Ex Parte Fraser et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 22, 2013

11138985 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RONALD W. FRASER, JAMES J. PIWOWARSKI, MARK J. GLAZA, and JOHN P. WEISS ____________ Appeal 2011-004960 Application 11/138,985 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, JOHN W. MORRISON, and ADAM V. FLOYD, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-004960 Application 11/138,985 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Clapper (US 6,823,257 B2, iss. Nov. 23, 2004) and Han (US 6,856,901 B2, iss. Feb. 15, 2005). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 9, and 17 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, with emphasis added, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method of operating a telematics enabled mobile vehicle communication system, comprising: receiving a navigation request from a user interface at a telematics unit; receiving a location signal at the telematics unit, the location signal defining an approximate geographic location of the telematics unit; analyzing the navigation request and the location signal to produce a navigation route, the navigation route defined by a plurality of navigation points including an initial navigation point and one or more additional navigation points; producing a local navigation zone and a global navigation zone based on the analyzed location signal, each navigation zone defining a geographic area concentrically radiating from a known geographic location; determining which navigation zone the initial navigation point is within; and producing navigation instructions based on the determined navigation zone and the navigation route, wherein the navigation instructions provide direction to navigation points along the navigation route. Appeal 2011-004960 Application 11/138,985 3 Claim 9 recites “[a] computer readable medium storing a computer program comprising . . . computer readable code for producing a local navigation zone and a global navigation zone based on the analyzed location signal, each navigation zone defining a geographic area concentrically radiating from a known geographic location.” App. Br. Claims Appendix. Claim 17 recites “[a] telematics enabled mobile vehicle communication system, comprising . . . means for producing a local navigation zone and a global navigation zone based on the analyzed location signal, each navigation zone defining a geographic area concentrically radiating from a known geographic location.” Id. OPINION At the outset, we agree with the Appellants’ interpretation of the limitation “each navigation zone defining a geographic area concentrically radiating from a known geographic location,” as recited in claim 1, referring to “two concentric navigation zones, i.e., two zones having a common center or point of origin.” App. Br. 4 (emphasis omitted). Accordingly, the Examiner’s finding that Clapper discloses the entirety of the aforementioned limitation is inadequately supported because Clapper’s overlapping cells are not concentrically radiating. See Clapper, figs. 3, 5, 6. But see Ans. 4, 9-10. Alternatively, the Examiner finds that Han discloses circles that are concentrically radiating out from a geographical location. Ans. 9. See also Reply Br. 2.1 More specifically, the Examiner has found that “Han would read on this limitation as is shown in Figs 6C, 7B & 8.” Ans. 4. The 1 Page 2 of the Reply Brief is understood as the page having the title “REMARKS/ARGUMENTS”. Appeal 2011-004960 Application 11/138,985 4 Examiner concludes that “it would have been obvious at the time of invention to modify Clapper by Han to enable the system to present ‘POI’ [(Point of Interest)] to the user with a preset area of travel thus avoid undue travel.” Id. The Appellants contend that: Han does not teach geographic navigation zones at all, let alone concentric navigation zones. The circles identified by the Examiner in FIGS. 6C, 7B and 8 of Han are not, and do not represent, geographic zones at all - they are display features that show when an icon on the map has been moved a little (so that another item on the map can be viewed). App. Br. 4. The Appellants also cited to Han at column 5, lines 13-24, which describes the drawings, then argues that “the circles in Han that were assumed to be ‘navigation zones’ are not zones at all, and they do not pertain to navigation. Rather they are ‘cursor circles’ that describe the displacement of an icon on the screen.” App. Br. 4-5. In response, the Examiner explains that Clapper, and not Han, was relied upon to teach navigation zones. See Ans. 9. However, each independent claim recites “producing a local navigation zone and a global navigation zone based on the analyzed location signal, each navigation zone defining a geographic area concentrically radiating from a known geographic location.” App. Br. Claims Appendix (emphasis added). As such, Han’s display of concentric circles modifies the local and global navigation zones because the claim defines the local and global navigation zones as concentrically radiating. Since the Examiner found that Han teaches concentric radiating zones, it must follow that Han teaches concentrically radiating local and global navigation zones. The latter was not found by the Appeal 2011-004960 Application 11/138,985 5 Examiner. Instead the Examiner relied on the teachings of Clapper to evidence local and global navigation zones. Accordingly, the Examiner’s reasoning is logically flawed. Returning to the Examiner’s findings attributed to Clapper, the Examiner has found that the geographic zones are evidenced by the zones illustrated in Figures 3-6, “where zones are radiating along the road which is the known geographic location.” Ans. 4. However, although Figures 3, 5, and 6 illustrate cells V, W, X, Y, and Z, the Examiner has not identified which one corresponds to a local navigation zone or a global navigation zone. Hence, we are left to speculate how the combined teachings of Clapper and Han would have resulted in “producing a local navigation zone and a global navigation zone based on the analyzed location signal, each navigation zone defining a geographic area concentrically radiating from a known geographic location,” as recited in claims 1, 9, and 17. Thus, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 9, and 17 and their dependent claims as unpatentable over Clapper and Han is not sustained. DECISION We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-17. REVERSED Klh