Edwin Bastiaensen et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 9, 2019

13977784 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 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. 13/977,784 07/01/2013 Edwin Bastiaensen 2280/US 8886 75090 7590 08/09/2019 TOMTOM INTERNATIONAL B.V. IP Creation De Ruyterkade 154 AMSTERDAM, 1011 AC NETHERLANDS EXAMINER WILLIAMS, KELLY D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3662 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/09/2019 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): patents@tomtom.com tony@parklegal.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte EDWIN BASTIAENSEN and STEPHEN T’SIOBBEL ____________________ Appeal 2019-000222 Application 13/977,784 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before JOHN C. KERINS, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s Decision rejecting claims 1–7, 11, 15, 22, 25–28, and 30–37. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2019-000222 Application 13/977,784 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 27, and 28 are independent. Claims 2–7, 11, 15, 22, 25, 26, and 30–37 depend from claim 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal, and is reproduced below. 1. A method for providing lane guidance comprising: using, by a processor, vehicle probe data to determine a historical lane speed profile for each of a plurality of lanes of a multi-lane road section, the plurality of lanes each having a same given direction of travel; using, by a processor, the historical lane speed profiles determined for two adjacent lanes of the plurality of lanes to determine a historical lane speed difference profile between the two adjacent lanes, wherein the historical lane speed difference profile is an indication of relative speeds of the two adjacent lanes, thereby indicating, over a length of the historical lane speed difference profile, which of the two adjacent lanes is typically faster or slower; using the historical lane speed profile to determine whether the road section is congested by comparing traffic speeds from the historical lane speed profile for the road section to a maximum theoretical speed for the road section; and providing, by a processor, lane guidance related to the multi-lane road section based at least in part on the historical lane speed difference profile, wherein the lane guidance comprises a lane selection to provide a route through at least a part of the road section while minimizing lane changes using the congestion determination, or a lane selection when the road section includes or is proximate to an interchange or intersection. REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1–7 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Coy (US 2010/0036595 A1, published Feb. 11, 2010), von Appeal 2019-000222 Application 13/977,784 3 Grabe (US 2004/0246147 A1, published Dec. 9, 2004), and Yoshikawa (US 2007/0050133 A1, published Mar. 1, 2007). 2. Claims 11, 15, 22, 26, 34, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Coy, von Grabe, Yoshikawa, and Lee (US 2008/0033632 A1, published Feb. 7, 2008). 3. Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Coy, Lee, von Grabe, and Yoshikawa. 4. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Coy, von Grabe, Yoshikawa, Lee, and Ohara (JP 2006098232 A, published Apr. 13, 2006). 5. Claims 35 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Coy, von Grabe, Yoshikawa, and Krautter (US 2006/0220913 A1, published Oct. 5, 2006). OPINION Appellants present a number of contentions in the Appeal Brief. Appeal Br. 9–15. As the Examiner points out, however, most of those contentions do not address the findings actually used in the Examiner’s rejections. See Ans. 3–5. The only findings relied upon by the Examiner that are disputed by Appellants are those related to the teachings of von Grabe. Appeal Br. 11–12. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s reasoning for combining the teachings of the various references. See Appeal Br. 14–15 (asserting that “none of [the references] separately describes or suggests using historical lane speed profiles determined for two adjacent lanes of a plurality of lanes to determine a historical lane speed difference profile between the two adjacent lanes such as in independent claims 1 and Appeal 2019-000222 Application 13/977,784 4 27–28” and “[t]here is also no combination of [the references] that describes or suggests the independent claims”). In each rejection, the Examiner finds that von Grabe teaches using, by a processor, the historical lane speed profiles (average lane speed, lane specific velocity data, see at least:[0013] and Claim 1, c) vi) and c) vii)) determined for two adjacent lanes of the plurality of lanes to determine a historical lane speed difference profile between the two adjacent lanes (multiple lane speed differences, see at least: [00121), wherein the historical lane speed difference profile is an indication of relative speeds of the two adjacent lanes, thereby indicating, over a length of the historical lane speed difference profile, which of the two adjacent lanes is typically faster or slower (see at least: [0012]-[0013] and Claim 2, b) vii)-x)); providing, by a processor, lane guidance related to the multi-lane road section based at least in part on the historical lane speed difference profile (routing of a subscriber’s vehicle through least-impeded segments consisting of at least one route, see at least: [0009] and Claim 1, h)-i) and Claim 2, o)-p)). Final Act. 3 (rejection of claim 1); see also id. at 10, 12–13 (making similar findings with respect to claims 27 and 28). Appellants’ response to those findings is essentially block quotes from von Grabe and conclusions. See Appeal Br. 11–12. Those do not apprise us of any particular error in the Examiner’s rejection. Appellants acknowledge that “[v]on Grabe determines ‘multiple lane speed differences’ and stores ‘lane specific velocity data,’ which [v]on Grabe stores as ‘average speed together with directional and optional lane parameters in a segment record.’” Reply Br. 2 (citing Appeal Br. 11–12). Appellants’ dispute concerns whether von Grabe teaches the recited “historical lane speed difference profile.” See Reply Br. 3 (“[v]on Grabe does not describe or suggest that the bare term ‘differences’ is functionally or actually equivalent to the lane Appeal 2019-000222 Application 13/977,784 5 speed difference profiles”), 4 (“[v]on Grabe . . . is limited to describing lane specific velocity data and does not describe or suggest the historical lane speed profiles”). The cited portions of von Grabe support the Examiner’s findings, describing, for example, “determining . . . driving direction[ and] average speed . . . to determine multiple lane speed differences” and “thereafter storing that data.” von Grabe ¶¶ 12–13. Noticeably absent from Appellants’ contentions is any meaningful explanation as to why the teachings of von Grabe are deficient. Without meaningful explanation from Appellants, we see no reason why the data stored in von Grabe including determined driving speed and multiple lane speed differences does not correspond to a “historical lane speed difference profile.” Accordingly, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner’s rejection. For at least these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7, 11, 15, 22, 25–28, and 30–37. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7, 11, 15, 22, 25–28, and 30–37. 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED