HERE Global B.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 21, 2021

2020003797 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 21, 2021)

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.
15/604,954 05/25/2017 Robert Denaro 064359/500743 9357
139885 7590 01/21/2021
HERE Global/Alston & Bird
One South at The Plaza
101 South Tryon Street, Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
EXAMINER
HOLWERDA, STEPHEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3664
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/21/2021 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 ROBERT DENARO
____________

Appeal 2020-003797
Application 15/604,954
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.

CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies HERE Global B.V., as the Applicant
and real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003797
Application 15/604,954
2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to warning systems for motor vehicles.
Spec. 3, ll. 27–30. Claim 1, reproduced below with paragraph indentation
added, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. An apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory including computer program code, the
at least one memory and the computer program code configured
to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to:
receive data indicative of a location of a vehicle;
identify a plurality of road segments accessible from the
location of the vehicle and extending out to a threshold;
identify conditions along the plurality of road segments;
in response to the identification of more than one condition,
determine a priority of the conditions; and
provide a signal for the condition that has a greater priority
than any other of the conditions before providing a
signal for one of the other conditions.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
NAME REFERENCE DATE
Lemelson US 6,084,510 July 4, 2000
Bechtolsheim US 6,405,128 B1 June 11, 2002
Bruner US 2003/0236818 A1 Dec. 25, 2003
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1–4, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Bruner.
Appeal 2020-003797
Application 15/604,954
3
2. Claims 5–7, and 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bruner and Bechtolsheim.
3. Claims 10–12, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bruner and Lemelson.
4. Claims 13–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bruner, Lemelson, and Bechtolsheim.
OPINION
Anticipation of Claims 1–4, 8, and 9
by Bruner
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, and 9
Appellant argues claims 1, 3, 4, 8, and 9 as a group. Appeal Br. 8–12.
Claim 1 is representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The Examiner
finds that Bruner discloses each limitation of claim 1. Final Act. 5–6.
Appellant argues that Bruner fails to identify “conditions” along road
segments. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant interprets the Examiner’s rejection as
equating turn-by-turn instructions with conditions and argues that route
guidance instructions are not “conditions.” Id. at 10. Appellant also argues
that Bruner fails to prioritize among conditions as claimed. Id. at 9.
Appellant also argues that Bruner fails to provide a signal for prioritized
conditions. Id. at 11.
In response, the Examiner recites several passages from Appellant’s
Specification as supporting the Examiner’s construction of the term
“conditions.” Ans. 4. The Examiner defines “conditions” as broad enough
to encompass turns in the road, speed limit changes, traffic signals, and
cross-streets. Id. at 5. The Examiner directs our attention to page 16 of
Appellant’s Specification as teaching that the term “conditions” is broad
Appeal 2020-003797
Application 15/604,954
4
enough to encompass “hundreds” of diverse types of information that a
skilled artisan would associate with a road network. Id. (citing Spec. 16,
ll. 8–9). According to Appellant’s Specification, “conditions” include “road
dead ends,” high curvature, speed limit change, and traffic signal. Spec. 16,
ll. 9–10. Appellant’s Figures 6A and 6B depict scenarios where
“conditions” meriting a signal include curve 714 and cross-street 718.
Spec. 20, l. 10 – 21, l. 5; Figs. 6A, 6B.
In reply, Appellant takes issue with the Examiner correlating a route
“maneuver” with a “condition” of the road. Reply Br. 2. According to
Appellant, the Examiner’s finding lacks “any reasonable basis” in view of
Appellant’s use of the term “condition” which Appellant contends is
commensurate with the “common use” of the term. Id.
A “maneuver” is not a property of a road network or a
“condition on the road”. A “maneuver” is an action performed
by a driver as they traverse a road network, and may be
performed in response to conditions on the road network;
however, a “maneuver” cannot reasonably be interpreted to be a
“condition” of the road network. The statement “a route
maneuver indicating a tum on the calculated route also
describes a condition on the road” makes no sense. Further, “a
route maneuver indicating an intersection on the calculated
route also describes a condition on the road.” This, too is false
as a “maneuver” does not “indicate an intersection”. For
example, a “maneuver” may include a right tum. However, this
“maneuver” does not indicate that there is an intersection.
“Conditions” are described throughout Appellant's
specification as “conditions in the road network”. These
“conditions” are based on features of the road or properties of
the road, and do not relate in any manner to “maneuvers” used
for navigation.
Id. at 3.
Appeal 2020-003797
Application 15/604,954
5
The dispute between Appellant and the Examiner is largely a matter
of claim construction. During examination of a patent application, pending
claims are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim
terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
Cir. 2007). The PTO consults the specification in order to determine the
permissible scope of a claim. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1055 (Fed.
Cir. 1997).
Here, Appellant’s problem is not so much an overly narrow
construction of “condition” as it is with viewing “maneuver” in isolation,
without regard for the context of the surrounding phrase in which it appears.
Interpreting the meaning of words without considering the surrounding
context in which they appear is not reasonable. Trivascular, Inc. v.
Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, in construing terms,
we do not look at the meaning of a term in a vacuum. E.I. Du Pont De
Nemours & Company v. Unifrax I LLC, 921 F.3d 1060, 1068 (Fed.
Cir. 2019). It is the use of words in a particular context that reflects their
true meaning. Ferguson Beauregard/Logic Controls, Div. of Dover Res.,
Inc. v. Mega Sys., LLC, 350 F.3d 1327, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Bruner discloses a vehicle navigation system. Bruner, Abstract. In
Bruner, service center 24 generates a map and calculates a route based, in
part, on starting and destination points, received from a client device. Id.
¶¶ 51–53. Bruner receives traffic information during route calculation. Id.
Appeal 2020-003797
Application 15/604,954
6
¶ 54. After the route is calculated, service center 24 determines the type of
data generated that is associated with the calculated route for use with the
client device. Id. ¶ 56. Service center 24 then determines whether to send
information to the client device in the form of voice instructions, text data,
or graphic instructions. Id. ¶ 57–61. Information transmitted in graphic
form may include topology in the form of a map that includes the calculated
route. Id. ¶ 61. Graphical icons, such as an arrow, may indicate the
direction of an upcoming turn. Id. The map may also include a topological
representation of an intersection. Id. The map may also include a graphical
image illustrating traffic conditions at points along the route. Id.
Bruner teaches that client device 22 informs the user of “maneuvers”
along the route. Id. ¶ 33. Appellant construes “maneuver” narrowly and in
isolation. Reply Br. 2. “Maneuvers . . . are movements, such as . . . course
correction activities.” Id.
Although Appellant is correct that Bruner uses the term “maneuver”
throughout its Specification, the larger phrases in which “maneuver” is used
suggests a broader meaning than that urged by Appellant while construing
“maneuver” in isolation. For example, the word “maneuver” is used in at
least two places as an adjective to modify the term “point along the
calculated route.” Bruner ¶¶ 57, 59. Elsewhere, the context in Bruner
involves a “maneuver instruction” that is displayed just prior to a “maneuver
on the calculated route.” Id. ¶ 61. It is clear from the context that
“maneuver point” is not used to describe an action of a driver or a vehicle,
but instead refers to a location along the route that may require an action,
such as a turn. In that sense, we agree with the Examiner that “maneuver,”
as in “maneuver point along the calculated route,” refers to a “condition” of
Appeal 2020-003797
Application 15/604,954
7
the route itself. In other words, there is some condition along the route that
requires the vehicle to maneuver such as to turn or stop at an intersection.
The turning or stopping may be a “maneuver,” but the condition of the road
at the “maneuver point” satisfies a broad but reasonable construction of
“condition” as it is used in claim 1. In other words, Bruner suggests that a
vehicle perform the maneuver of a turn, because the underlying condition of
the road segment indicates that the road turns. Appellant artificially tries to
distinguish the action of a maneuver from the underlying condition of the
road that prompts the maneuver. This is a hyper technical, form-over-
substance approach to word definition and we do not endorse this approach
under the facts and circumstances of this case. In our view, as Bruner
identifies “maneuver points” along the road, it “identifies conditions” within
the meaning of claim 1. Further in this regard, we note that Bruner
identifying a turn or an intersection as a maneuver point is indistinguishable
from curve 714 and cross-street 718 identified by Appellant in Figures 6A
and 6B.
Moreover, we note that Bruner also discloses displaying “traffic
conditions at points along the route.” Bruner ¶ 61. Appellant’s brief fails to
contemplate whether Bruner’s “traffic conditions” satisfy the “conditions”
limitation of claim 1. Regardless of the meaning of “maneuver,” Bruner’s
“traffic conditions” are “conditions” within the meaning of claim 1.
We turn now to Appellant’s argument that Bruner fails to determine a
priority among a plurality of conditions. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant’s
argument regarding priority is largely derivative of its argument about what
the term “condition” means. Id. 10–11. Bruner provides instructions and
other information regarding the route. Bruner ¶ 33. Such information is
Appeal 2020-003797
Application 15/604,954
8
related to the current position of the vehicle derived from a GPS module. Id.
Client device 22 informs the user “along the route.” Id. ¶¶ 33, 57, 59, 61.
For example, Bruner includes:
information representing a graphical icon representing a
maneuver instruction to be displayed just prior to a maneuver
on the calculated route. For example, a maneuver icon could
show an arrow pointing in the direction to turn or a topological
representation of the intersection. A further embodiment may
include a bitmap image having information illustrating traffic
conditions or congestions at certain points along the calculated
route.
Id. ¶ 61. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Bruner
presents information to a vehicle operator in an orderly fashion that
corresponds to the proximity of a road condition that the vehicle will
encounter. For example, if the vehicle will be required to make a right turn
at a first intersection before coming to a second intersection where the
vehicle will be required to make a left turn, Bruner generates instructions as
the vehicle approaches “each maneuver point along the calculated route.”
Id. ¶¶ 57, 61. Thus, it is understood that Bruner would display a right turn
arrow/icon as the vehicle approaches the first intersection and then
subsequently display a left turn arrow/icon as the vehicle approaches the
second intersection. In other words, Bruner selectively presents information
regarding a nearby road condition before it presents information regarding a
road condition that is located farther down along the road. Presenting
information in accordance with progress of the vehicle “along the calculated
route” satisfies the limitation of claim 1 regarding determining a priority of
conditions.
We now turn to Appellant’s third argument that relates to whether
Bruner provides a signal for a condition that has a greater priority than a
Appeal 2020-003797
Application 15/604,954
9
condition with a lesser priority. Appeal Br. 10–11. Returning to our right
turn intersection then left turn intersection example from the preceding
paragraph, it is understood that Bruner first displays a right turn arrow/icon
as the vehicle approaches the maneuver point intersection that requires the
right turn and then subsequently displays a left turn arrow/icon as the vehicle
approaches the maneuver point intersection that requires the left turn.
Appellant’s term “signal,” broadly but reasonably construed, is broad
enough to encompass the display of an arrow/icon. Thus, it is understood
that Bruner provides signals that correspond with Bruner’s determination of
priority. The claim 1 limitation regarding providing a signal for the
condition with a greater priority is fully satisfied by Bruner.
The Examiner’s findings of fact that each and every limitation of
claim 1 is satisfied by Bruner is supported by preponderance of the evidence.
We sustain the Examiner’s Section 102 rejection that claims 1, 3, 4, 8, and 9
are anticipated by Bruner.
Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and adds the limitation:
wherein a data file that lists conditions by priority is used to
determine which of the conditions has a level of importance
greater than any other of the conditions, wherein the data file is
stored in a non-volatile portion of the memory prior to vehicle
operation.
Claims App. (emphasis added).
Appellant argues that Bruner fails to disclose the required data file
and argues that the evidence cited by the Examiner in support of the
rejection amounts to “a broad citation to thirteen paragraphs of disclosure of
Bruner without pointing to what feature is interpreted to be the alleged data
file that lists conditions by priority.” Appeal Br. 12. “[T]here is no data file
Appeal 2020-003797
Application 15/604,954
10
that lists conditions by priority that is used to determine which of the
conditions has a level of importance greater than any other of the
conditions.” Id. at 12–13.
In response, the Examiner explains that Bruner discloses server 60
that includes a map database, traffic database 70, and customer database 74
for calculating a route and determining data for transmission to client
device 22. Ans. 14.
Bruner discloses a specified route having multiple maneuvers
that is calculated with reference to data appropriately stored in
an appropriate memory device and used to determine an
ordered sequence of maneuvers to be output to the user just
prior to each maneuver being encountered by the client device.
