Ex Parte Huyi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2018

13785622 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/785,622 03/05/2013
12716 7590 08/02/2018
Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP (Google)
233 South Wacker Drive
6300 Willis Tower
Chicago, IL 60606-6357
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Charles Huyi
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.
31730/17582-00 9703
EXAMINER
HOANG,PHI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
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):
mgbdocket@marshallip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHARLES HUYI and MENGKE LI
Appeal2018-001219
Application 13/785,622 1
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, ERIC B. CHEN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, 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 1---6, 8, 9, 13, 22-26, and 28-34. Claims 7, 10-12,
14--21, and 27 are canceled. App. Br. 6. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Google Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 4.
Appeal2018-001219
Application 13/785,622
Invention
Appellants disclose "a user interface that allows a user, or a
collaborating group of users[,] to specify a set of nmltiple different criteria
associated with various features of a geographic map." Abstract.
Illustrative Claim (key limitations emphasized)
1. A method for generating displays of geographic areas satisfying
multiple criteria, the method implemented on one or more processors
and comprising:
presenting, on respective displays of a plurality of client devices, a
user interface having a criteria entry area, each of the plurality of
client devices operated by a different user;
receiving criteria data that represents multiple different independent
criteria, each of the multiple different independent criteria received
from a different one of the plurality of client devices and
corresponding to respective at least one potentially matching feature;
transmitting the received criteria data via a network interface;
receiving map data at the plurality of client devices, wherein the map
data represents a geographic map having at least one identified two-
dimensional area that includes a plurality of features that satisfy the
multiple different independent criteria and wherein the at least one
identified two-dimensional area is bounded by a polygon that
surrounds the plurality of features; and
generating, using the received map data, a display of a geographic
map having the at least one identified two-dimensional area visually
differentiated from the remainder of the geographic map, based on the
plurality features.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 8, 9, 22-26, and 28-33 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (US 2013/0024107
Al; published Jan. 24, 2013) ("Xie"), White et al. (US 2009/0132469 Al;
2
Appeal2018-001219
Application 13/785,622
published May 21, 2009) ("White"), and Pearcy (US 2013/0173569 Al;
published July 4, 2013). Final Act. 5-10.
The Examiner rejects claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Xie, White, Pearcy, and Ettinger (US 2008/0262717 Al;
published Oct. 23, 2008). Final Act. 10-11.
The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Xie, White, Pearcy, and Swist (US 2013/0179304 Al;
published July 11, 2013). Final Act. 11.
The Examiner rejects claims 6 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Xie, White, Pearcy, Yang et al. (US 2006/0101005
Al; published May 11, 2006) ("Yang"). Final Act. 12.
The Examiner rejects claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Xie, White, Pearcy, and Pilskalns (US 7,945,852 B 1;
issued May 17, 2011). Final Act. 13.
FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS
Xie teaches receiving "a request from a user for a recommended path
from an origination to a destination" that "may include user constraints
regarding travel time, travel distance, and network quality." Xie ,r 19.
"Network optimizer 1012 may determine one or more recommended paths
... whose network and path characteristics satisfy the user constraints
provided in the request." Id. ,r 28. The service can help "users trade off a
little extra distance for better mobile network access," if, "for example, a
group of friends driving to a national park far away from the city want good
network access to kill the time in the car." Id. ,r 22.
The Examiner finds that the receipt of such a request, with different
user constraints, teaches or suggests receiving criteria data that represents
3
Appeal2018-001219
Application 13/785,622
multiple different independent criteria. Final Act. 5 ( citing Xie ,r,r 19, 28);
see also Ans. 3 (further citing Xie ,r 22). The Examiner does not rely on Xie
to teach or suggest each of the multiple different independent criteria being
received from a different one of a plurality of client devices. Final Act. 7.
Rather, the Examiner finds Pearcy' s collaborative search session
teachings-which allow "users of multiple computing device to concurrently
interact with a search engine 125 to collaboratively develop a refined search
result set" (Pearcy ,r 19}-teaches or suggests modifying Xie to receive the
user constraints (i.e., multiple different independent criteria) from multiple
users with multiple computing devices. Final Act. 7-8 ( citing Pearcy ,r,r 19,
24, 49, 50, 53); Ans. 4.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Xie' s "constraints
apply to the same single request for a recommended path, and come from the
same user." App. Br. 14. Appellants argue "Xie does not suggest [allowing]
friends [to] submit different independent criteria." Id. Appellants further
argue that Pearcy does not cure the acknowledged deficiency of Xie because
"there is no reason for multiple users to specify different ones of travel time,
travel distance, and network quality in the environment of Xie." Id.; see
also Reply Br. 2.
ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellants' argument that Pearcy does not render
obvious modifying Xie' s system for receiving a request such that users could
submit user constraints of a request using different devices. See App. Br. 14.
As Appellants note, Xie' s "constraints apply to the same single request for a
recommended path, and come from the same user." App. Br. 14. This
accords with Xie's user interface that allows a user to request a
4
Appeal2018-001219
Application 13/785,622
recommended path from an origination to a destination, where the request
may include user constraints related to network quality, travel distance, and
travel distance. Xie ,r 27. Appellants further correctly note that in Xie, if
multiple friends are traveling together, "the group acts as a single unit that
chooses to have a path with network coverage." App. Br. 14. This accords
with Xie's example of "friends driving to a national park [who] want good
network access to kill ... time in the car" (Xie ,r 22; emphasis added), as
well as other examples such as a mother picking up her children, having
them take online exercises in rush hour, and a couple hurrying to a theater,
reading online review on their way (id.). In all the cases described in Xie,
the group is traveling from the same origin to the same destination, with the
requested path optimized based on the same user constraints.
This singular, relatively simple request for one result ( or for a small
number of comparable results) contrasts sharply with Pearcy, where multiple
users "interact with a search engine 125 to collaboratively develop a refined
search result set based on search queries and other inputs." Pearcy ,r 19.
Pearcy's system enables, for example, users "to 'branch' a particular search
or search query, allowing each of the collaborating users to adjust one or
more criteria of the search query in order to explore different result sets in
parallel." Id.
The Examiner concludes that since different members of Xie's group
may have different travel preferences ( e.g., a driver may not be as interested
in network quality as passengers):
the combination of Pearcy' s collaborative searching using
queries from multiple users on multiple devices could have been
applied to Xie's searching for a travel path based on travel
constraints ... to yield the predictable result of collaborative
5
Appeal2018-001219
Application 13/785,622
searching by multiple users on multiple devices for a travel path
based on their individual requirements.
Ans. 4. However, speculation as to the differing priorities of Xie's travelers
is insufficient to show that it would have been obvious to an artisan of
ordinary skill to modify Xie such that multiple different independent
criteria-which the Examiner identifies as user constraints such as travel
time, travel distance, and network quality (Final Act. 5}-are received from
a different one of the plurality of client devices. The Examiner's posited
modification----one user adding a travel time constraint, another a travel
distance constraint, and another a network quality constraint, all from
different devices-seems and would have seemed overly complicated given
all of the user constraints could readily be submitted using a single device.
Furthermore, the search setting in Xie, where a user or group acting as
a unit is seeking a suitable path from an origin to a destination, is unlike the
business or educational settings of Pearcy, where features such as branching
a particular search or search query, aggregating information communicated
in multiple query inputs, and presenting search results according to multiple
contexts are desirable. See, e.g., Pearcy ,r,r 19, 41, 50. The Examiner
presents insufficient findings or explanation to show that searching for a
path in Xie is comparable to Pearcy' s collaborative search sessions such that
it would have been obvious to modify Xie using Pearcy' s collaborative
search teachings and suggestions. See Final Act. 7-8; Ans. 4.
For these reasons, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner's
findings do not demonstrate that it would have been obvious to modify Xie,
based on Pearcy, to include "receiving criteria data that represents multiple
different independent criteria, each of the multiple different independent
criteria received from a different one of the plurality of client devices and
6
Appeal2018-001219
Application 13/785,622
corresponding to respective at least one potentially matching feature," as
recited in claim 1. The Examiner does not show that White or the other
cited references cure the noted deficiency of Xie and Pearcy.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 1, and the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of
claims 2-6, 8, 9, 13, 22-26, and 28-34.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1---6, 8, 9, 13,
22-26, and 28-34.
REVERSED
7