Hiroshi KAMATA

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 17, 2020

2020001107 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 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.
15/869,937 01/12/2018 Hiroshi KAMATA 11240003US 6591
62008 7590 09/17/2020
MAIER & MAIER, PLLC
345 South Patrick Street
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
ANWARI, MACEEH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/17/2020 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@maierandmaier.com
maierandmaier_PAIR@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HIROSHI KAMATA
Appeal 2020-001107
Application 15/869,937
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
GEORGE R. HOSKINS, 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 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Stehle et al. (US 2007/0293958 A1, published Dec. 20, 2007,
hereinafter “Stehle”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42.
Appeal 2020-001107
Application 15/869,937

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention is directed to “the technology of a visitor traffic
line indicating the traffic of visitors” to locations where commodities and/or
services are, or are proposed to be, provided. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 7–10. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An information processing system comprising:
a processor configured to control the system to
implement:
a visitor traffic line generator configured to retrieve a
shortest route from a location on a road to a destination on a
basis of road information included in map information and to
generate a visitor traffic line indicating a line of visitor’s traffic
by setting the shortest route as the visitor traffic line;
a predicted traffic volume calculator configured to
calculate predicted traffic volumes of visitors on the visitor
traffic line on a basis of numbers of visitors traveling the visitor
traffic line;
a visitor traffic generation unit configured to generate a
visitor traffic based on the visitor traffic line, visitor attribute
information computed from the visitor traffic line, and the
predicted traffic volumes of visitors; and
a proposal unit configured to display and propose, on a
graphical user interface, a commodity and/or service according
to the visitor attribute information and the commodity and/or
the service to be recommended, based on the visitor traffic, at a
specified location on the visitor traffic line.
OPINION
Appellant criticizes the Examiner’s rejection as failing to provide
sufficient explanation and specificity as to exactly how Stehle discloses the
features of the claims. See Appeal Br. 6 (stating that “the Office’s blanket
reference to nearly every figure without further designation of the pertinence
of these citations does not meet the obligation under 37 C.F.R.
Appeal 2020-001107
Application 15/869,937

3
§ 1.104(c)(2)”). Appellant’s criticism is justified. As Appellant points out,
the vast majority of the rejection of claim 1 amounts to a regurgitation of the
claim language with a parenthetical inviting us to “see at least [several
enumerated drawing figures and/or paragraphs of Stehle]” to inform our
understanding of the rejection.2 Id.; see Final Act. 2–3. Further, the
rejection of other claims makes little attempt to separately address the
different limitations of the various claims. See Final Act. 3–5.
In particular, Appellant contends that “Stehle does not teach
‘suggesting a commodity or service,’ as required by independent claims 1,
11[,] and 18.” Appeal Br. 7. Further, Appellant argues that “Stehle also
does not teach or suggest ‘a commodity and/or service to be recommended
based on the visitor traffic.’” Id. We understand Appellant’s arguments to
be directed to the “proposal unit configured to display and propose, on a
graphical user interface, a commodity and/or service according to the visitor
attribute information and the commodity and/or the service to be
recommended, based on the visitor traffic, at a specified location on the
visitor traffic line” recitation in claim 1; to the “proposal unit configured to
display and propose, on a graphical user interface, a commodity and/or
service according to the visitor attribute information and the commodity
and/or the service to be recommended, based on the visitor traffic line, at a
specified location on the visitor traffic line” recitation in claim 18; and to the
“location proposal unit configured to display and propose, on a graphical

2 Unfortunately, Appellant’s summary of the claimed subject matter on
pages 3–5 of the Appeal Brief takes a similar approach in mapping the
claimed subject matter to the underlying disclosure and, thus, is not as
helpful as it could be.
Appeal 2020-001107
Application 15/869,937

4
user interface, a location on the visitor traffic line on a basis of the visitor
traffic, the location being a location at which a predetermined commodity
and/or service according to the visitor attribute information is to be
provided” recitation in claim 11. See Appeal Br. 12, 15, 17 (Claims App.).
Appellant’s Specification explains that a service proposal can “include a
proposal for a new commodity and the sales time thereof, a proposal for the
sales time of a conventional commodity, and a proposal for an inventory
volume.” Spec. ¶ 181. In particular, the Specification explains that
a service proposal [may] include a proposal of loading a
vending machine with coffee bottles for commuters which can
be capped, a proposal for the sale of sandwiches in the early
morning, a proposal for commodity layouts corresponding to
time zones at a convenience store or the like, and a proposal for
time zones in which a discount or bonus is provided.
Id.
In addressing the “proposal unit” in the rejection, the Examiner offers
nothing more than a direction to “see at least fig. 14-17 and par. 2-5,
103-104” of Stehle. Final Act. 3 (boldface omitted). Paragraphs 2–5 are a
summary of Stehle’s invention, with paragraph 2 constituting simply an
introduction to the summary. Paragraph 3 generally describes creating a
national traffic-prediction model based on considering user-entered
information, as well as demographic data and other socioeconomic data to
draw inferences about people’s traffic patterns to more accurately predict
traffic patterns, and also discloses that location-based services may be
provided. Paragraph 4 describes presenting to a user advisory data based on
a user profile, which may include road segments of interest to a user.
Paragraph 5 describes optimizing traffic predictions, forecasting traffic
Appeal 2020-001107
Application 15/869,937

5
patterns using user-assigned trip patterns, communicating traffic-related
alerts based on user information, and presenting location indications based
on temporal or geographical proximity. Paragraph 103 discloses that
system-provided routes are usually based on the shortest time or distance,
but recognizes that users may wish to allocate a higher priority to other
factors, such as designating a particular portion of the route, and discusses
allowing users to do so. Paragraph 104 discusses using indicated
preferences of multiple users, such as large numbers of users designating a
particular segment of a route, in recommending routes to other users who
have not provided such a specific indication. Stehle’s system may present
by default the shortest distance or shortest time route and also present an
alternative that includes the segment designated by the user. Stehle ¶ 104.
For example, if a user includes a notation such as “construction for the next
month” in designating a certain segment of a route, when another user
requests routing, Stehle’s system may provide the default route along with a
suggestion and a note indicating that this alternative route may be desirable
due to construction on the default route. Id. It is not immediately apparent
from the rejection where in these paragraphs of Stehle, or in Figures 14–17,
the Examiner finds a “proposal unit” as called for in any of claims 1, 11, and
18.
In responding to Appellant’s request for the Examiner to identify with
more specificity the portion(s) of Stehle’s disclosure corresponding to the
claimed “proposal unit,” the Examiner first attempts to justify the lack of
specificity in identifying the structure in Stehle corresponding to the claimed
“proposal unit” in the rejection by pointing out Appellant’s use of “broad
language” in the claims. Ans. 6. The Examiner states that “the sections
Appeal 2020-001107
Application 15/869,937

6
cited in the prior art may seem to encompass a broad section of the
reference, this is only because all of the cited sections read on the claimed
limitations in one way or another.” Id. (emphasis added). This response is
unavailing. The breadth of Appellant’s claims does not categorically
discharge the Examiner’s burden to identify with sufficient specificity where
the prior art reference shows each claim limitation to inform Appellant as to
the reasons for the rejection. Indeed, the broader the claim limitation, the
easier it should be for the Examiner to specify a corresponding disclosure.
Perhaps recognizing the need to provide additional explanation as to
where Stehle discloses the claimed subject matter, the Examiner states that,
in order to satisfy the “proposal unit” limitations of the claims, the prior art
need only show “[s]ome sort of suggesting, proposing, advertising,
displaying of a commodity--which is interpreted to be any item, material or
type of product and even can be taken to mean something of value such as
time”3 or “a service which [is] interpreted to be any form of traffic and/or
route related guidance/directions prompts and/or presenting something such
as a pit stop [based on predefined locations] or weather and/or road hazard
alerts.” Id. The Examiner then directs our attention to several paragraphs of
Stehle not previously relied on in the rejection itself. See id. at 6–7.
More specifically, the Examiner finds that Stehle “discloses alerting,
proposing, advertising and/or suggesting the points of interest such as an
upcoming gas station and/or grocery store in order to refuel and/or

3 To the extent that the Examiner considers displaying to be sufficient to
satisfy the claim limitation “configured to display and propose,” we do not
agree. Such a claim construction fails to take into account that the claims
require that the proposal unit be configured both to “display” and to
“propose,” which evinces that proposing is different than displaying.
Appeal 2020-001107
Application 15/869,937

7
recharge.” Ans. 6 (citing Stehle ¶¶ 96–101). According to the Examiner,
“Stehle here clearly suggests/proposes a physical location of a commodity
such as a gas station and/or a grocery store.” Id. For the reasons that follow,
the Examiner’s findings misinterpret what Stehle teaches in paragraphs 96–
101.
Paragraph 96 of Stehle discloses the system using the number of gas
stations and their locations, along with information about how often a
particular user will need to stop for gas based on the type of car the user
drives, to further increase the accuracy of the traffic-prediction component.
Stehle’s paragraph 96 does not mention displaying gas stations and their
locations along a user’s route and proposing one or more of them.
In paragraph 97, Stehle discloses that a user may indicate preferred
shopping patterns, such as a pattern of stopping at a specific grocery store
during a specific day and time of the week each week. In other words, the
user, not the system, enters this shopping pattern; the system does not
display and propose this grocery store. Stehle discloses that this information
can be used as a factor by the traffic-prediction component to further
increase the accuracy of its results. Stehle ¶ 97.
In paragraphs 98–100, Stehle discloses using both user-entered data,
such as stopping pattern information as discussed above, and real-time data,
which reflects the actual movement of users, to generate more accurate
traffic prediction forecasts. These paragraphs do not disclose displaying and
proposing a gas station or grocery store.
In paragraph 101, Stehle discloses providing a suggested route based
on a user-provided origin and destination and a computer algorithm, but also
allowing a user to customize that route by, for example, specifying a
Appeal 2020-001107
Application 15/869,937

