Ex Parte Trovato et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 19, 2016

12996818 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/996,818 12/08/2010 Karen Irene Trovato
24737 7590 08/23/2016
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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.
2008P01482WOUS 1609
EXAMINER
PATEL, SHARDUL D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2016 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):
marianne.fox@philips.com
debbie.henn@philips.com
patti. demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAREN IRENE TROY ATO and ALEKSANDRA POPOVIC
Appeal2013-009000
Application 12/996,818
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
AMEE A. SHAH, 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 1-15. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Appellants identify "Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V." as the real
party in interest. (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal2013-009000
Application 12/996,818
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants' invention "relates to a method and a system for
planning an optimal path with obstacle avoidance." (Spec. 1, lines 3--4.)
Illustrative Claim2
1. A method for planning a path according to a path plan
application, the method, comprising:
(S 131) constructing a configuration space node structure
within a data storage medium (220), the configuration space node
structure representing a discretized configuration space
including a plurality of nodes characterized by at least one
parameter; and
(S 132) augmenting the configuration space node structure
as constructed within the data storage medium (220) with
discrete parameter values explicitly quantifying each node of the
configuration space node structure.
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Egav,ra (US 5,625,559 issued 1A..pril 29, 1997). (Final
Action 3.)
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 is directed to a method comprising the step of
"augmenting [a] configuration space node structure" with "discrete
parameter values explicitly quantifying each node of the configuration space
node structure." (Claims App.) Independent claims 8 and 15 each recite a
device/unit that is operable to augment a configuration space node structure
2 This illustrative claim is quoted from the Claims Appendix ("Claims
App.") set forth on pages 21-25 of the Appeal Brief.
2
Appeal2013-009000
Application 12/996,818
with "discrete parameter values explicitly quantifying each node of the
configuration space node structure." (Id.) The Examiner finds Egawa
discloses augmenting a configuration space node structure (i.e., a travel grid)
with such discrete parameter values. (See Final Action 2-7.) In Egawa, "a
set of costs [are] calculated based on cost calculation characteristics" and an
optimum route is generated "which minimizes estimated costs." (Egawa,
col. 3, lines 4--5, 11-12.)
The Appellants do not dispute that Egawa discloses "augmenting" a
configuration space node structure with discrete parameter values. (See
Appeal Br. 11.) However, the Appellants argue that Egawa discloses
augmenting with "inferred" discrete parameter values, not "explicitly
quantifying" discrete parameter values as required by the independent
claims. (Id.) In this regard, the Appellants assert that Egawa does not
disclose "a precise expression of a measurement of the x and y locations" of
the nodes of its travel grid and "therefore fails to teach or suggest discrete
parameter values explicitly quantifying each node." (Reply Br. 15.) With
particular reference to the Egawa's cost calculations, the Appellants argue
they do not require "precision of the x and y locations." (Id.)
We are not persuaded by the Appellants' position because the
Specification provides a definition for the claim term "explicitly quantified"3
and the Appellants' arguments are not aligned with this definition. The
Specification "broadly define[ s ]" the claim term "explicitly quantifying" as
"a precise expression of a number, a measure, a quantity or any other
3 See ln re Paulsen 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (''[A]n inventor is
indeed free to define the specific terms used to describe his or her
invention").
3
Appeal2013-009000
Application 12/996,818
applicable parameter as related to the nodes in a particular configuration
space node structure." (Id. at 6, lines 27-30.) This definition does not
necessarily require a precise expression of a measurement of the x and y
locations as it encompasses any "applicable parameter" related to the nodes.
The Specification does draw a distinction between "discrete parameter
values explicitly quantifying the nodes of the configuration space node
structure" and "inferred discretized values from the indices of the discretized
configuration spaces." (Spec. 6, lines 24--27.) Accordingly, the claim term
"explicitly quantified" cannot be interpreted as so broad as to include
discrete parameter values inferred solely from the nodes' x-y indices.4
In Egawa, the cost calculation characteristics include consideration of
"the distance between the nodes," "the movement time between nodes," and
the "directionality of the route." (Egawa, col. 3, lines 15-18.) With respect
to "movement time," this involves both a node-to-node-distance variable and
a velocity variable (e.g., mm/sec) that can vary from node to node. (See id.
col. 3, lines 39--42, Fig. 11.) With respect to "directionality," a penalty
coefficient expresses the desirability of one direction as opposed to the
opposite direction. (See id., col. 3, lines 50-54.)
The Appellants' arguments address why Egawa's augmentation with
discrete parameter values (i.e., cost calculations) do not require precision of
the x and y locations. (See Reply Br. 15.) However, as discussed above, the
claim term "explicitly quantifying" does not necessarily require such
4 See In re Man Machine Interface Technologies LLC 822 F.3d. 1282, 1286
(Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim term cannot
be so broad as to include a configuration expressly disclaimed in the
specification").
4
Appeal2013-009000
Application 12/996,818
precision. And the Appellants address why the node-to-node-distance
variable in Egawa's cost calculations can be inferred from x-y indices (see
e.g., Appeal Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 12-14); but they do not adequately
address the velocity variable and/or the directionality variable. These non-
distance variables would each seemingly be a number, a measure, a quantity,
or another applicable parameter related to the nodes in Egawa's travel grid
but not inferable solely from the nodes' x-y indices.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 8,
and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Egawa.
The Appellants assert that Egawa fails to disclose features recited in
dependent claims 2 and 9 (i.e., "discrete sampling of a neighborhood"),
dependent claims 3-5 and 10-12 (i.e., "propagating cost waves"), dependent
claims 6 and 13 (i.e., "heuristic values representing a search guide"), and
dependent claims 7 and 14 (i.e., "heuristic values [that] are derived from a
neighborhood configuration"). (See Appeal Br. 15-19.) The Appellants do
not, however, identify the alleged errors in the Examiner's findings that
Egawa discloses these features. (See Final Action 4---6.) In other words, the
Appellants merely assert that the dependent claims differ from Egawa but do
not offer an explanation as to why. 5
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2-7
and 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Egawa.
5 See e.g., Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("Jung merely argued
that the claims differed from [the prior art], and chose not to pro ff er a
serious explanation of this difference"); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
("A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be
considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim").
5
Appeal2013-009000
Application 12/996,818
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-15.
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