Ex Parte Setlur et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 15, 2016

12794341 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121794,341 06/04/2010
10949 7590 03/17/2016
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Vidya Setlur
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.
042933/389205 8593
EXAMINER
GREENE, DANIEL LAWSON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3667
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/17/2016 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VIDY A SETLUR and HIROSHI HORII
Appeal2014-001316
Application 12/794,341
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejections of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 "The real party in interest in this appeal is Nokia Corporation." (Appeal
Br. 2.)
Appeal2014-001316
Application 12/794,341
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants' invention relates "to a method and apparatus for
generating map-based snippets" that may be presented "on a user interface to
provide for retrieving content pages that include a map." (Spec. i-fi-f l, 3.)
Illustrative Claim2
1. A method comprising:
determining that a content page identifier includes an
indication that a content page includes a map, wherein data for
rendering the content page includes at least destination
information;
in response to determining that the content page identifier
includes an indication that the content page includes a map,
extracting the destination information from the content page;
and
constructing a user interface snippet that is associated
with a link for retrieving the content page, the user interface
snippet including a component comprising at least one of a
route or a generic image, wherein the route or generic image is
generated by a source other than the content page and is based
at least in part on the destination information.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1--4, 7-10, and 13-18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Gold. 3 (Final Action 4.)
The Examiner rejects claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 19, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gold and Sommerer.4 (Id.)
2 This illustrative claim is quoted from the Claims Appendix ("Claims
App.") set forth on pages 11-15 of the Appeal Brief.
3 US 2006/0271287 Al, published November 30, 2006.
4 US 2004/0001104 Al, published January 1, 2004.
2
Appeal2014-001316
Application 12/794,341
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1, 7, and 15 each recite "a user interface snippet."
(Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Gold discloses various items that
connote the claimed snippet, including a map page 2100 depicted in Gold's
Figure 21a. (See Final Action 2-3.) The Appellants do not challenge the
Examiner's finding that Gold's map page 2100 can be considered "a user
interface snippet." (See Appeal Br. 9-10; see also Reply Br. 1-3.)
Independent claims 1, 7, and 15 each require the snippet to be
"associated with a link for retrieving [a] content page." (Claims App.) The
Appellants argue that "Gold is silent with regard to easily identifying and
retrieving a previously accessed content page." (Appeal Br. 9; see also
Reply Br. 2.)
We are not persuaded by this argument because independent claims 1,
7, and 15 do not require a "previously accessed" content page. Although the
Appellants direct our attention to discussions in the Specification regarding a
simplified visual component (e.g., a route 162) helping a user more easily
identify and recall a previously accessed content page (see Appeal Br. 9);
these discussions are presented in the context of "example" embodiments of
the invention (see Spec. i-fi-f 11, 24-26, 38-39). As the claim language is
broader than these example embodiments, it is important we not import
limitations regarding the previous access of the recited content page into the
claims. 5
5 See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875
(Fed. Cir. 2004) ("Though understanding the claim language may be aided
by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to
import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim. For example,
a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be
3
Appeal2014-001316
Application 12/794,341
Furthermore, contrary to the Appellants' implications otherwise (see
Appeal Br. 9), independent claims 1, 7, and 15 do not require the snippet to
provide a link to retrieve (easily or otherwise) a content page. They only
require the snippet be "associated with" a link for retrieving this content
page. (Claims App.) The Appellants do not point to, and we do not find, the
phrase "associated with" being attributed a special meaning in the
Specification. As such, we give the claim term "associated with" its
ordinary and customary meaning. 6 A dictionary definition of "associate" is
"to bring together or into relationship in any of various intangible ways (as
in memory or imagination)."7 In other words, the claims only require the
snippet to be related, at least in an intangible way, with a link for retrieving
the content page.
As indicated above, independent claims 1, 7, and 15 each require the
snippet to be "associated with a link for retrieving [a] content page."
(Claims App.) Independent claims 1, 7, and 15 also each require this
content page to "include[] a map." (Id.) The Appellants argue Gold
"provides links to other businesses" but does not provide a link to "[a]
content page including a map." (Appeal Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 2-3.)
We are not persuaded by this argument because Gold discloses that
snippet 2100 works in conjunction with a mapping system 2560. (Gold
read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the
ernbodiment. ").
6 See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane)
(citations omitted) (The words of a claim "are generally given their ordinary
and customary meaning").
7 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/associate (last visited
March 14, 2016).
4
Appeal2014-001316
Application 12/794,341
if 118.) And Gold's illustrated mapping system 2560 includes a mapping
server 2563 that searches a map database 2570 containing "digital maps of
geographic regions." (Id. iii! 99, 100; see also Fig. 25.) Moreover, Gold
discloses that "[i]n an alternative embodiment, the map database 2570 may
be omitted and street maps may be obtained from third party map providers,
such as MapQuest®." (Id. if 100.) As such, Gold's snippet 2100 is
"associated with" (i.e., related in at least an intangible way via mapping
system 2560) a link for retrieving a content page including a map. We note,
again, that independent claims 1, 7, and 15 do not require the snippet "to
provide a link" to the map-containing content page.
Independent claims 1, 7, and 15 each additionally require the snippet
to include "a component comprising at least one of a route or a generic
image." (Claims App.) The Appellants argue that Gold discloses neither "a
route" nor "a generic image." (Appeal Br. 9-10; see also Reply Br. 2.) We
are not persuaded by this argument because Gold's snippet 2100 includes "a
graphical representation 2115 illustrating the driving route between the two
locations." (Gold if 118; see also id. Fig. 21.)
Independent claims 1, 7, and 15 each further require the route to be
"generated by a source other than the content page." (Claims App.) The
Appellants argue this does not occur in Gold. (See Reply Br. 3.) We are not
persuaded by this argument because, in Gold, a street map 2102 "is updated
to provide a graphical representation 2115 illustrating the driving route
between the two locations." (Gold if 118; see also id. Fig. 21a.) As such,
Gold's updated driving route is generated by a source other than the content
page providing the original street map 2102 (i.e., map database 2560 or a
third party map provider such as MapQuest®).
5
Appeal2014-001316
Application 12/794,341
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by the Appellants' arguments that
"Gold fails to disclose each and every feature" recited in independent
claims 1, 7, and 15. (Appeal Br. 9.) The dependent claims are not argued
separately or further (see id. at 10), so they fall with the independent claims.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 7-10, and 13-18
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Gold; and we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 19, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gold and Sommerer.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20.
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
6