8
particular bridge that the user prefers to take or a certain gas station that the
user likes to travel past. In this way, the user may indicate that a specific
segment of a route be taken. Stehle ¶ 101. Stehle does not disclose, in
paragraph 101, displaying and proposing a gas station.
The Examiner also finds that “Stehle proposes taking certain actions
based on predefined time requirements, such as notifying--suggesting to the
user--that they will not be able to make it in the desired time to a previous
engagement such as daycare (see at least par. 131).” Ans. 6. In paragraph
131, Stehle discloses that, where a daycare location, arrival time window,
and duration of delay have been associated with a particular user, and the
system determines that a traffic jam on the user’s route associated with the
daycare location will delay the user’s arrival to beyond the predefined
window, “an alert can be sent to the user informing the user that the user will
not make the predefined window.” Stehle also discloses that the user “can
be presented with options for an alternative route.” Stehle ¶ 131. The
Examiner explains that this portion of Stehle “suggests saving time--a
commodity--by presenting alternative routes based on user defined
parameters and current traffic and travel conditions (i.e., location, road
conditions etc.).” Ans. 6–7.
Even if we accept the Examiner’s position that time is a commodity,
we do not agree with the Examiner that a system component that suggests an
alternative route that would save time is displaying and proposing the
commodity of saving time. In the alternative, the Examiner asks us to
consider receiving real-time traffic and weather alerts, and/or offering pit
stop suggestions to a user based on predetermined parameters such as
driving history or user defined preferences, to be a service. See Ans. 7. We
Appeal 2020-001107
Application 15/869,937

9
agree with the Examiner that providing traffic and weather alerts to the user
is a service. We do not find, however, that providing such information
constitutes displaying and suggesting/proposing a service or a location at
which such a service is to be provided. Rather, displaying such information
constitutes providing the service. The Examiner mentions “offering pit stop
suggestions” (Ans. 7), but does not identify where Stehle discloses
displaying and suggesting pit stops.4
Appellant submits that the closest that Stehle comes to suggesting a
commodity or service “is an ability to show user-prepared reminders to the
user, such as is described in paragraph [0127] and Figure 15.” Appeal Br. 7.
Appellant contends, however, that “[t]o the extent that the [Examiner] is
interpreting displaying a reminder to the user as a ‘service’, the reminder of
Stehle is still not recommended based on the visitor traffic” and that, “[a]t
best, it may be displayed based on the user’s own location, which does not
incorporate any visitor traffic information.” Id. at 7–8.
The disclosure to which Appellant alludes is directed to the display of
reminders added by the user. See Stehle ¶ 127. The alert is triggered based
upon the trigger information (e.g., “bring medicine to daycare M-T” along
with parameters such as days on which the user wants to be reminded to take
this action) that the user enters. Id.; see id., Fig. 15. The system can display
a reminder icon on a map in connection with the location associated with the
reminder, as indicated by reference numeral 1610 in Figure 16. Id. ¶ 127.

4 We note that, in Figures 14 and 15, Stehle illustrates user interface screens,
in which the user can input an address and description for a location, as well
as a label for this location, such as “PIT STOP,” and days and times at which
the user may stop at this location. See Stehle ¶¶ 114–116, 124–126.
Appeal 2020-001107
Application 15/869,937

10
To the extent that the Examiner may be relying on Stehle’s disclosure of
displaying reminder alerts or icons of this type, Appellant’s argument that
Stehle does not display or recommend the reminder alerts or icons based on
the visitor traffic, as recited in claims 1 and 11, or based on the visitor traffic
line, as recited in claim 18, is persuasive. Moreover, the Examiner does not
refute Appellant’s argument in this regard.
For the above reasons, the Examiner fails to identify where Stehle
discloses structure corresponding to the “proposal unit” recited in claims 1,
11, and 18, and, thus, fails to establish that Stehle anticipates the subject
matter of these claims, or their dependent claims.5 Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 1–20 as anticipated by Stehle.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 102(a)(1) Stehle 1–20

REVERSED

5 Our determination that the Examiner has not established that Stehle
anticipates the subject matter of claims 1, 11, and 18 should not be
interpreted as a determination on our part as to the patentability of the
claims. We appreciate the Examiner’s concern with the breadth of the
claims, but determine simply that, based on the record before us, the
Examiner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence where Stehle
discloses each and every limitation of the claims.