Ex Parte Bach

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 5, 2018

13796781 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2018)

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.
13/796,781 03/12/2013 Jeffrey R. Bach 10171-12174A
(NC80471US)
1713
101535 7590
Lempia Summerfield Katz LLC/HERE
20 South Clark Street
Suite 600
Chicago, IL 60603
EXAMINER
ABRAHAM, AHMED M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2165
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/07/2018 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):
docket-us @ lsk-iplaw.com
pair_lsk @ firsttofile.com
hereipr @ here, com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFFREY R. BACH1
Appeal 2017-009131
Application 13/796,781
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—5, 8—14, 16—18, 22, and 23, which are all of the claims pending in
the application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, HERE GLOBAL B.V., which, according to the
Brief, is the real party in interest. See Br. 2.
2 Claims 6, 7, 15, and 19-21 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2017-009131
Application 13/796,781
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to Appellant, the claims are directed to presenting updated
search results on a three-dimensional map. Abstract.3 Claim 1, reproduced
below, is exemplary of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a first partial search query;
querying a map database with the first partial search query;
outputting a first set of map results from the map database
on a three dimensional building geometry;
receiving a second partial search query, wherein the
second partial search query includes the first partial search query
and one or more additional limiting criteria;
narrowing the first set of map results with the second
partial search query;
outputting a second set of map results from the map
database on the three dimensional building model, wherein the
second set of map results is a subset of the first set of map results,
wherein the first set of map results includes coordinates of
a three-dimensional location; and
displaying a graphical indication at the three-dimensional
location within the three dimensional building geometry.
REFERENCES AND REJECTION
Claims 1—5, 8—14, 16—18, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jones (US 2007/0143345 Al; published
3 This Decision refers to: (1) Appellant’s Specification filed March 12, 2013
(Spec.); (2) the Final Office Action (Final Act.) mailed July 1, 2016; (3) the
Appeal Brief (Br.) filed December 21, 2016; and (5) the Examiner’s Answer
(Ans.) mailed April 6, 2017.
2
Appeal 2017-009131
Application 13/796,781
June 21, 2007) and Neugebauer (US 2012/0303275 Al; published Nov. 29,
2012). Final Act. 3—9.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
the issues raised by Appellant. Arguments not made are waived. See MPEP
§ 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) and 41.39(a)(1).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—5, 8—14, and 16—18
“coordinates of a three-dimensional location ”
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Jones teaches “the
first set of map results includes coordinates of a three-dimensional location,”
as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 10. Br. 4—7, 10.
Specifically, Appellant argues “Jones teaches a map with latitude and
longitude . . . but not a three[-]dimensional coordinate search result[].”
Br. 6. Further, Appellant argues that Jones teaches a “map view altitude”
but “altitude, however, does not refer to a three[-]dimensional location on
the map, but rather the view point of a user.” Br. 6 (citing Jones 131).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds (Final Act. 3), and we
agree, Jones teaches a “three-dimensional digital map can be generated that
includes placemarks that correspond to geospatial entities” resulting from a
search (Jones H 23—24, Fig. 5). The Examiner further finds (Ans. 4), and
we agree, Jones teaches “ranking [the] geospatial items,” for displaying
search results, “based on . . . other intrinsic attributes of a geospatial feature
such as position and altitude (zoom level)” (Jones 121).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Jones’ search
result, i.e., Jones’ geospatial entities and corresponding placemarks, lack a
3
Appeal 2017-009131
Application 13/796,781
third dimensional coordinate. Br. 5—6. Jones teaches, or at least suggests, a
third coordinate corresponding to altitude. In particular, Jones generates a
“three-dimensional digital map” including “placemarks that correspond to
geospatial entities” using ranking information that includes altitude. Jones
1121, 23. Because the three-dimensional map considers altitude
information in order to place placemarks and entities at a certain altitude,
those placemarks and entities thereby include corresponding altitude
information for consideration, i.e., a third dimensional coordinate. Further,
Appellant’s discussion of the altitude of Jones’ “map view” (Br. 6 (citing
Jones 131)) does not address the altitude information associated with Jones’
entities and placemarks (Jones 1121, 23).
Additionally, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
Neugebauer does not teach the disputed limitations (Br. 7) because the
Examiner relies on Jones to teach those limitations.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Jones teaches “the first set of map results includes coordinates of a three-
dimensional location” within the meaning of claims 1 and 10.
“displaying a graphical indication at the three-dimensional location ”
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Jones teaches
“displaying a graphical indication at the three-dimensional location within
the three dimensional building geometry,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly
recited in claim 10. Br. 7—10. Specifically, Appellant argues “[t]he map in
Jones may be a 3D map, but the results are only show[n] using 2D
coordinates.” Br. 8.
4
Appeal 2017-009131
Application 13/796,781
We are not persuaded. As discussed, supra, the Examiner finds (Final
Act. 4), and we agree, Jones teaches a “three-dimensional digital map can be
generated that includes placemarks that correspond to geospatial entities”
resulting from a search (Jones Tflf 23—24, Fig. 5). Specifically, Figure 5 of
Jones shows “a knife and fork icon 510A for a dining placemark, and a cup
51 OB [icon] for a drinking establishment.” Jones 174. The icons are
displayed at varying altitudes depending on the location of the entity
corresponding to the icon. See Jones Fig. 5.
Appellant’s arguments that “a viewer of the map in Jones would be
unable to tell what floor or what altitude the map results are located at”
(Br. 8) is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. The claims do not
require any particular manner of placing the graphical indication, and in
particular do not require any level of specificity when placing the graphical
indication. Instead, claim 1 broadly recites that the indication is placed “at
the three-dimensional location” and claim 10 broadly recites that the
indication is placed “on a three dimensional building model.” Furthermore,
in describing their invention, Appellant highlights (Br. 3) paragraphs 41 and
51 of the Specification. We find these paragraphs disclose that geographic
indications at a three-dimensional location are not necessarily placed at a
specific altitude or floor. In particular, the Specification discloses that
“[individual building outlines may be illuminated” (Spec. 141), and those
wholly highlighted buildings do not specify any particular altitude (see Spec.
Figs. 2A—2B). Turning again to Jones, we agree with the Examiner that
Jones teaches indicators are placed within buildings “at” or “on” three-
dimensional locations within the scope of the claims. For example, a coffee
cup indicator is placed within the building at and on the Dirk’s Coffee Spot
5
Appeal 2017-009131
Application 13/796,781
419 three-dimensional location and a knife and fork indicator 510A is placed
within the building at and on the Golden Lotus Restaurant three-dimensional
location. Jones Fig. 5,178.
Additionally, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
Neugebauer does not teach the disputed limitations (Br. 9) because the
Examiner relies on Jones to teach those limitations.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Jones teaches “displaying a graphical indication at the three-dimensional
location within the three dimensional building geometry,” within the
meaning of claims 1 and 10. We, therefore, sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claims 1 and 10, as well as dependent claims 2—5,
8, 9, 11—14, 16—18, which are not argued separately. See Br. 4—10.
Claim 22
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Jones teaches “the
coordinates of the three-dimensional location comprise latitude, longitude,
and altitude,” as recited in claim 22. Br. 10-11. Similar to Appellant’s
arguments, supra, Appellant argues “[t]he map view altitude in Jones,
however, does not refer to coordinates in a search result, but rather the
camera view of the user.” Br. 11.
We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding (Ans. 4) that Jones’ entities and placemarks include
corresponding altitude information when placing those entities and
placemarks at an altitude on a three-dimensional map (Jones H 21, 23).
Additionally, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
Neugebauer does not teach the disputed limitations (Br. 11) because the
6
Appeal 2017-009131
Application 13/796,781
Examiner relies on Jones to teach those limitations. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Jones teaches “the coordinates of
the three-dimensional location comprise latitude, longitude, and altitude,”
within the meaning of claim 1.
Claim 23
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Jones teaches
“wherein the coordinates of the three-dimensional location comprise a
building address and a floor value,” as recited in claim 23. Br. 11—12.
Specifically, Appellant argues neither Jones nor Neugebauer teaches a floor
value. Br. 11—12.
We are persuaded. The Examiner finds Neugebauer teaches inputting
“a destination would include a building number.” Final Act. 8—9 (citing
Neugebauer || 8, 20, Figs. 4—5). The Examiner further finds Jones teaches
placemarks placed on a map. Ans. 6 (citing Jones 178, Fig. 5).
However, the claim requires both “a building address and a floor
value” and the Examiner makes no findings directed to floor value. The
portions of Neugebauer cited by the Examiner do not disclose building
numbers, let alone a building floor value. Instead, the cited portions are
directed to “accelerat[ing] the input of destinations in navigation systems”
(Neugebauer | 8) by “narrow[ing] selections] ... of possible destinations”
(Neugebauer 120), e.g., from Berlin and Bamberg to Berlin (Neugebauer
Figs. 4—5). The Examiner has not explained how improving destination
input and search results teaches destinations with floor values.
7
Appeal 2017-009131
Application 13/796,781
Further, although the cited portions of Jones teaches placemarks
(Jones 178, Fig. 5), they do not teach or show that those placemarks provide
an address or a floor number. The Examiner has not explained how the cited
portions of Jones would be understood as teaching a building address and a
floor value.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner errs
in finding the combination of Jones and Neugebauer teaches or suggests
“wherein the coordinates of the three-dimensional location comprise a
building address and a floor value,” as recited in claim 23. To the extent that
it would have been obvious for map search results to include physical
addresses, and that such addresses include floor numbers, is not a question
that is before us because the Examiner has not made those conclusions; we
will not speculate in that regard here in the first instance on appeal.
Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jones and Neugebauer.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1—5, 8—14, 16—18, and 22.
For the reasons above, we reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claim 23.
AFF1RMED-1N-PART
8