Ex Parte Jones et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 10, 2017

13432042 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2017)

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.
GGL-127 4879
EXAMINER
BASOM, BLAINE T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/432,042 03/28/2012
100462 7590 08/10/2017
Dority & Manning P.A. and Google Inc.
Post Office Box 1449
Greenville, SC 29602
Jonah Jones
08/10/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JONAH JONES and BERNHARD SEEFELD
Appeal 2017-005319
Application 13/432,042
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC B. CHEN, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-005319
Application 13/432,042
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 14, 15, and 22. Claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 10-13, 16—21, and 23—
26 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to navigation of geographic imagery, in
which a user initiates a pan of the imagery and the motion of the imagery
pan can be controlled based on content displayed in a viewport, such that the
imagery pan is more likely to land near predominate features in the
viewport. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A computer-implemented method for navigating
imagery, comprising:
presenting, by one or more computing devices, a viewport in a
user interface of a computing device displaying at least a portion of
geographic imagery;
receiving, by one or more computing devices, a user input
initiating an imagery pan of the imagery displayed in the viewport at
an initial pan rate, the initial pan rate decreasing over time according
to a deceleration rate;
panning, by one or more computing devices, the imagery in the
viewport in response to the user input; and
adjusting, by one or more computing devices, the pan rate of
the imagery in the viewport during the imagery pan based at least in
part on content displayed in the viewport;
wherein the pan rate of the imagery is adjusted based on
one or more weights assigned to features displayed in the
viewport such that the one or more weights increase the
deceleration rate of the imagery pan in proportion to the one or
more weights assigned to features displayed in the viewport,
2
Appeal 2017-005319
Application 13/432,042
wherein the one or more weights assigned to features
displayed in the viewport are based at least in part on rankings
used to prioritize the features for display at varying zoom levels
of the imagery.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 14, 15, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Robinson et al. (US 2013/0155118 Al;
June 20, 2013), Watanabe et al. (US 6,285,347 Bl; Sept. 4, 2001) and Jones
et al. (US 2007/0143345 Al; June 21, 2007).
ANALYSIS
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 9—11; see
also Reply Br. 2—3) that the combination of Robinson, Watanabe, and Jones
would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the
limitation “wherein the pan rate of the imagery is adjusted based on one or
more weights . . . increase the deceleration rate of the imagery pan in
proportion to the one or more weights assigned to features displayed in the
viewport... at varying zoom levels of the imagery.”
The Examiner found that the heatmap of Robinson, which controls
scrolling speed or rate of change, corresponds to the limitation “wherein the
pan rate of the imagery is adjusted based on one or more weights . . .
increase the deceleration rate of the imagery pan in proportion to the one or
more weights assigned to features displayed in the viewport.” (Final Act. 4;
see also Ans. 3.) The Examiner also found that the digital map display of
Watanabe corresponds to the limitation “geographic imagery.” (Final
Act. 4; see also Ans. 4.) The Examiner further found that the ranking engine
of Jones, which ranks geospatial items based on several factors, including
altitude (i.e., zoom) corresponds to the limitation “at varying zoom levels of
3
Appeal 2017-005319
Application 13/432,042
the imagery.” (Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 4.) The Examiner concluded that
“[i]t would have been obvious ... to apply the method taught by Robinson
to geographic imagery (i.e. a digital map) [as] taught by Watanabe ....
because it is common to display and scroll geographic imagery, as is
suggested by Watanabe” (Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 4) and “[i]t would have
been obvious ... to modify the method taught by Robinson and Watanabe
. . . based at least in part on rankings [as] taught by Jones, which are used to
prioritize features for display at varying zoom levels of the imagery.” (Final
Act. 5; see also Ans. 4—5.) We agree with the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions.
Robinson relates to generating heatmaps, in particular, “to semantic
systems determining scrolling characteristics based on content annotation.”
(12.) Robinson explains that semantic heatmap module 135 computes
similarity between content information and target characteristics to generate
zone heats, which are compiled as a heatmap. (156.) Robinson further
explains that “[t]he heatmap may include heats for each paragraph of an e-
document and/or for zones of a picture” and “may be used, for example, to
determine a scrolling speed and/or a scrolling rate of change (e.g.,
acceleration/deceleration) of each paragraph and/or picture being displayed
on an electronic device.” (1 69.) Because Robinson explains that the
scrolling speed or rate of change depends upon the heat zones compiled in
the heatmap, Robinson teaches the limitation “wherein the pan rate of the
imagery is adjusted based on one or more weights . . . increase the
deceleration rate of the imagery pan in proportion to the one or more weights
assigned to features displayed in the viewport.”
4
Appeal 2017-005319
Application 13/432,042
Watanabe relates to a scrolling operation for a digital map display.
(Col. 1,11. 8—9.) In particular, Watanabe explains that “an amount by which
the pointer positioned at the displayed portion is shifted by the user is made
to correspond to a scrolling speed of the displayed portion of the digital map
at the display screen when the displayed portion of the digital map is to be
continuously scrolled within the display screen.” (Col. 1,1. 64 to col. 2,
1. 2.) Thus, Watanabe teaches the limitation “geographic imagery.”
Jones relates to mapping systems, in particular “techniques for
prioritizing geographical entities for placement on geographical displays.”
(13; see also 19.) In particular, Jones explains that “geospatial items or
entities to display on a map according to the relative importance of each
entity according to its rank” are based upon extrinsic factors (e.g., user
popularity) as well as intrinsic factors (e.g. altitude or “zoom level”). (121.)
Because Jones explains that geospatial items can be ranked based upon one
intrinsic factor being “zoom level,” Jones teaches the limitation “at varying
zoom levels of the imagery.”
The combination of Robinson and Watanabe is nothing more than
incorporating the known digital map display of Watanabe with the known
heatmap of Robinson for controlling scrolling speed or rate of change in an
e-document or picture, to yield predictable results. See KSR Int 7 Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.”). Moreover, a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating the prioritization
technique of Jones, for ranking geographic entities on a map, with the
heatmap of Robinson, as modified by Watanabe, would improve the system
5
Appeal 2017-005319
Application 13/432,042
of Robinson and Watanabe by providing the ability to display geographical
entities on a map based on relative importance. Id. at 417 (“[I]f a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art
would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way,
using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or
her skill.”). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been
obvious to combine Robinson, Watanabe, and Jones. (Final Act. 4—5.)
First, Appellants argue that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not
modify Robinson to implement the ranking feature taught by Jones because
Robinson fails to contemplate multiple zoom levels.” (App. Br. 9.)
However, the Examiner cited to Jones, rather than Robinson, for teaching
the limitation “at varying zoom levels of the imagery.” (Final Act. 5.) The
rejection of claim 1 is based on the combination of Robinson, Watanabe, and
Jones, and Appellants cannot show non-obviousness by attacking the
references individually. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
Moreover, Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with
claim 1 because the claim does not recite “multiple zoom levels.”
Second, Appellants argue that “one of ordinary skill in the art would
not modify Robinson to implement the ranking feature of Jones because it
would frustrate an intended purpose of Robinson.” (App. Br. 10.) In
particular, Appellants question “why would one of ordinary skill in the art
look to Jones for determining how to determine heats for a heat map when
the purpose of Robinson is to determine such weights based on ‘similarity
between the user goal concept and the user generated concept.’” {Id. at 10-
11.) Again, the Examiner cited to Jones, rather than Robinson, for teaching
the limitation “at varying zoom levels of the imagery.” (Final Act. 5.)
6
Appeal 2017-005319
Application 13/432,042
Last, Appellants argue that “the Office Action’s allegations of
obviousness are the product of improper hindsight analysis” because “the
Office Action views the cited art through the lens of the Appellants’] own
[Specification, and is divorced from what one of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood without the benefit of Appellants’] claimed
invention.” (App. Br. 11.) In particular, Appellants argue that “the
Examiner’s Answer does not provide any reasoning or motivation as to why
one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Robinson and Watanabe,
except that the combination can then implement Jones’s teachings” and “the
proposed combination is the product of improper hindsight analysis.”
(Reply Br. 2.) However, as discussed previously, the combination of
Robinson, Watanabe, and Jones is based on the combination of familiar
elements and on the improvement of a similar device in the same way as in
the prior art. (See Final Act. 4—5.) Thus, the Examiner has provided
sufficient articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning for
combining Robinson, Watanabe, and Jones to support a conclusion of
obviousness.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Robinson,
Watanabe, and Jones would have rendered obvious independent claim 1,
which includes the limitation “wherein the pan rate of the imagery is
adjusted based on one or more weights . . . increase the deceleration rate of
the imagery pan in proportion to the one or more weights assigned to
features displayed in the viewport... at varying zoom levels of the
imagery.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 4, 6, 7, 9, and 14 depend from claim 1, and
7
Appeal 2017-005319
Application 13/432,042
Appellants have not presented any additional substantive arguments with
respect to these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 4, 6, 7,
9, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the same reasons discussed with
respect to independent claim 1.
Independent claim 15 recites limitations similar to those discussed
with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not presented any
additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We sustain
the rejection of claim 15, as well as dependent claim 22, for the same
reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 14, 15, and 22
is affirmed.
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
8