Ex Parte Kishikawa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 14, 2017

13609199 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 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.
13/609,199 09/10/2012 Kiyonari KISHIKAWA GEK1P004 1732
58766 7590 12/18/2017
Rover T aw Omim T T P
EXAMINER
P.O.Box 51887
Palo Alto, CA 94303-1887
YOON, SAE WON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2614
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/18/2017 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):
U S PTOmail @ beyerlaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KIYONARI KISHIKAWA ET AL.
Appeal 2016-006434
Application 13/609,199
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, CARL L. SILVERMAN and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1—11, which are all of the pending claims. Claims 12—14 have
been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2016-006434
Application 13/609,199
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the claimed invention relates to “a three-
dimensional map drawing system of drawing a three-dimensional map that
expresses features three-dimensionally” (Spec. 12).
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A three-dimensional map drawing system configured to draw a three-
dimensional map that expresses features three-dimensionally, the features
including roads and buildings, the system comprising:
a feature database that stores feature data which is two-dimensional
drawing data for an entire area of the three-dimensional map, the two-
dimensional drawing data having been obtained by parallel projection of a
three-dimensional model of the features in a three-dimensional map
database, projected on a plane along parallel projection lines in an oblique
direction, the oblique direction being inclined from a vertical direction by a
predetermined projection angle;
a drawing range input section configured to specify a drawing range for
which the three-dimensional map is to be drawn; and
a drawing section configured to read from the feature database the two-
dimensional drawing data corresponding to the specified drawing range, and
draw and display a three-dimensional view of the feature from the read two-
dimensional drawing data without projection processes.
C. REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Okude et al (US 6,324,469; issued Nov. 27, 2001),
Katooka et al. (US 2009/0122059; published May 14, 2009), and Scherer et
al. (US 2007/0063997; published Mar. 22, 2007).
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Okude, Katooka, Scherer, and Ritter (US 6,628,278; issued Sept. 30,
2003).
2
Appeal 2016-006434
Application 13/609,199
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Okude, Katooka, Scherer, and Flake et al. (US 2009/0289937;
published Nov. 26, 2009).
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Okude, Katooka, Scherer, Nowak et al. (US 2011/0109618;
published May 12, 2011), and Chou (“Horizon Occlusion Culling for 3D
Navigation”).
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Okude, Katooka, Scherer, and Matsumo et al. (US 2008/0249703;
published Oct. 9, 2008).
II. ISSUES
The principal issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Okude and Katooka (and Scherer), teaches or
suggests:
1) a feature “database” that “stores . . . two-dimensional drawing data
for an entire area of the three-dimensional map,” the data having been
“obtained by parallel projection of a three-dimensional model of the
features” and “projected on a plane along parallel projection lines in an
oblique direction” that is “inclined from a vertical direction;” and
2) a “drawing section configured to read from the feature database the
two-dimensional drawing data” and “draw and display a three-dimensional
view” (claim 1, emphasis added).
3
Appeal 2016-006434
Application 13/609,199
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Okude
I. Okude is directed to a three-dimensional map display method for
displaying roads and buildings as three-dimensional images in a perspective
map viewed in a designated angle with respect to the ground surface (col. 1,
II. 6—12), wherein Figure 4 is reproduced below:
FIG, 4
Figure 4 shows an example of displaying a three-dimensional map so
developed that a part of the map information containing building and roads
to be displayed are viewable from a designated view point (col. 6,1. 66 to
col. 7,1. 4). In Figure 4, component 401 is a three-dimensional structure
obtained by generating the three-dimensional data of the structure obtained
from two-dimensional data (bottom face data) of the building and residential
houses and the height of the structure, both read from the map data base 3,
and developing the graphical image to be displayed (col. 7,11. 5—12). The
three-dimensional structure 401 is decomposed into plural units in the map
4
Appeal 2016-006434
Application 13/609,199
data base 3 and its data are stored unit by unit, wherein the decomposed
units are then subsequently joined together continuously to display the three-
dimensional structure 40 as a single body (col. 7,11. 21—28). The map data
are managed as a set of standard area meshes defined as units obtained by
dividing the area with designated intervals for the latitude and longitude
(col. 7,11. 32—36), wherein a coordinate of vertices stores X and Y
coordinates normalized within the mesh (col. 8,11. 9—12).
