Ex Parte Anderson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2018

14197895 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/197,895 03/05/2014
100462 7590 09/27/2018
Dority & Manning P.A. and Google LLC
Post Office Box 1449
Greenville, SC 29602
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John Carl Anderson
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
GGL-430 9343
EXAMINER
SUN,HAITAO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2018 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):
usdocketing@dority-manning.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN CARL ANDERSON
Appeal2017-011094
Application 14/197 ,895
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC B. CHEN, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 22, 25, and 27-31. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Google Inc.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-011094
Application 14/197,895
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application relates to a "computer-implemented method
for providing combined multidimensional map views." Abstract.
Claim 13, reproduced below with emphasis added to a disputed
limitation, is illustrative:
13. A system for providing combined
multi-dimensional map views, the system comprising:
one or more computing devices including one or more
processors and associated memory, the memory storing
instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors,
configure the one or more computing devices to:
receive a first set of geospatial data associated with
receiving a two-dimensional view of a first portion of a
geographic area;
receive a second set of geospatial data associated
with rendering a three-dimensional view of a second
portion of the geographic area;
render a combined multi-dimensional map view of
the geographic area based on the first and second sets of
geospatial data, the combined multi-dimensional map
view including a first discrete map area providing a
two-dimensional map view of the first portion of the
geographic area and a second discrete map area
providing a three-dimensional map view of the second
portion of the geographic area; and
adjust a location of a boundary defined between
the first and second discrete map areas within a
two-dimensional plane of the multi-dimensional map
view such that at least one pre-existing geographic
feature contained within a portion of the geographic area
located adjacent to the location of the boundary that was
previously rendered within the combined
multi-dimensional view as one of the two dimensional
map view or the three-dimensional map view is now
2
Appeal2017-011094
Application 14/197,895
being rendered as the other of the two-dimensional map
view or the three-dimensional map view,
wherein the three-dimensional view includes at least one
of satellite imagery or aerial imagery of the second portion of
the geographic area.
REJECTIONS
Claims 13 and 27-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
obvious over Uetabira (US 8,947,421 B2; Feb. 3, 2015), Stout
(US 2013/0035853 Al; Feb. 7, 2013), Yun (US 2012/0194509 Al; Aug. 2,
2012), and Howard (US 2013/0321398 Al; Dec. 5, 2013). Final Act. 22-34
(Nov. 14, 2016).
Claims 15 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious
over Uetabira, Stout, Yun, Howard, and Sekine (US 2012/0223941 Al; Sept.
6, 2012). Final Act. 34--35.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 12, 18, 22, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as obvious over Uetabira, Stout, Sekine, and Howard
(US 2013/0120237 Al; May 16, 2013). Final Act. 4--21.
ANALYSIS
Claims 13 and 28-30
Appellant contends that the combination of U etabira, Stout, Yun, and
Howard fail to teach or suggest the "boundary adjustment" limitation
emphasized in claim 13 as set forth above. The Examiner cites Uetabira as
teaching rendering a 3D, columnar image of a building corresponding to a
2D portion of a map. Final Act. 23-24 (citing Uetabira, Fig. 17; 10:38--43;
37: 15-20); Ans. 35. The cited portions of Stout disclose dynamically
updating map layers and generating map views responsive to user
3
Appeal2017-011094
Application 14/197,895
interaction, such as zooming, as well as scaling. Stout ,r 66; see Final
Act. 24--25 (citing Stout ,r,r 18, 66; Fig. 3). The portions of Yun in Figures
6B and 6C cited by the Examiner disclose adjusting 3D sum area 600 within
2D area 625 to account for changes in view point. Final Act. 26 (Yun ,r,r 10,
41, 47, 59; Figs. 6A---C); Ans. 35-36.
Appellant argues Uetabira's teaching of superimposing the columnar
image does not adjust a boundary between 3D and 2D areas, but rather
merely "replace[ s] an existing columnar image with a new columnar image
at the same location" (App. Br. 11-12) and "superimpos[es] columnar
images onto a two-dimensional image" (id. at 12-13). Appellant also argues
Yun's 3D sum area 600 does not change a 2D feature to a 3D feature or vice
versa, but rather merely provides partial 3D shift areas displaying the same
3D feature. Id. at 14--15.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. The claimed
"boundary adjustment" limitation requires that the boundary separate 3D and
2D areas and adjust to change a geographic feature from a 3D representation
to a 2D representation or vice versa. Uetabira's teaching of rendering a 3D
columnar image combined with updating and generating map views
(responsive to, for example, zooming, scaling, and view point) as taught by
Stout and Yun, would also change the size, shape, and position of the 3D
area corresponding to the 2D area. Appellant does not persuade us that such
adjustments to Yun's 3D columnar image fail to meet the claimed "boundary
adjustment" limitation.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 13. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent
claim 13 and dependent claims 28-30, which are not separately argued.
4
Appeal2017-011094
Application 14/197,895
Claim 27
Claim 27 depends from claim 13, and recites that "the boundary is
defined by a closed shape encompassing one of the first discrete map area or
the second discrete map area, the one or more computing devices being
configured to shift a location of the closed shape relative to the combined
multi-dimensional map view such that a map area contained within the
closed shape is adjusted."
Appellant argues Stout's teaching of zooming would not shift the
"location of the closed shape relative to the combined multi-dimensional
map view," but would rather only shift it relative to the display window.
App. Br. 15-16.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument. The Examiner finds
Stout teaches that, "by zooming or panning, the map can be dynamically
regenerated at different scale; Stout further teaches location of lines of road,
arrow and extruded polygon changes in user's device when zooming in or
zooming out." Ans. 37 (citing Stout ,r 66). The Examiner explains that
"Stout teaches [that,] by zooming or panning, the map can be dynamically
regenerated at the client to include the new map views. Id. at 38 (citing
Stout ,r 66). Moreover, the cited portion in paragraph 18 of Stout discloses
that "a map feature having a relatively higher prominence score may be
rendered according to a larger rendering scale than its actual scale on the
map." As an example, Stout discloses that "a famous landmark may be
rendered at one or more zoom levels to appear disproportionately greater
than its actual size relative to the map (e.g., a giant Eiffel tower on a map of
Paris)." Stout ,r 18. Appellant does present a contrary construction for the
5
Appeal2017-011094
Application 14/197,895
claim term "map view" that would require, for example, the claimed shift in
"location" to mean a shift in geographic location.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 27. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 27.
Claim 31
Claim 31 depends from claim 13, and recites that "the boundary is
defined by a closed shape encompassing one of the first discrete map area or
the second discrete map area, the one or more computing devices being
configured to automatically adjust the location of the boundary defined
between the first and second discrete map areas such that a location of the
closed shape relative to the combined multi-dimensional map view is moved
along a predetermined path across the combined multi-dimensional map
view."
Appellant argues that the cited teaching in Stout of updating a map
view is not shown to result in the "location of the closed shape relative to the
combined multi-dimensional map view [being] moved along a
predetermined path" ( claim 31 ). App. Br. 16. Appellant also argues that
Stout's map view is updated as a function of user inputs. Id. at 17.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments because they are not
responsive to the Examiner's specific findings, which rely on a combination
ofUetabira and Stout. Final Act. 32-34; Ans. 39-40. Specifically, the
Examiner finds "Uetabira teaches the human icon is displayed to be walking
in the combined two dimensional and three dimensional map image in the
same manner as the user is walking in the real world" and "further teaches
the first discrete map area is an area of roads; the outlines of a road
encompasses the road area, i.e. first discrete map area; segment of road is
6
Appeal2017-011094
Application 14/197,895
closed shape." Ans. 40 (citing Uetabira, Fig. 17; 32: 1-10). The Examiner
finds Stout teaches "automatically updat[ing] the orientation and location of
the visual representation of the map and any map features being displayed
within viewport 310A based on any changes in orientation or location. Id. at
41 (citing Stout ,r 67). We concur in the Examiner's finding that the
combination of Uetabira and Stout teaches or suggests determining a route
and responsively moving 3D and 2D areas along that determined route.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 31. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 31.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 12, 15, 17, and 18
Independent claims 1 and 18 recite, "the boundary outlines the
suggested travel route such that the suggested road segments are contained
within the closed shape and other road segments of the plurality of road
segments are located outside the closed shape." Claims 2, 8, 9, 12, 15, and
1 7 depend from claim 1.
Appellant argues Howard's cited route 320 does not "outline[] the
suggested travel route" and exclude other route segments, but is merely a
graphical prompt to tum for a suggested road segment. App. Br. 18-20.
Appellant also argues that U etabira does not disclose a boundary of the
illustrated streets and, thus, the "only incentive or motivation for modifying
Uetabira" to include the claimed boundary is impermissible hindsight
Appellant's disclosure. App Br. 21.
Appellant's arguments are not responsive the Examiner's specific
findings, which do not rely only on Howard's tum 322a of route 320. Final
Act. 10; Ans. 43--44. The Examiner finds Howard's entire overlay 320, i.e.,
the darkened overlay 320 that includes the darker tum 322a, constitutes a 2D
7
Appeal2017-011094
Application 14/197,895
area outlining the suggested route and excluding other route segments. See
Final Act. 10; Ans. 43. The Examiner further finds that "[t]he motivation
for combining Uetabira, Stout, Sekine and Howard would have been to
provide a cleaner rendering of the surrounding environment and a more
efficient map using experience as taught by Howard." Ans. 44 (citing
Howard ,r 5). Thus, we find the Examiner has articulated a motivation for
modifying Uetabira that is independent of Appellant's disclosure.
Furthermore, we note Howard and Stout both display buildings in a
3D view and streets in a 2D view. Howard, Fig. 5B, 5D; Stout, Fig. 3A;
compare id. with, Spec., Fig. 2 (similarly rendering streets of the 2D area
64). In describing the various views, Howard states that, "without
distractions such as advertisements, vehicles, or people, the simplified map
view is easier to comprehend and easier to navigate." Howard ,r 183.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred
in rejecting independent claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 8, 9, 12, 15, and 17, which are
not separately argued.
As to independent claim 18, Appellant references the arguments for
claim 1. App. Br. 23. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 18 for
substantially similar reasons as set forth with respect to independent claim 1.
Claims 22 and 25
Claims 22 and 25 depend from claims 1 and 18, respectively, and
recite that "the closed shape defined by the boundary extends adjacent to the
other side of the suggested road segments provided along the suggested
travel route."
8
Appeal2017-011094
Application 14/197,895
Appellant argues that the "Examiner asserts that the 'outlines' of the
roads shown in [Uetabira's] FIG. 17 correspond to the claimed 'boundary.'
. . . Rather, such lines are simply used as visual indicators of the locations of
the roads contained within the virtual space ofUetabira." App. Br. 22.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument. The Examiner
explains that "Stout teaches lines of road, arrow 315 and extruded polygon
are closed shape as illustrated in Fig. 3A-B" and "Uetabira teaches the
human icon is displayed to be walking in the combined two dimensional and
three dimensional map image in the same manner as the user is walking in
the real world." Ans. 45; Final Act. 21. The Examiner finds that Uetabira
"further teaches the outlines of road is a boundary" and that the "road is a
closed shape as illustrated in Fig. 17." Ans. 45; Final Act. 21. We agree
that both Uetabira and Stout depict extending the 2D area along and over
both the streets and their immediate surroundings, i.e., to include space
between the roads and buildings. Uetabira, Fig. 17 (M2); Stout, Fig. 3A.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 22 and 25. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of
claims 22 and 25.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 12, 13,
15, 17, 18, 22, 25, and 27-31.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9