Ex Parte Neuekirchner

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2016

13138398 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/138,398 10/18/2011
24972 7590 08/24/2016
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
666 FIFTH A VE
NEW YORK, NY 10103-3198
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ernst-Peter N euekirchner
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.
1019116777 8216
EXAMINER
HAN, CHARLES J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2016 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):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERNST-PETER NEUEKIRCHNER
Appeal2014-005585
Application 13/138,398
Technology Center 3600
Before: JOHN C. KERINS, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
11-20. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Claims 1-10 have been cancelled. Final Act. 2.
Appeal2014-005585
Application 13/138,398
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a navigation system, a method for operating
a navigation system, and an information system. Spec. 1. 2 Claim 11,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
11. A method for operating a navigation system for a motor
vehicle, the navigation system having a memory and a computing
unit, the method comprising:
providing map data in the memory, wherein the map data
includes map elements, attributes representing characteristics of
the map elements, edges, coordinate points defining
geographical positions and shapes of the edges by representing
at least inflection points of the edges, and intermediate points
defining geographical points of the edges, wherein each
intermediate point is located between two adjacent coordinate
points, and wherein the intermediate points further define
sections of edges in which an attribute is valid; and
ascertaining by the computing unit at least one information
item on the basis of the edges, the coordinate points, the
intermediate points, and the attributes; and
outputting by the computing unit the at least one
information item;
wherein at least a portion of the intermediate points is
stored in a different memory area of the memory than the
coordinate points.
Appeal Br. 8.
2 Our citations to the Specification refer to Appellant's Substitute
Specification filed on August 9, 2011.
2
Appeal2014-005585
Application 13/138,398
REJECTION
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Neukirchner (EP 1 837 628 A2, published September 26, 2007). 3
OPINION
(I)
Appellant argues claims 11-20 as a group (Appeal Br. 3--4), and
claims 12-20 stand or fall with claim 11. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Neukirchner discloses "coordinate points
defining geographical positions and shapes of the edges by representing at
least inflection points of the edges (e.g. at least position 101, 102, 123, 124,
125, 126, node 103, 104, 121, 122, see e.g. p. 3, 22, Figs. 4, 5 and related
text, representing intersections and tum-offs as 'nodes.'" Final Act. 5
(emphasis added). The Examiner finds that Appellant's Specification
defines the term "coordinate points" as "representations of 'intersection
points,' 'junctions,' or 'nodes."' Final Act. 5 (citing Spec. 5).
Appellant contends the "Specification never defined 'nodes' or
'coordinate points' as representing geographical 'intersection points' or
'junctions.'" Appeal Br. 5. Appellant contends that the Specification
supports an interpretation of the term "coordinate points" "as being points at
which two connecting edges change direction." Appeal Br. 5 (citing Spec.
8, 11. 18-21; Fig. 3).
3 Our citations to N eukirchner are to an English translation provided by the
Examiner.
3
Appeal2014-005585
Application 13/138,398
Appellant further contends "[t]here is no suggestion in Neukirchner
that each node corresponds to the properly interpreted meaning of claimed
'inflection points of the edges,' i.e., points at which two connecting edges
change direction." Appeal Br. 6. Instead, Appellant contends, Neukirchner
teaches that a '"course of the road is approximated by the edges and nodes,
with the edges being described ... by a succession of straight line edge
sections,' (paragraph [0022]), but there is no suggestion that the connecting
edges or edge sections necessarily change direction at the connecting
points." Appeal Br. 6.
In reply, the Examiner again notes that Appellant's Specification
supports an interpretation of the term "coordinate points" as including
intersection points and junctions. Ans. 3 (citing para. 5 of the Patent
Publication No. 2012/0029822, which corresponds top. 1, 1. 22-p. 2, 1. 17 of
the Specification). Further, the Examiner reiterates that Neukirchner
discloses coordinate points that represent inflection points. Ans. 3--4. In this
regard, the Examiner states:
It is the position of the Examiner, therefore, that the
"intersections" or "tum-offs" of the cited prior art reference read
on the Applicant's claim term of "inflection points," because an
"intersection" necessarily describes a "point at which two
connecting roads change direction." Similarly, a "tum-off' as
ordinarily understood describes also a "point at which two
connecting roads change direction" (see e.g. the website
www.thefreedictionary.com/tumoff, defining "turnoff' as "a
branch of a road or path leading away from a main thoroughfare,
especially an exit on a highway.").
Ans. 3--4.
In reply, Appellant states, "Applicants argued in the Appeal Brief that
Applicants never defined 'nodes' or 'coordinate points' as being equivalent
to 'intersection points' or 'junctions,' i.e., 'nodes' or 'coordinate points'
4
Appeal2014-005585
Application 13/138,398
were never defined as always representing 'intersection points' or
'junctions.'" Reply Br. 4.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments on this issue.
Neukirchner states:
The map data used are preferably digital maps with digital
map data, with the map data being used to display, for example,
roads in the form of so-called edges, and intersections or turn-
offs of roads in the form of so-called nodes. The actual course
of the road is approximated by the edges and nodes, with the
edges being described, for example, by a succession of straight-
line edge sections. Thus, road networks are displayed by means
of directed graphs with edges and nodes. Depending on the
complexity of an intersection, this intersection is described by a
node or even by a plurality of nodes. Edges can also be present
within an intersection. In addition to the line-shaped edges and
the point-shaped nodes, area elements or 3-dimensional elements
can also be used as map elements.
N eukirchner i-f 22 (emphasis added). A preponderance of the evidence
supports the Examiner's finding that the tum-offs and intersections taught by
Neukirchner qualify as coordinate points defining geographical positions
and shapes of the edges by representing at least inflection points of the
edges. See Final Act. 5. Appellant provides no persuasive argument or
evidence as to why a tum-off or intersection as disclosed by Neukirchner is
not a change in direction, and Appellant points to no definition of the term
inflection point that would exclude such tum-offs and intersections.
(II)
Claim 11 recites, in part, "ascertaining by the computing unit at least
one information item on the basis of the edges, the coordinate points, the
intermediate points, and the attributes." Appeal Br. 8.
5
Appeal2014-005585
Application 13/138,398
The Examiner finds Neukirchner, in paragraph 20, Figures 4 and 5,
and the text describing these figures, discloses the above-noted feature.
Final Act. 5.
Appellant contends "Neukirchner (including paragraph [0020] and
Figs. 4-5) does not suggest that an 'information item' is ascertained on the
basis of 'the intermediate points' which are 'located between two adjacent
coordinate points."' Appeal Br. 6. Appellant quotes a portion of paragraph
20 ofNeukirchner and states "Figs. 4--5 merely show examples of road
sections." Id. Appellant then reiterates that Neukirchner does not disclose
the above-noted feature recited in claim 11. Appeal Br. 6.
In response, the Examiner states, "Neuekirchner, however, discloses
intermediate points (e.g. at least positions 101, 102, 123, and 124, see e.g. at
least Figs. 4 and 5) that are located between two adjacent coordinate points
(e.g. at least nodes 103, 104, 121, and 122, see id.)." Ans. 5 (emphasis
added). We reproduce Figure 4 ofNeukirchner below.
Fig. 4
103 101 : 102 104
I I ;- J 100 I
' ' l ' ) ' (I ( I ~ ...-.
1 soom 1 ( 3km : r--- __ ,_,....,....._ 1 _ -----------------------~
I I
Figure 4 ofNeukirchner depicts a grouping of "attributes" applied to a
portion of a road section. Neukirchner ,-r 35. Specifically, a speed limit
applies to part of edge 100 (the expanse between two positions 101, 102).
6
Appeal2014-005585
Application 13/138,398
Id. The two positions 101, 102 are offset from nodes 103, 104. Id.
Neukirchner states:
Id.
The speed limit applies beginning at the distance of 500 m from
node 103 over a stretch of 3 km. In this case, the attribute of the
speed limit of 60 km/h from one attribute list is combined with a
range of spatial applicability from 500 m to 3.5 km from a second
attribute list. In addition, after the two attribute entries, the
identification number of the road section and an identical group
number, for example, 1, can be found.
Thus, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's
finding that Neukirchner discloses a particular portion of edge 100 that is
positioned based on points 101 and 102 and identified as having a particular
speed limit. Further, as noted in paragraph 35 ofNeukirchner, points 101
and 102 are located between nodes 103 and 104. Accordingly, we do not
agree with Appellant's argument that "Neukirchner (including paragraph
[0020] and Figs. 4-5) does not suggest that an 'information item' is
ascertained on the basis of 'the intermediate points' which are 'located
between two adjacent coordinate points."' Appeal Br. 6.
(III)
Claim 11 recites, in part, "wherein at least a portion of the
intermediate points is stored in a different memory area of the memory than
the coordinate points." Appeal Br. 8. The Examiner finds that Neukirchner
discloses this feature in paragraphs 23 and 27, in Figures 2 and 3, and in the
text describing these figures. Final Act. 5.
Appellant asserts, "[p]aragraph [0023] ofNeukirchner merely
mentions separate storage of attributes and map elements, which disclosure
is unrelated to the claimed limitations. Paragraph [0027] ofNeukirchner
mentions separate storage of road sections and intersections, but this
7
Appeal2014-005585
Application 13/138,398
disclosure does not suggest separate storage of inflections points and
intermediate points." Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis added). In response to the
Examiner's finding that Neukirchner discloses separate storage of attributes,
Appellant asserts "Neukirchner does not define 'attributes' as including (i)
the coordinate points representing at least inflection points of the edges and
(ii) 'intermediate points' which are located between two adjacent coordinate
points and which further define sections of edges in which a particular
characteristic is valid." Reply Br. 2-3. Appellant further contends "there is
no suggestion in N eukirchner that the coordinate points representing at least
inflection points of the edges are stored in a different memory area than the
"intermediate points" which are located between two adjacent coordinate
points and which further define sections of edges in which a particular
characteristic is valid." Reply Br. 3.
Neukirchner states, "[d]igital maps with their map data comprising
nodes, edges, area elements and/or 3-dimensional elements are stored in the
map data memory." Neukirchner i123. Neukirchner goes on to describe
Figure 2, which we reproduce below.
22 10 23
.------~~~~~~--+-~-----, t ,.-----~~~~~~---+-(~-----,
22a-
22b
22c-- -- --C
22n-- --~
25
"-.
'
/
26
(
11
' 15
12
(
16
•••
8
I
13
I
17
-23a
-23b
:-------------------- --~ ----- -- -23c
L_ 23n
---30
14
J 21
\
I Fig. 2
18
Appeal2014-005585
Application 13/138,398
Figure 2 depicts a configuration of stored map elements with assigned
attributes. Neukirchner i-f 18. Neukirchner states, "Figure 2 shows a
configuration 10 of map elements 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18, which
are divided into a plurality of memory areas 20, 21, with only two memory
areas being shown. Also shown are memory areas 22, 23 in which attributes
are stored." Neukirchner i123. Paragraph 23 goes on to describe that areas
22 and 23 each contain different types of attributes. Thus, Neukirchner
discloses two memory areas for map elements (20 and 21 ), and Neukirchner
discloses two areas for attributes (22 and 23) that are separate from the map
element memory areas. See Neukirchner i19 (stating "map data comprising
map elements [are] loaded by a map data memory into the memory, with the
map data also comprising attributes that represent features of map elements,
with the attributes and the map elements being stored in separate memory
areas of the map data memory").
As discussed above with respect to Figure 4 ofNeukirchner,
intermediate points are used to define the location and length of a speed limit
attribute on a portion of roadway. See Neukirchner i135. Further,
Neukirchner teaches that map elements comprise nodes (coordinate points).
See Neukirchner i-f 11 (stating "[a]ccording to the present invention, it is
useful if the map elements comprise edges and/ or nodes and/ or area
elements and/or 3-dimensional elements"). As further discussed above, the
weight of the evidence supports the Examiner's finding that the nodes taught
by Neukirchner represent inflection points. See Final Act. 5. Accordingly,
we disagree with Appellant's contention that "at the very least, there is no
suggestion in N eukirchner that the coordinate points representing at least
inflection points of the edges are stored in a different memory area than the
9
Appeal2014-005585
Application 13/138,398
'intermediate points' which are located between two adjacent coordinate
points and which further define sections of edges in which a particular
characteristic is valid." Reply Br. 3. Consequently, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 11. Claims 12-20 fall with claim 11.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 11-20 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10