2. Fig. 9 is reproduced below:
Figure 9 shows bottom face data of a structure 700 (col. 9,11. 37—38).
As shown in Figure 9, the structure 700 is decomposed by the mesh
boundaries 701 and 702, and its data are stored in the map data base 3 (col.
9,11. 3 8—41).
3. Figure 11 is reproduced below:
5
Appeal 2016-006434
Application 13/609,199
FIG. 11
Figure 11 shows the construction of three-dimensional shape data
developed into a shape viewed from a designated view point and drawn (col.
10,11. 17—19). As shown in Figure 11, data of the side wall A 1001 are
stored and data of the side wall B 1102 are read, and then side wall 1103
before decomposition is reconstructed from side walls A and B, and textures
are then mapped on the reconstructed side wall 1003 (col. 10,11. 29-37).
Katooka
4. Katooka discloses a part identification image generation device which
comprises a calculation unit that projects the shape of a 3D model part and
computes part region information, and an image data processing unit that
clips an image of the 3D model from the projection image to generate an
entire model image (Abst.). Figure 4 is reproduced below:
6
Appeal 2016-006434
Application 13/609,199
FIG.4
\ .........................A................... ■■■•*■ A'
Figure 4 shows a 3D model projected on the projection plane (f 46).
As shown in Figure 4, the projection plane is represented by an X-Y
rectangular coordinate system (f 49), wherein all points defining the shape
of the 3D model are projected onto the projection plane, and the X and Y
coordinates of the points are then calculated (f 50).
IV. ANALYSIS
Appellants concede “Okude may be ‘capable of displaying three-
dimensional display of all areas that is involved in navigation according to
user destination’ and may ‘also include[] map data of all possible areas . . .”
(App. Br. 14). However, Appellants’ contend “Okude’s ‘map data of all
possible areas is that of the three-dimensional map data,” and “not the
claimed two-dimensional drawing data already-projected and stored in the
feature database” (id. 15). Thus, Appellants contend Okude “fails to teach
or suggest storing the two-dimensional drawing data for an entire area of the
three-dimensional map” (id.).
7
Appeal 2016-006434
Application 13/609,199
Appellants also concede Katooka “projects a shape of the 3D model
onto a projection plane in a direction specified by a viewpoint information
item, so as to generate a 2D projection image of the 3D model” (id.),
wherein “the projection direction (the line-of-sight) with respect to the 3D
model may be changed by the user” (id. 18). However, Appellants contend
“the projection direction (direction of the projection lines) is kept vertical to
the projection plane” wherein “Katooka does not mention any direction of
the projection lines with respect to the projection plane other than the right
angle” (id.).
Appellants then contend that it is not obvious to combine Katooka’s
teaching with Okude because “Katooka is not capable of displaying 2D
images ‘according to a specified view point’” (id. 19, emphasis omitted).
Although Appellants concede “Katooka designates the line[sic]-of sight
vector (‘view point’ or the projection direction) when the two-dimensional
data (2D projection image) is generated from the three-dimensional model,”
Appellants contend “when the stored 2D projection image is read and
displayed without projection process, Katooka’s part catalog image display
process . . . lacks any specification or designation of a viewpoint or
direction by the user” (id. 20). Thus, according to Appellants, “[e]ven[sic] if
Okude and Katooka were somehow combinable, the alleged combination
will not work as Okude intended, since Katooka’s ‘viewpoint’ does not
correspond to Okude’s ‘viewpoint’ and thus would not work in Okude’s
system” (id. 21, emphasis omitted).
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and evidence
presented. However, we find no error with the Examiner’s initial factual
8
Appeal 2016-006434
Application 13/609,199
findings, or the Examiner’s ultimate conclusion that claim 1 would have
been obvious over Okude, Katooka, and Scherer.
As a preliminary matter of claim construction, we give the claims
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification.
