Perczynski, David et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 13, 2019

14528374 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2019)

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.
14/528,374 10/30/2014 David Perczynski 10171-12028D
(NC58225US)
3927
101535 7590 12/13/2019
Lempia Summerfield Katz LLC/HERE
20 South Clark Street
Suite 600
Chicago, IL 60603
EXAMINER
SYED, FARHAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2165
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/13/2019 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-us@lsk-iplaw.com
hereipr@here.com
pair_lsk@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID PERCZYNSKI and OLIVER FINK
Appeal 2019-001467
Application 14/528,374
Technology Center 2100
Before HUNG H. BUI, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and RUSSELL E. CASS,
Administrative Patent Judges.
QUINN, 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, 2, and 420. See Final Act. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word 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.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-001467
Application 14/528,374

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to reporting discrepancies regarding
geographic data. Spec. 1:46. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method for updating a
geographic database that includes geographic data for
navigation-related services, the method comprising:
receiving, at a navigation device, comment data from a
user describing an observed discrepancy between a geographic
feature and the geographic data from the geographic database,
wherein the observed discrepancy is an error or lack of
information in the geographic data;
capturing, by a camera, in response to receiving comment
data, photograph image data collected at a position in vicinity
of the observed discrepancy;
generating, by the navigation device, location data
associated with the position of the photograph image data;
generating, at the navigation device, a report including
the photograph image data, the location data, and the comment
data; and
sending the report including the photograph image data,
the location data, and the comment data to a map developer for
the geographic database.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Filley US 2005/0060299 A1 Mar. 17, 2005
Nomura US 2005/0283699 A1 Dec. 22, 2005
Winberry US 2008/0195638 A1 Aug. 14, 2008

Appeal 2019-001467
Application 14/528,374

3
REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, and 420 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Winberry, Nomura, and Filley. Final Act. 314.
OPINION
This appeal presents two issues:
1) Did the Examiner err in determining that the combination of
Winberry, Nomura, and Filley teaches “capturing, by a camera, in
response to receiving comment data, photograph image data
collected at a position in vicinity of the observed discrepancy”
(i.e., the “capturing limitation”), as recited in claims 1 and 11?
2) Did the Examiner err in determining that the combination of
Winberry, Nomura, and Filley teaches “wherein the comment data
is derived from a voice input” (i.e., “the voice input” limitation), as
recited in claims 4 and 15?
Having reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments, we are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred as Appellant
alleges. We discuss each issue in turn.

1. Capturing Limitation
Claims 1 and 11 require that a camera capture photograph image data
collected at a position in vicinity of the observed discrepancy. Appeal
Br. 13, 15 (Claim Appendix). The claims also recite that the capturing
occurs “in response to receiving comment data.” Id. Appellant argues that
neither Nomura nor Filley teaches the capturing limitation because the claim
requires capturing “in response to comment data,” yet in the cited references
Appeal 2019-001467
Application 14/528,374

4
the “capturing” occurs without the comment data being received first. See
Appeal Br. 7. For instance, Appellant argues that Nomura (1) “captures
photograph image data continuously” and (2) “requires an image obtaining
means to be always on and operating.” Id. According to Appellant,
“Nomura cannot capture photograph image data in response to receiving
comment data as Nomura requires the photograph image data to prompt for
comment data.” Id. at 10. Likewise, with regard to Filley, Appellant argues
that “receiving photographic image data [occurs] first and then receiving
comment data [occurs].” Id. at 7. In short, Appellant distinguishes the
claims from the cited prior art by focusing on the allegedly required timing
of events: receiving comment data must occur before the capturing of
photograph image data.
We determine that the Examiner has not erred in finding that the
combination of Winberry, Nomura, and Filley teaches the limitation. The
Examiner finds, and we agree, that Nomura “discloses capturing[,] by an
image obtaining means (e.g., a camera) that is designed to take a picture
(e.g., photograph image data) and in the vicinity of the current position
detected.” Ans. 23 (citing Nomura ¶¶ 48, 54). According to the Examiner,
Nomura’s user captures the photograph image data, which is then provided
to the map error information means for the system to evaluate the
discrepancy. Id. at 3 (citing Nomura ¶¶ 6164). The Examiner, however,
does not rely on Nomura for receiving comment data from the user, which
the Examiner calls “feedback.” Id. (stating “the Examiner concedes that
Nomura does not clearly illustrate how the feedback data is provided”). The
Examiner relies on Winberry for the limitation of receiving comment data.
Id. (citing Winberry ¶¶ 4144, Figs. 2, 3). It is Winberry which supplies the
Appeal 2019-001467
Application 14/528,374

5
teaching of the customer feedback application using a graphical user
interface that allows the user to enter feedback on the geographic data
depicting a position in the vicinity and stored in the proprietary geographic
database. Id.
The combination of teachings, therefore, provides for Winberry’s
comment data from a user to be received, and then Nomura provides the
capture of the photographic image data. The comment-first, capture-second
order is satisfied because the Winberry user would first enter the comment
data based on a specific location, after which Nomura’s capture of the
photograph image data corresponding to the location would occur. Then
Winberry generates a user report (which would include the captured
photograph image data under Nomura’s teaching), and sends that report to
the customer feedback loop (CFL) back end to be analyzed by autonomous
agents and by applications operating under human control. Final Act. 45
(citing Winberry ¶¶ 5355, 72, 40, Fig. 3); Ans. 3 (citing Nomura ¶¶ 6164
as teaching that the captured photograph image data is transmitted to the
system for further evaluation by the map error information means).
Consequently, we determine that the Examiner has not erred as Appellant
argues.

2. Voice Input Limitation
Appellant argues that Winberry does not teach “comment data [that] is
derived from a voice input.” Appeal Br. 11. The Examiner responds that
Winberry discloses devices used to input data, all of which typically include
a voice recognition circuit. Ans. 4 (citing Winberry ¶ 39, which lists a
personal computer, laptop, cell phone, and portable hand-held devices).
Appeal 2019-001467
Application 14/528,374

6
Thus, we are persuaded that the Examiner has shown that Winberry teaches
the limitation recited in claims 4 and 15. Furthermore, the Examiner points
to Filley’s use of “voice input” to indicate location. Filley ¶ 40. For this
additional reason, we determine that the Examiner has not erred in rejecting
claims 4 and 15 as obvious over Winberry, Nomura, and Filley.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, and 420 as obvious over
Winberry, Nomura, and Filley is sustained.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 420 103(a) Winberry, Nomura,
and Filley
1, 2, 420

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED