Ex Parte Kato

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 18, 2014

12379739 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SEIJI KATO
____________

Appeal 2012-006186
Application 12/379,7391
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.

WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a driver navigation system
and, in particular, operation of such a system when a driver encounters a
rotary, i.e., a traffic circle. (Spec. 1–2.)

1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Denso Corporation.
(Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2012-006186
Application 12/379,739

2
Claims 1 and 5 are the only independent claims. Claims 1 and 5 are
similar and are argued together. Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced
below:
1. A navigation apparatus for a vehicle,
the navigation apparatus having a function to
perform a route guidance by displaying a guidance route
from a departure point to a destination on a map,
the navigation apparatus comprising:
a map data input section configured to input map
data stored in a storage medium; and
a control section configured to retrieve as a
guidance route a route from the departure point to the
destination based on the map data while performing a
route guidance relative to the guidance route,
the control section comprising:
a rotary inside determination portion configured to,
when a rotary is included in the guidance route,
determine whether an exit route, which exits from the
rotary, is a road which advances inside of the rotary;
a rotary guidance display portion configured to
perform a rotary guidance display for indicating the exit
route by using a picture illustrating a configuration of the
rotary when it is determined that the exit route is not a
road advancing inside of the rotary;
a rotary-use right/left turn branch display portion
configured to perform a right/left turn branch display for
indicating a right turn or a left turn at an intersection
when it is determined that the exit route from the rotary is
a road advancing inside of the rotary; and
a non-rotary-use right/left turn branch display
portion configured to perform a right/left turn branch
display for indicating a right turn or a left turn at an
intersection that is other than an intersection of the rotary
included in the guidance route,
wherein
the rotary-use right/left turn branch display portion
performs the right/left turn branch display instead of the
Appeal 2012-006186
Application 12/379,739

3
rotary guidance display, when it is determined that the
exit route from the rotary is the road advancing inside of
the rotary, the right/left turn branch display being
performed by using a display identical to a right/left turn
branch display for indicating a right turn or a left turn at
an intersection that is other than an intersection of the
rotary included in the guidance route.

REJECTION
Claims 1–5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)2 as being
unpatentable over Koizumi (US 6,151,552, iss. Nov. 21, 2000) and Oikubo
(US 2005/0149262 A1, pub. July 7, 2005).

ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites “a rotary guidance display portion configured to
perform a rotary guidance display for indicating the exit route by using a
picture illustrating a configuration of the rotary when it is determined that
the exit route is not a road advancing inside of the rotary . . .” and “a rotary-
use right/left turn branch display portion configured to perform a right/left
turn branch display for indicating a right turn or a left turn at an intersection
when it is determined that the exit route from the rotary is a road advancing
inside of the rotary . . . .”
In short, claim 1 requires a system configured such that when the exit
route from a traffic circle calls for going outside the circle, the system
performs “a rotary guidance display.” And when the exit route from a traffic

2 Now 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2012-006186
Application 12/379,739

4
circle calls for going inside the circle, the system performs “a right/left turn
branch display.”
The Examiner asserts that the claims are obvious in light of Koizumi
and Oikubo.
The Examiner argues (Answer 9) that Koizumi teaches
a route guidance apparatus where a rotary is displayed to the
user indicating the configuration of the rotary (Fig. 13). The
guiding device process route [sic] to see if route exits through
an outer or inner side exit road and displays guidance
instructions specifying which inner or outer side exit road to
take (col. 5, lines 8-36).

The Examiner further argues that Oikubo teaches “displaying a dual screen
to a user when the user has reached a guidance-requiring intersection
(Fig. 3)(para. 39).” (Id.) The Examiner concludes that “[t]he concepts
disclosed in Oikubo would display turning instructions to the user for any
particular intersection, including a road advancing inside of a rotary as seen
in Koizumi.” (Id. at 10.)
Oikubo teaches a “dual screen display” that simultaneously shows two
different maps if the vehicle is approaching a “guidance-requiring
intersection.” (Oikubo, ¶ 39 and Fig. 2 & 3.)
Koizumi teaches that if the desired exit from a traffic circle is on the
outer side of the traffic circle, then “the guiding device carries out travel
guidance specifying how many ahead the exit road on the route is among
such outer side exit roads.” (Koizumi, col. 5, ll. 2328.) Similarly, if the
desired exit is on the inner side of the traffic circle, then the system specifies
“how many ahead the exit road on the route is among the inner side exit
roads.” (Id. at col. 5, ll. 2936.)
Appeal 2012-006186
Application 12/379,739

5
We agree with the Examiner that the cited art teaches “display[ing]
turning instructions to the user for any particular intersection, including a
road advancing inside of a rotary . . . .” (Answer 10.) However, the
Examiner does not indicate what in Koizumi and Oikubo would suggest to
one of ordinary skill in the art to show a rotary guidance display or a
right/left branch turn display based on whether the exit route from a traffic
circle was to the outside or inside of the circle.
Thus, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not presented a
prima facie case of obviousness. We reverse the rejection of claim 1. For
the same reason, we reverse the rejection of independent claim 5 and claims
24 which depend from claim 1.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.

REVERSED

llw