See In re Morris, 111 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). While we interpret
claims broadly but reasonably in light of the Specification, we nonetheless
must not import limitations from the Specification into the claims. See In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Although Appellants contend that Katooka’s preparation of a 3D
model differs from the claimed invention because Katooka “projects a shape
of the 3D model onto a projection plane” wherein “the projection direction
(direction of the projection lines) is kept vertical to the projection plane”
(App. Br. 15, 18), we note such contention is not commensurate with the
language of the claims. In particular, claim 1 does not recite any projecting
step but rather merely recites a “database” that “stores feature data . . .
obtained by parallel projection” (claim 1, emphasis added). That is,
“parallel projection” is merely descriptive of the feature “data” stored in the
claimed “database” because it merely describes how the data is obtained.1
1 We also note that by arguing that Katooka’s stored data differs from the
claimed feature data (App. Br. 15), Appellants are contending the data stored
by the claimed database differs from data stored in Katooka. However, a
question arises as to whether Appellants’ contention urging patentability is
predicated on non-functional descriptive material (i.e., the type or content of
the stored data). Here, the data is stored, but the particular content of the
data stored (“obtained by parallel projection”) is not positively recited as
actually being used to change or affect the manner in which the data is
stored. Moreover, the informational content of the data is not positively
recited as actually being used to change or affect any machine or computer
9
Appeal 2016-006434
Application 13/609,199
Furthermore, in claim 1, the data is obtained by projecting the three-
dimensional model on a plane “along parallel projection lines in an oblique
direction” wherein the “oblique direction” is “inclined from a vertical
direction by a predetermined projection angle” (id.). Although Appellants
contend that Katooka’s “projection direction (direction of the projection
lines)” is kept “vertical to the projection plane” (App. Br. 18), we note that
nothing in claim 1 precludes projection lines “vertical to the projection
plane” as long as the projection line is in “an oblique direction” with respect
to any plane and is “inclined from a vertical direction” (claim 1, emphasis
added). We agree with the Examiner that the claim merely states that the
“oblique” direction is “inclined from a vertical direction by a predetermined
projection angle without limiting it to a specific direction (for example,
vertical according to ‘y’ axis or ‘x’ axis),” and thus “the oblique direction
being inclined from a vertical direction by certain angle is also broadly
recited” (Ans. 36). Here, we agree with the Examiner that “broadest
reasonable interpretation of the current claim language does not have to
function, within the broad scope of claim 1. The PTAB has provided
guidance in decisions on the appropriate handling of claims that differ from
the prior art only based on “non-functional descriptive material.” See Ex
parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1889 (BPAI2008) (precedential) (“[T]he
nature of the information being manipulated does not lend patentability to an
otherwise unpatentable computer-implemented product or process.”); In re
Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579,
1583—84 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276,
1279 (BPAI 2005) (informative) (“[Nonfunctional descriptive material
cannot lend patentability to an invention that would have otherwise been
anticipated by the prior art.”), aff’d, 191 Fed. App’x 959 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(Rule 36) (“Nonfunctional descriptive material cannot render nonobvious an
invention that would have otherwise been obvious.”), aff d, No. 06-1003
(Fed. Cir. June 12, 2006) (Rule 36).
10
Appeal 2016-006434
Application 13/609,199
involve the projection lines that are inclined from the vertical direction to the
(projection) plane by a predetermined projection angle as argued by the
Appellants” (id.).
We find no error with the Examiner’s reliance on the combination of
Okude and Katooka to teach and suggest the contested limitations.
Here, we agree with the Examiner’s reliance on Okuda for teaching
and suggesting a “database” that stores “two-dimensional drawing data for
an entire area of the three-dimensional map,” and a “drawing section
configured to read from the feature database the two-dimensional drawing
data” and “draw and display a three-dimensional view” (claim 1). As the
Examiner finds, Okude’s “component 401” is “a three-dimensional structure
obtained by generating the three-dimensional data of the structure obtained
from the two-dimensional data (bottom face data) of the buildings and
residential houses and the height of the structure” wherein “both Tare] read
from the map data base 3, and developing the graphical image to be
displayed” (Ans. 30-31, citing Okude col. 6,1. 50 to col. 7 1. 12; FF 1—3).
Even Appellants concede “Okude may be ‘capable of displaying three-
dimensional display of all areas that is involved in navigation according to
user destination’ and may ‘also include[] map data of all possible areas...”
(App. Br. 14).
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ contention that Okude’s “map
data of all possible areas” is “that of the three-dimensional map data” and
“not the claimed two-dimensional drawing data” projected and stored in the
feature database (id. 15). In particular, as the Examiner points out, Okude
obtains a three-dimensional structure by generating data obtained from two-
dimensional data (bottom face data) of the building and residential houses
11
Appeal 2016-006434
Application 13/609,199
and the height of the structure from the map database 3 (Ans. 30-31; FF 1—
2). In Okude, two-dimensional data such as bottom face data for the
designated area is decomposed by the mesh boundaries (FF 2), and its data
such as the X and Y coordinates normalized within the mesh (i.e., two-
dimensional data) are stored in the map database (FF 1). Additionally,
stored two-dimensional data such as data of the side walls are read, and the
structures for the designated area are then reconstructed based on the stored
data (FF 3)
Furthermore, as the Examiner points out, “one cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are
based on combinations of references” (Ans. 30, citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413 (CCPA 1981) and In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
Even Appellants concede “Katooka designates the line[sic]-of sight vector
(‘view point’ or the projection direction) when the two-dimensional data (2D
projection image) is generated from the three-dimensional model,” wherein
“the stored 2D projection image [can be] read and displayed without
projection process” (App. Br. 20). Here, we find no error with the
Examiner’s reliance on the Katooka for teaching and suggesting stored data
having been “obtained by parallel projection of a three-dimensional model
of the features” an “projected on a plane along parallel projection lines in an
oblique direction” that is “inclined from a vertical direction” for drawing
and displaying a three-dimensional view (claim 1).
As Appellants concede, Katooka “projects a shape of the 3D model
onto a projection plane in a direction specified by a viewpoint information
item, so as to generate a 2D projection image of the 3D model” (App. Br.
15) wherein “the projection direction (the line-of-sight) with respect to the
12
Appeal 2016-006434
Application 13/609,199
3D model may be changed by the user” {id. 18). We agree with the
Examiner that “Katooka does not limit its projection direction only to
examples shown in Figure[s] 3 and 4 by teaching that user can provide
viewpoint information through user operations” which include “direction
that is for example, about 45 degree[s] upward with respect to ‘x’ axis
(ground level for example)” {id. 37—38). Further, given the term “oblique
direction” its broadest reasonable interpretation as discussed above, we find
that Katooka’s Figure 4 teaches or at least suggests parallel projection lines
projected onto a plane in an oblique direction (FF 4). That is, as shown in
Figure 4, all points defining the shape of the 3D model form the vertices of
an inclined angle between the model and the projection lines {id.).
On the record before us, we find no error with the Examiner’s reliance
on the combination of Okude and Katooka for teaching and suggesting the
contested limitations.
Although Appellants contend that it is not obvious to combine
Katooka’s teaching with Okude because “Katooka is not capable of
displaying 2D images ‘according to a specified view point’” wherein
“Katooka’s ‘viewpoint’ does not correspond to Okude’s ‘viewpoint’ and
thus would not work in Okude’s system” (App. Br. 19-21, emphasis
omitted), Appellants appear to view the combination from a different
perspective than that of the Examiner. The question here is whether one of
ordinary skill in the art, upon reading Katooka’s teaching and suggestion of
storing data obtained by parallel projection, would have found it obvious to
modify Okude’s map drawing system for drawing and displaying a three-
dimensional view from stored two-dimensional data, to include two-
13
Appeal 2016-006434
Application 13/609,199
dimensional data obtained by parallel projection in its stored data, as
claimed.
The Supreme Court has determined the conclusion of obviousness can
be based on the interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of
demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace, and
the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in
the art. KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The skilled
artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421.
Here, we find such combination is no more than a simple arrangement of old
elements, with each performing the same function it had been known to
perform, yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Id. at 417.
On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
over Okude, Katooka, and Scherer. Appellants do not provide substantive
arguments for claims 1,9, and 10 other than repeating the claim language
and the arguments sets forth in claim 1 (App. Br. 27—30). Accordingly these
claims as well as claims 4 and 11, not argued separately, fall with claim 1
over Okude, Katooka and Scherer.
Appellants do not provide substantive arguments for claims 2, 3, 5, 6,
and 8 separate from claim 1 (App. Br. 30). Accordingly, we also affirm the
rejections of claim 2 over Okude, Katooka, Scherer, and Ritter; claim 3 over
Okude, Katooka, Scherer, and Flake; claims 5 and 6 over Okude, Katooka,
Scherer, Nowak and Chou; and claim 8 over Okude, Katooka, Scherer, and
Matsumo.
14
Appeal 2016-006434
Application 13/609,199
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
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
15