Ex Parte Waite

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 14, 2018

12797723 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 14, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/797,723 06/10/2010
64588 7590 06/18/2018
Continental Automotive Systems, Inc.
Patents & Licenses
21440 W Lake Cook Road
Floor4
Deer Park, IL 60010
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sheldon Waite
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.
2011P60582US 5444
EXAMINER
PAULSON, SHEETAL R.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/18/2018 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):
patentsus@continental-corporation.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHELDON WAITE 1
Appeal2017-003745
Application 12/797,723
Technology Center 3600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, IRVINE. BRANCH, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1--4, 6-9, 12-16, and 18-20, which constitute all
the claims pending in this application. Br. 3. 2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellant lists Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Brief 1, filed February 4, 2016 ("Br.").
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner's positions and Appellant's arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the above mentioned Brief, as well as the following
documents for their respective details: the Final Action mailed July 31,
2015 ("Final Act.") and the Examiner's Answer mailed October 21, 2016
("Ans.").
Appeal2017-003745
Application 12/797,723
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant describes the present invention as follows:
A map data base can be used to assist GPS and other vehicle
sensors (i.e., wheel speed, gyro, ... ) in location estimation by
allowing techniques such as determining if location is valid or
invalid, best-fit determination, and others. Reduction in map
data dependency can be achieved by using it only in areas where
GPS position is not reliable. Reduction in map data dependency
can be in the form of reduced size of map data base, or reduced
data transmission in conjunction with anticipating future map
needs, if map data is not stored locally on device.
Abstract.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the appealed
claims:
1. A method for determining a location of a vehicle in a
geographic area having poor GPS visibility, the method
compnsmg:
determining whether maps can be stored locally;
determining whether the vehicle is approaching a
geographic area that is known as having poor GPS visibility;
if maps can be stored locally, and if the vehicle is
approaching a geographic area known to have poor GPS
visibility:
downloading, from a remotely-located server, a
map for the geographic area of poor GPS visibility after
determining that the vehicle is approaching a geographic
area known as having poor GPS visibility and prior to
entry into the geographic area having poor GPS visibility,
the step of downloading a map from a remotely-located
server being performed using a wireless data link, which
is provided by a cellular telephone coupled to the vehicle,
the map to be downloaded being determined from a set of
known-good coordinates obtained from a GPS receiver
prior to entering the area of poor GPS visibility;
2
Appeal2017-003745
Application 12/797,723
determining a current location estimate using the
downloaded map and
displacement information from sensors, the sensors
comprising an electronic compass, speed sensor and a
timer, the displacement information comprising distances
traveled in corresponding different directions within the
geographic area of poor GPS visibility, as indicated by the
electronic compass; and
performing map matching using the downloaded
map, when the vehicle is within the geographic area
having poor GPS visibility using the location estimate, the
map matching comprising a check of the current location
estimate against local terrain information in the
downloaded map; and
displaying on a display device, the location
estimate;
if maps cannot be stored locally, after entry into an area of
poor global positioning system (GPS) visibility:
determining a current location estimate using
displacement information from sensors, the sensors
comprising an electronic compass, speed sensor and a
timer, the displacement information comprising distances
traveled in corresponding different directions within the
geographic area of poor GPS visibility, the different
directions being provided by the electronic compass;
sending the current location estimate information to
a remotely-located server capable of map matching, the
step of sending the current location to a remotely-located
server being performed using the wireless data link;
sending displacement information to the remotely-
located server, the step of sending displacement
information to a remotely-located server being performed
using the wireless data link;
receiving an updated location estimate from the
remotely-located server, the step of receiving an updated
3
Appeal2017-003745
Application 12/797,723
location from the server being performed usmg the
wireless data link; and
displaying the updated location estimate on a
display device.
Br. Claims Appendix, 9-10.
Claims 1--4, 6-9, 12-16, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as obvious over Park (KR 20100104400; published Sept. 29, 2010),
Horvitz et al., (US 2007 /0005243 Al; published Jan. 4, 2007; hereinafter
"Horvitz"), and Colley et al., (US 2009/0326809 Al; published Dec. 31,
2009 (hereinafter "Colley"). Final Act. 2.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010) (precedential).
FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Park generally discloses most of the
limitations of independent claim 1 (Final Act. 2--4 ( citing a machine-based
English translation of Park that was entered into the record on September 17,
2014) ("the Examiner's translation")), including the step of downloading,
from a remotely-located server, a map for the geographic area of poor GPS
visibility ... using a wireless data link coupled to the vehicle (id. at 3). The
Examiner relies on Horvitz for teaching a data link that is provided by a
cellular telephone. Id. The Examiner finds that Colley teaches that after
entry into an area of poor global positioning system visibility, performing
the steps of ( 1) determining a current location estimate using displacement
information from sensors in those situations in which maps cannot be stored
locally; (2) sending the current location estimate information, as well as
4
Appeal2017-003745
Application 12/797,723
displacement information, to a remotely-located server, using the wireless
data link; (3) receiving an updated location estimate from the remotely-
located server; and ( 4) displaying the updated location estimate on a display
device. Id. at 3--4. The Examiner further finds that motivation existed to
combine the teachings of the three cited references. Id. at 3-5.
Appellant argues that both the Examiner's translation of Park and a
separate machine-based English translation of Park that Appellant filed on
January 21, 2015 ("Appellant's translation") are gibberish and inconsistent.
Br. 4. Appellant argues that it is clear, though, that neither Park's map
storage unit 110 (see Park, FIG. 1) nor any of Park's other components
disclose or suggest either providing a wireless data link or being capable of
receiving a download of map data (Br. 5). Appellant similarly argues that
the combination of Park, Horvitz, and Colley do not teach or suggest map
downloading. Id. at 7.
ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellant that neither translation of Park is the
paragon of clarity. Regardless, Appellant does not dispute that Park at least
discloses a vehicle navigation device that includes map storage unit 110.
See generally Br. 3-8.
We understand the Examiner's position to be that Park's express
disclosure of a mobile navigation system having a map storage unit
constitutes either an inherent or implicit disclosure that the disclosed map
storage unit, in fact, receives the stored map data via downloads from the
internet. We find this position to be reasonable. Storing map data for every
terrestrial location on the earth----or even every location in a single country-
5
Appeal2017-003745
Application 12/797,723
would be prohibitively expensive, if even possible. One of ordinary skill
would understand that such a disclosure either implies or renders obvious
instead storing unneeded data at a central storage facility until needed by the
mobile device. One would have been motivated to employ such a remote-
storage scheme to reduce the size and cost of the mobile device's map
storage unit. Furthermore, Appellant presents no persuasive arguments for
why one of ordinary skill would not have found it obvious store map data
remotely and access it via internet downloads, as needed.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner's rejection of that claim, as well as claims 2--4, 6-9,
12-16, and 18-20, for which Appellant does not provide separate arguments.
See Br. 3-8.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6-9, 12-16, and 18-20
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)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6