Ex Parte Nesbitt

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2017

13620974 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 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.
13/620,974 09/15/2012 David W. Nesbitt 19487.161.1.1.2 6606
107193 7590 09/29/2017
Keller Jolley Preece/Facebook
1010 North 500 East
Suite 210
North Salt Lake, UT 84054
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, CUONG H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2017 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):
docketing@kjpip.com
gj olley @ kj pip. com
tkusitor@kjpip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID W. NESBITT
Appeal 2016-008322
Application 13/620,974
Technology Center 3600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOYCE CRAIG, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-008322
Application 13/620,974
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1
and 22-44. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to providing a detailed map
including maneuvers that occur within a predetermined distance of one
another. Spec. 12:1—6. The detailed map may include for example the
maneuvers of merging on a highway, exiting the highway at a particular toll
road exit, merging on the toll road, and exiting the toll road at a particular
exit toward a particular direction. Id.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, from a user, a request for directions from an origin to
a destination;
determining a route from the origin to the destination, wherein
the route comprises a plurality of maneuvers;
providing, for display, a map of the route to the user;
providing, for display, a narrative portion comprising a listing
of the plurality of maneuvers for the route;
detecting, using at least one processor, a selection of a
particular maneuver from the listing of the plurality of
maneuvers; and
in response to the detected selection of the particular maneuver,
providing, for display, a detailed map that corresponds to the
particular maneuver.
2
Appeal 2016-008322
Application 13/620,974
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
DeLorme US 2003/0182052 A1 Sept. 25, 2003
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1 and 22-44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over DeLorme.
ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that
DeLorme teaches or suggests the limitation of “providing, for display, a
narrative portion comprising a listing of the plurality of maneuvers for the
route” as recited in claim 1.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions and we add the
following primarily for emphasis and clarification.
Appellant argues that DeLorme does not teach or suggest the
limitation of “providing, for display, a narrative portion comprising a listing
of the plurality of maneuvers for the route” as recited in claim 1. App. Br.
13. Appellant asserts that while the Examiner concedes DeLorme does not
teach this limitation, the Examiner mistakenly relies on paragraphs 21, 57,
and 63 of Appellant’s Specification for defining “a particular maneuver” as
“not using original road,” and that a selection to modify to use the “shortest
3
Appeal 2016-008322
Application 13/620,974
travel route” or use “shortest time” would read on that claimed language
because that also constitutes a particular maneuver. App. Br. 13. In
particular Appellant asserts that the Specification does not define “a
particular maneuver” as “not using original road” but rather a re-routing
feature, separate and distinct from any particular maneuver or maneuvers.
App. Br. 14. According to Appellant a user may choose a different route via
the re-routing feature that may avoid a particular maneuver in a current
route. Id. For example, cited paragraph 21 states, “[t]he route presentation
also may include a re-routing feature that allows a user to request
identification of a new route that avoids a particular maneuver or maneuvers
in a current route.” Spec. 4:7—9; App. Br. 14. Appellant concludes that the
Specification makes it clear a route includes one or more maneuvers and that
“re-routing” is not a maneuver. App. Br. 14.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Claims are given
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and
should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one
of ordinary skill in the art, but without importing limitations from the
specification. See In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364
(Fed. Cir. 2004); SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870,
875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellant’s own Specification provides an example of
what constitutes “maneuvers” wherein a detailed map may include
maneuvers of merging on a highway, exiting the highway at a particular toll
road exit, merging on the toll road, and exiting the toll road at a particular
exit toward a particular direction. Spec. 12:1—6. Accordingly, under the
broadest reasonable interpretation, “maneuvers” are sub-sections of the map
route. While we agree with Appellant that the action of re-routing itself
4
Appeal 2016-008322
Application 13/620,974
does not constitute a maneuver, nonetheless, the action of re-routing results
in substituting/selecting an alternative sub-section of the route with another
sub-section. Those alternative sub-sections do constitute maneuvers. In
other words, by re-routing one is in essence substituting one or more
maneuvers with alternate ones. Thus, DeLorme teaches a plurality of
maneuvers.
Furthermore, the Examiner’s cited paragraphs teach “the travel route
including transportation routes, waypoints, and points of interest can be
updated or changed according to the user preferences and choices. Modified
travel routes can be previewed with further multimedia travelogs until a
satisfactory travel route is achieved” (DeLorme 12) and
[f]or example, in order to revise or refine his or her emerging
itinerary, the user can modify an initial route by altering the
current waypoint list adding places he or she really desires to
visit, or excluding places from the itinerary, in response to
selected multimedia information about the locations found along
the initial route
(DeLorme 197 (emphasis added)). Ans. 5—6. Thus, DeLorme teaches or
suggests a display with a narrative portion comprising a listing of the
plurality of maneuvers for the route (i.e., changes of the list of sub-sections
such as waypoints).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that DeLorme teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation of “providing, for display, a narrative
portion comprising a listing of the plurality of maneuvers for the route” as
recited in claim 1.
Appellant further asserts that “[a] waypoint list and corresponding
waypoint list management tools are not the same as an interactive listing of
maneuvers in a route” (App. Br. 16) but does not explain persuasively why
5
Appeal 2016-008322
Application 13/620,974
that is the case or provide any evidence to support that assertion.
Furthermore, while Appellant refers to additional limitations as not being
met by DeLorme, the limitations are merely mentioned and the argument
refers back to the same argument as the one raised regarding the “plurality of
maneuvers.” See App. Br. 16—22. Merely reciting the claim limitations, and
discussing findings other than those upon which the Examiner relied in the
rejection, is not a responsive argument. Such a response to the Examiner’s
findings is insufficient to persuade us of Examiner error, as mere attorney
arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual
evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,
1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed.
Cir. 1984); Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, slip op. at 7—8 (BPAI Aug.
10, 2009) (informative); see also In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to
require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation
of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements
were not found in the prior art.”); cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d
388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to examine the
claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable]
distinctions over the prior art.”)
Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for the same
reasons as those stated above we also affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 22^44.
6
Appeal 2016-008322
Application 13/620,974
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that DeLorme teaches or suggests
the limitation of “providing, for display, a narrative portion comprising a
listing of the plurality of maneuvers for the route” as recited in claim 1.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 22-44
is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2009).
AFFIRMED
7