Ex Parte Stoschek et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2017

13953398 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 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.
13/953,398 07/29/2013 Arne Stoschek 11150/94A 4731
26646 7590 08/01/2017
ANDREWS KURTH KENYON LLP
ONE BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10004
EXAMINER
HILGENDORF, DALE W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2017 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):
u spto @ keny on .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARNE STOSCHEK, BRIAN NG,
PHILIPPE ALESSANDRINI,
and DANIEL ROSARIO
Appeal 2016-006378
Application 13/953,3981
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN A. EVANS, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—7 and 9—14, which are all of the claims pending
in this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is VOLKSWAGEN AG.
App. Br. 2.
2 Claim 8 has been canceled. App. Br., Claims App’x 2.
Appeal 2016-006378
Application 13/953,398
INVENTION
Appellants’ application relates to a navigation system for a motor
vehicle. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and
reads as follows:
1. A method for supporting navigation of a motor vehicle,
comprising:
transmitting a suggested route integrated into at least one
of (a) a satellite image or (b) a 3-D graphical representation from
an off-board navigation system spatially separated from the
motor vehicle to the motor vehicle via a wireless communication
connection;
outputting the suggested route to an operator of the motor
vehicle via a man-machine interface, the outputting including
displaying the suggested route integrated into, the at least one of
(a) the satellite image or (b) the 3-D graphical representation
such that a viewing angle of (a) the satellite image or (b) the 3-D
graphical representation is adjustable; and supplementing the
outputted suggested route with information from an on-board
sensor system.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—7, 9, and 12—14 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Upparapalli et al. (US
2002/0177948 Al; published Nov. 28, 2002) (“Upparapalli”), Ong (US
6,285,317 Bl; issued Sept. 4, 2001), and Pioneer Operation Manual DVD
Navigation Unit AVIC-90DVD (“Pioneer”).
Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Upparapalli, Ong, Koshiji et al. (US
2004/0193371 Al; published Sep. 30, 2004), and Pioneer.
2
Appeal 2016-006378
Application 13/953,398
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that Upparapalli teaches an
off-board navigation system, Ong teaches a three-dimensional display, and
Pioneer teaches a changeable view. Final Act. 4—6.
Appellants contend the combination of cited references does not teach
the limitation “transmitting a suggested route integrated into at least one of
(a) a satellite image or (b) a 3-D graphical representation from an off-board
navigation system spatially separated from the motor vehicle to the motor
vehicle via a wireless communication connection,” recited in claim 1. App.
Br. 4. Appellants argue that the combination of Upparapalli, Ong, and
Pioneer at most describes transmitting a route and displaying a three-
dimensional image rendered in the vehicle, not the disputed claim limitation.
Id. at 4—5.
We agree with Appellants. The Examiner has not identified any
teachings in the prior art of a suggested route integrated into at least one of
(a) a satellite image or (b) a 3-D graphical representation. Final Act. 4—6.
The Examiner found, and we agree, that Upparapalli teaches transmitting a
suggested route from an off-board navigation system spatially separated
from the motor vehicle to the motor vehicle via a wireless communication
connection, as claim 1 requires. See Final Act. 4 (citing Upparapalli
Abstract, Fig. 1, H 2, 26). The Examiner also found, and we agree, that Ong
teaches creating a three-dimensional image of a location, which is shown on
a display. See Final Act. 5 (citing Ong col. 5:48— 52). We do not agree with
the Examiner’s finding, however, that paragraph 39 of Upparapalli teaches
or suggests a satellite image or a 3-D graphical representation, as claim 1
requires. See Ans. 6. In particular, we disagree with the Examiner’s
3
Appeal 2016-006378
Application 13/953,398
finding that “the claimed satellite image or 3-D graphical representation
equates to the more detailed information for a system with greater
capabilities of Upparapalli P[0039].” Id. at 7. As Appellants point out
(Reply Br. 5—6), the Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence of a
teaching or suggestion in the prior art regarding the specific claimed
limitation of “transmitting a route integrated into a 3D representation or
satellite image,” recited in claim 1.
For these reasons,3 we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Upparapalli, Ong, and Pioneer teaches or
suggests the disputed limitations of claim 1.
Accordingly, on the record before us, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1, or the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claim 10, which Appellants argue is patentable for
similar reasons. App. Br. 7. Nor do we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 2—7, 9, and 11—14, for which Appellants make no separate
arguments for patentability. Id.
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1—7 and
9-14.
REVERSED
3 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments.
4