Id.
In reply, Appellant directs our attention to Figure 2 of its disclosure as
an example of a priority list as claimed. Reply Br. 5. Appellant reiterates
that such a data file is not disclosed in Bruner. Id. Appellant argues that
such a list would frustrate the purpose of Bruner in ordering maneuvers as
they are performed along the route. Id.
Bruner’s service center generates and transmits data associated with a
calculated route to a client device. Bruner, Abstract. Before transmitting the
data, the service center makes a determination whether the size of the data
associated with the calculated route is greater than the memory limit of the
memory in the client device. Id. If so, the data associated with the
calculated route is transmitted to the client device in a plurality of segmented
data files, each at a different time. Id. The division of data may take a
variety of forms including a division by geographic area. Id. There is also a
means for thinning data in geographic or coverage areas having limited
connectivity. Id.
Appeal 2020-003797
Application 15/604,954
11
Bruner’s system includes map data store 68, traffic database 70, web
server 72, customer database 74, and gateway communication unit 76. Id.
¶ 49. Bruner’s service center calculates a route using, among other things,
received starting and destination points and map generation and routing
engine 66. Id. ¶ 53. The service center receives traffic information from a
service provider during route calculation. Id. ¶ 54. Bruner’s server 60 is
also connected to customer database 74 during route calculation to take into
account user preferences. Id. ¶ 55.
As we discussed more fully in connection with the rejection of
claim 1, Bruner identifies road conditions, prioritizes road conditions by
geographic proximity, and sends display signals in accordance with such
priority. We agree with the Examiner that it is reasonable to infer that such
data is stored in a data file that resides in a memory device and prioritizes
the data in a manner that may be considered to constitute a “list.” Ans. 14.
Such, however, does not end our inquiry.
Claim 2 requires that the priority data file is stored in non-volatile
memory. Claims App. Bruner expressly contemplates that route data is
transmitted to the client device in a plurality of segmented data files, each at
a different time. Bruner ¶ 18. One of the reasons for segmenting data files
is attributable to limitations on the size of memory possessed by the client
device. Id. ¶ 19. Segmented route data is forwarded to the client device as
the client device travels along the calculated route. Id. ¶ 40. It is clear from
the context in which data is forwarded from the server to the client device,
that such data is stored in the client device in a volatile, as opposed to non-
volatile, memory as it is understood that such data is over-written with
updated route data as the device proceeds along the route. The Examiner
Appeal 2020-003797
Application 15/604,954
12
identifies no disclosure in Bruner that evidences use of non-volatile memory
to store condition priority data. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that
priority data related to conditions along the route is received by the client
device and stored in memory. We also agree that claim 2 is not limited to
prioritizing conditions by category and that the scope of claim 2 is broad
enough to encompass prioritizing conditions by geographic proximity.
However, the Examiner errs in determining that the existence of non-volatile
memory may be inferred from the general disclosures in Bruner related to
data files.
For a prior art reference to anticipate a claim, it must disclose all of
the limitations of the claim, “arranged or combined in the same way as in the
claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed.
Cir. 2008). The Examiner’s finding of fact regarding non-volatile memory
is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence and, accordingly, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection that claim 2 is anticipated by Bruner.
Unpatentability of Claims 5–7, and 10–20
over combinations based on Bruner
Claims 10 and 18 are independent claims, but are not separately
argued apart from arguments that we previously considered and found
unpersuasive with respect to claim 1. Claims App., Appeal Br. 12.
Claims 5–7, 11–17, 19, and 20 depend from either of independent
claims 1, 10, or 18 and are not separately argued. We sustain the
Examiner’s unpatentability rejections of claims 5–7 and 10–20. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (failure to separately argue claims constitutes a
waiver of arguments for separate patentability).
Appeal 2020-003797
Application 15/604,954
13
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
§ References Affirmed Reversed
1-4, 8, 9 102 Bruner 1, 3, 4, 8, 9 2
5-7, 18-20 103 Bruner, Bechtolsheim 5-7, 18-20
10-12, 16, 17 103 Bruner, Lemelson 10-12, 16, 17
13-15 103 Bruner, Lemelson,
Bechtolsheim
13-15
Overall
Outcome
1, 3-20 2
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART