10 for the same reasons set forth above with respect to
claim 1.
4
Appeal 2016-000720
Application 13/610,412
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.
REVERSED
5