Ex Parte AndersonDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 201814197895 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation