Ex Parte OtteDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 19, 201612308340 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/308,340 04/12/2010 24972 7590 09/21/2016 NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas NEW YORK, NY 10019-6022 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Dirk Otte 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. BOSC.P5673US/l 1602894 5840 EXAMINER YANG, JAMES J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2683 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/21/2016 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 DIRK OTTE Appeal2015-006833 Application 12/308,340 Technology Center 2600 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 6-16, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Claims 1-5 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 The real party in interest identified by Appellant is the assignee, Robert Bosch GmbH. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal2015-006833 Application 12/308,340 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant's described and claimed invention relates generally to a driver information system. Abstract. Claim 6 is representative and reads as follows (with the disputed limitation emphasized): 6. A method for operating a driver information system having a display screen, comprising: providing a data-carrier holding device; and providing a computer-readable data carrier adapted to be held in the data-carrier holding device; wherein: the computer-readable data carrier associates each of at least one single stored map datum with a respective plurality of planar tiles formed by a subdivision of a region; and the association at least one of: provides for duplicative display of the map datum at each of a plurality of sections of the display screen of the driver information system, each section corresponding to a respective one of the tiles with which the stored map datum has been associated; and is implemented by storing multiple associations in the computer-readable data carrier, each of the stored associations associating the single stored map datum with a respective one of the plurality of planar tiles. Appeal Br. 6 (Claims App'x). 2 Appeal2015-006833 Application 12/308,340 Rejection on Appeal Claims 6-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by Ashby et al. (US 6,081,803; issued June 27, 2000) ("Ashby"). Issue on Appeal Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief2 and Reply Brief present us with the following issue: does Ashby teach "the computer-readable data carrier associates each of at least one single stored map datum with a respective plurality of planar tiles formed by a subdivision of a region," as recited in claims 6 and 8, and similarly recited in claim 9? ANALYSIS We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments that the Examiner has erred. Appeal Br. 3--4; Reply Br. 1-3. Unless otherwise indicated, we agree with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner's findings and reasons as set forth in the Final Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-9) and the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-3). For emphasis, we highlight specific arguments and findings as follows. Appellant argues claims 6, 8, and 9 each recite that a computer- readable data carrier associates each of at least one single stored map datum with a respective plurality of planar tiles formed by a subdivision of a region, and thus, the claims require at least one stored map datum, and 2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action (mailed Dec. 17, 2014, "Final Act."), Appellant's Appeal Brief (filed Mar. 23, 2015, "Appeal Br.") and Reply Brief (filed July 8, 2015, "Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed June 17, 2015, "Ans."), and the original Specification (filed Dec. 11, 2008, "Spec."). 3 Appeal2015-006833 Application 12/308,340 further require each one of the at least one stored map datum to be associated with a respective plurality of planar tiles. Appeal Br. 3--4; Reply Br. 1-2. As argued by Appellant, Ashby describes point-of-interest ("POI") data including one or more parcels, where a parcel includes one or more POI data records, and where a parcel at most corresponds to a single rectangular area, rather than a plurality of rectangular areas, which is the opposite of what is recited in the claims. Appeal Br. 3--4; Reply Br. 1-2. We do not find this argument persuasive. Neither Appellant's claims, nor Appellant's Specification, defines the term "map datum." We agree with the Examiner that Ashby teaches a geographical database configured to collect and store POI data corresponding to a map, where the overall POI data includes one or more POI parcels, and where each POI parcel includes one or more POI data records representing points of interests. Final Act. 3; Ans. 2-3 (citing Ashby, col. 11, 11. 40--47). Thus, Ashby's collection of POI data teaches the claimed "map datum." We further agree with the Examiner that Ashby teaches the geographical database collects and stores POI data corresponding to a plurality of rectangular areas of the map, where each parcel corresponds to one rectangular area of the plurality of rectangular areas. Final Act. 3; Ans. 2-3 (citing Ashby, col. 11, 11. 40--47). Thus, Ashby's geographical database associates the POI data with the plurality of rectangular areas of the map. By collecting and storing each POI parcel within the geographical database, the geographical database also associates each POI parcel with the plurality of rectangular areas of the map. See Ashby, col. 11, 11. 40--47. Thus, we also agree with the Examiner that Ashby teaches "the computer-readable data carrier associates each of at least one single stored map datum with a respective plurality of planar tiles formed by 4 Appeal2015-006833 Application 12/308,340 a subdivision of a region," as recited in claims 6 and 8, and similarly recited in claim 9. Final Act. 3; Ans. 2-3. Appellant's argument that a POI parcel corresponds to a single rectangular area, rather than a plurality of rectangular areas, is unpersuasive because the term "map datum" is sufficiently broad to read on the overall POI data, rather than the individual POI parcel. Further, even assuming arguendo that the tern "map datum" is limited to the individual POI parcel, by teaching that the overall POI data is associated with the plurality of rectangular areas, Ashby also teaches that each individual POI parcel is also associated with the plurality of rectangular areas. Therefore, for at least the reasons described above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 6, 8, and 9, as well as claims 7 and 10-16, which are not argued separately. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 6-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). 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). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation