HERE GLOBAL B.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 17, 2020

2020002564 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2020)

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.
14/854,943 09/15/2015 Gavril GIURGIU P8389US00 3981
11764 7590 12/17/2020
Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C.
201 N. Union Street, Suite 110
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
GORDON, MATHEW FRANKLIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2020 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):
docket@dcpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GAVRIL GIURGIU and DONGWOOK JANG
Appeal 2020-002564
Application 14/854,943
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JOHN C. KERINS, and JILL D. HILL,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–13, and 15–20, which are
all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as HERE Global B.V.,
also doing business as HERE International B.V. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002564
Application 14/854,943

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention is directed to a method and apparatus for
monitoring navigation speed at intersections, including “separating past
speed data into speed profiles corresponding to multi-modal segments of a
travel network.” Spec. ¶ 27. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for representing multi-modal speed profiles in a
geographic database comprising:
determining, by a processor, one or more links of at least
one travel network represented in the geographic database that
includes at least one split into two or more links, wherein the at
least one split represents an intersection point in the at least one
travel network, and wherein the two or more links represent
different possible paths from the intersection point;
processing probe data associated with the one or more
links to determine that the one or more links exhibit a
multi-modality with respect to travel speed, wherein the probe
data is collected from one or more sensors of one or more
vehicles traversing the at least one road network, and wherein
the multi-modality indicates different groups of the one or more
vehicles are traversing a same segment of the one or more links
at different respective travel speeds as a result of taking the
different possible paths from the intersection point;
determining a plurality of speed profiles for one or more
segments of the one or more links based, at least in part, on the
multi-modality;
generating, by the processor, a histogram for each one of
the plurality of speed profiles along a one-dimensional axis of
the one or more segments, wherein the processor is configured
to separate the plurality of speed profiles into a first speed
profile from a high peak of the histogram representing through
traffic and a second speed profile from a low peak of the
histogram representing the turning or exiting traffic; and
generating, by the processor, at least one travel speed
map that associates the plurality of speed profiles with the one
or more segments of the one or more links,
Appeal 2020-002564
Application 14/854,943

3
wherein the plurality of speed profiles correspond to one
or more options for traversing the at least one split into two
different types of links, wherein the two different types of links
comprise:
a first type link which connects another single link
in a direction of traffic; and
a second type link which splits into two or more
links in the direction of the traffic selected from through
traffic as a first link and turning or exiting traffic as a
second link.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
McBurney US 9,628,958 B1 Apr. 18, 2017
Rupp US 2011/0301802 A1 Dec. 8, 2011
Adamson US 2013/0226622 A1 Aug. 29, 2013
Mudalige US 2013/0304279 A1 Nov. 14, 2013

REJECTION
Claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–13, and 15–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Rupp, Adamson, Mudalige, and
McBurney.
OPINION
Rupp discloses a speed monitoring system for a vehicle “that
establishes a desired speed based on historical speed data for a particular
segment of road.” Rupp ¶ 2. Rupp’s system generates a speed profile for a
particular road segment “by analyzing a statistical distribution of historical
speed data collected from probe vehicles that have previously traveled over”
the road segment and establishes a target speed from the speed profile. Id.
Appeal 2020-002564
Application 14/854,943

4
¶ 8. When the speed of a vehicle being monitored by Rupp’s system
approaches the road segment and is expected to exceed the target speed, a
warning device is activated. Id. Rupp’s system generates or calculates each
speed profile for each road segment “by statistically analyzing the
cumulative data gathered by the probe vehicles,” such as by generating a
plot “showing the number of vehicle trips over the segment falling into
given vehicle speed ranges or bins” (i.e., a histogram). Id. ¶ 19; see id.,
Fig. 2.
The Examiner acknowledges that Rupp, modified in view of Adamson
and Mudalige, “is not explicit on a low peak of the histogram representing
turning or exiting traffic.” Final Act. 5. Indeed, the Examiner makes no
finding that any of Rupp, Adamson, or Mudalige teaches separating “the
plurality of speed profiles into a first speed profile from a high peak of the
histogram representing through traffic and a second speed profile from a low
peak of the histogram representing the turning or exiting traffic,” as recited
in each of independent claims 1, 11, and 18. Appeal Br. 15, 18, 20–21
(Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that
McBurney discloses systems and methods that gather and store
time-series location information or other time-series
information of a user where a processor [is] configured to
separate the plurality of speed profiles into a first speed profile
from a high peak of the histogram representing through traffic
and a second speed profile from a low peak of the histogram
representing the turning or exiting traffic.
Final Act. 5 (citing McBurney 36:60–37:64). The Examiner determines it
would have been obvious “to combine the teachings of McBurney with the
system disclosed by Rupp in view of Adamson in further view of [Mudalige]
Appeal 2020-002564
Application 14/854,943

5
in order to provide enough information to declare turn or no turn based on
the shape of the histogram.” Id. (citing McBurney 36:60–65).
Appellant argues that McBurney’s gathering and storing of location
and other information of a user “is not remotely related to the objectives of
Rupp and Adamson” and that “[t]he Examiner’s conclusory statement to
‘provide enough information to declare turn or no turn based on the shape of
the histogram’ is insufficient to support a conclusion of obviousness.”
Appeal Br. 12 (italics omitted). In response, the Examiner essentially
repeats the rationale set forth in the Final Action, stating that one of ordinary
skill in the art
would have been motivated to combine the various histograms
of speed profiles (see Col. 37) disclosed by McBurney with the
combination of Rupp, Adamson, and Mudalige . . . in order to
provide enough information to declare a turn or no turn based
on the shape of a histogram as detailed in column 36, lines 60-
65 of the McBurney reference.
Ans. 4.
As Appellant explains, McBurney teaches defining the difference
between a master heading estimate and the current heading (i.e., the heading
offset between the phone’s forward axis and the vehicle’s forward axis)
based on an acceleration event. Reply Br. 2; see McBurney 34:25–35:13.
As Appellant further explains, McBurney classifies acceleration events as
either a turn or no turn to assist in determining the location/distance traveled.
Reply Br. 2; see McBurney 34:37–39, 36:60–65. Appellant submits that
McBurney “is silent as to a histogram for each of a plurality of speed
profiles.” Reply Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-002564
Application 14/854,943

6
McBurney determines the heading estimate (i.e., the heading offset
between the phone’s forward axis and the vehicle’s forward axis) by finding
the peak in the histogram of acceleration data. McBurney 34:25–35
(explaining that “[g]iven enough time, the forward and backward
accelerations should occur more often and will produce a peak (the most
common value) in the histogram”). “Having this histogram result [(i.e., the
heading estimate)] allows acceleration events to be classified as either a
turn, or acceleration along the forward axis,” and “[s]olving for this
parameter provides enough information to declare turn or no turn and set the
fix update threshold for distance traveled based on the trajectory’s shape.”
Id. 36:60–65 (emphasis added).
It is not apparent, and the Examiner does not cogently explain, how,
absent the teachings in Appellant’s Specification, McBurney’s teaching to
determine heading offset by identifying the peak in a histogram of
acceleration profiles would have prompted a person having ordinary skill in
the art to modify Rupp to separate the speed profiles into a first speed profile
from a high peak of the histogram of speed data representing through traffic
and a second speed profile from a low peak of the histogram representing
turning or exiting traffic, as called for in claims 1, 11, and 18. Thus, we do
not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 11, and 18, or of their dependent claims
2, 3, 5–8, 10, 12, 13, 15–17, 19, and 20, as unpatentable over Rupp,
Adamson, Mudalige, and McBurney.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary,
Appeal 2020-002564
Application 14/854,943

7
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–8,
10–13,
15–20
103 Rupp, Adamson,
Mudalige,
McBurney
1–3, 5–8,
10–13,
15–20

REVERSED