Ex Parte Ignatin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2012

11013650 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte GARY IGNATIN
____________________

Appeal 2010-008804
Application 11/013,650
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: KEN B. BARRETT, BRETT C. MARTIN, and MICHELLE R.
OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.

MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008804
Application 11/013,650
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Gary Ignatin (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed generally to estimation of roadway
travel information based on historical travel data. Claims 1 and 2,
reproduced below (with emphasis added), are illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A system that estimates travel conditions along a desired
route on a desired future date, the system comprising:
a communication network;
an automobile navigation system communicatively
coupled to the communication network, the automobile
navigation system specifies future travel information for travel
along the desired route on the desired future date; and
a processor communicatively coupled to the
communication network, the processor estimating travel
conditions associated with the desired route on the desired
future date, and the processor performing said estimation by
correlating the future travel information for the desired future
date with historical travel information, and wherein said
correlating is further based on at least a correlation of current
traffic information and current weather information.

2. A system that processes vehicular information, the
system comprising:
a communication network;
a mobile device communicatively coupled to the
communication network; and
Appeal 2010-008804
Application 11/013,650
3
a processor communicatively coupled to the
communication network, the processor estimating a first set of
travel information associated with the mobile device,
and the processor performing said estimation by
correlating a second set of travel information with historical
travel information associated with one or more past date, and
wherein said correlating is further based on at least a correlation
of current traffic information and current weather information.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Sroub
DeLorme
US 2003/0135304 A1
US 2003/0182052 A1
Jul. 17, 2003
Sep. 25, 2003

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-18 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Sroub. App. Br. 5.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sroub and DeLorme. App. Br. 5.

ANALYSIS
Although Appellant groups claims 1, 2, and 16 and initially argues
them together in subsection A1 of the Brief, Appellant provides two sections
(A2, A3) of argument that deal only with issues pertaining to claim 1. As
such, we will treat claim 1 as argued separately from claims 2 and 16.
Rejection of Claim 1 as Anticipated by Sroub
Appellant and Examiner each provide extensive argument as to
whether the disclosure in Sroub amounts to the claimed estimation of “travel
conditions along a desired route on a desired future date” as claimed in claim
Appeal 2010-008804
Application 11/013,650
4
1. See App. Br. 6-21, Rep. Br. 4-8. The Examiner’s basis for asserting that
Sroub teaches this element essentially amounts to the fact that Sroub teaches
that “the invention can be used for ‘…computing an initial route and/or
schedule for a trip…’” and that this “scheduling impl[ies] a future time and
date of a sequence of events.” Ans. 6-7. The Examiner maintains that
“Sroub might not explicitly detail the exact terms as embodied in the
rejected claims” but that Sroub’s reference to scheduling “is implicitly
anticipating that which is claimed.” Id.
As Appellant points out and we agree, “there is no disclosure in Sroub
that ‘scheduling’ refers to a future travel date.” App. Br. 20 (emphasis
omitted). Appellant goes on to state, “‘scheduling’ is performed with
regard to a specific delivery time for the current date … therefore, the
‘scheduling[’] functionality must relate to a current day of travel (using
the real-time information) so that a specific delivery time is achieved.”
App. Br. 21. Within the context of Sroub, the scheduling disclosed therein is
not for a future date either explicitly or implicitly. It may be in the future,
but Sroub’s disclosure is insufficient to support a finding that the scheduling
is for a future date as recited in claim 1 by a preponderance of the evidence.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Rejection of clams 2-17 and 20 as Anticipated by Sroub
As noted above, Appellant initially groups independent claims 2 and
16 with claim 1. App. Br. 7. The majority of Appellant’s arguments with
respect to these claims relate to the “future date” element discussed above
with respect to claim 1. Claims 2 and 16, however, do not contain this
limitation or any similar limitation such that the “future date” arguments
would apply.
Appeal 2010-008804
Application 11/013,650
5
Specifically with regard to claims 2 and 16, Appellant states that these
claims “recite correlation of current traffic information and current
weather information, which is similar to the corresponding recitation in
claim 1” and so “claims 2 and 16 are also allowable over the references …
at least for the reasons stated above with regard to claim 1.” App. Br. 10. As
an initial matter, we disagree that these limitations in claims 2 and 16
implicate the same deficiency in Sroub regarding scheduling and the “future
date” issue. While we find Appellant’s argument with regard to the future
date persuasive with respect to claim 1, it is not persuasive with respect to
claims 2 and 16 because claims 2 and 16 do not recite a “future date”
limitation. As to the limitation above that does appear in claims 2 and 16,
when divorced from the future date issue of claim 1, we agree with the
Examiner that Sroub discloses “that a scheduled trip can correlate current
(and past) traffic and weather information for rerouting and rescheduling
purposes” for the reasons stated by the Examiner. Ans. 11. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 16.
Appellant makes no argument with regard to dependent claims 3-15,
17, and 20, which variously depend from claims 2 and 16, separate from that
with regard to claims 1, 2, and 16, and specifically states that they should be
allowable “at least for the reasons stated above with regard to claim 1.”
App. Br. 22. Because we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive with
respect to claims 2 and 16, we also sustain the rejection of claims 3-15, 17,
and 20.

Appeal 2010-008804
Application 11/013,650
6
Rejection of Claim 18 as Anticipated by Sroub
Appellant does make an argument with respect to claim 18 that
“Sroub does not disclose or suggest at least the limitation of ‘wherein the
estimate of requested travel information comprises a weather conditions
estimate.’” App. Br. 22. As the Examiner points out:
The information can provide updated routing
information, for example. The remote processing system can be
connected to traffic monitoring systems for real-time traffic
updates, and/or the updates can be entered manually. Manual
updates may be provided by, for example, keyboard entry,
mouse designation from a system of menus, voice recognition
software, and the like. For example, scheduled road
construction, sporting events, school zone operations,
forecasted inclement weather conditions, and the like can be
manually entered into the database (para[.] 0037).
Ans. 15. Accordingly, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that “the estimate
of the requested travel information provided includes both forecasted and
current weather conditions.” Id. As such, we do not find Appellant’s
arguments on this point persuasive and sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 18.
Rejection of Claim 19 as Obvious over Sroub and DeLorme
Appellant makes no argument with respect to claim 19 separate from
those with respect to claim 16. Because we sustain the rejection of claim 16,
we also sustain the rejection of claim 19.

DECISION
For the above reasons, we REVERSE Examiner’s decision to reject
claim 1 and we AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2-20.

Appeal 2010-008804
Application 11/013,650
7
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

hh