Ex Parte Krause et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 18, 2012

11273659 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2012)

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. 11/273,659 11/14/2005 Kevin R. Krause GP-307090 (2760/268) 4406 74829 7590 10/19/2012 Julia Church Dierker Dierker & Associates, P.C. 3331 W. Big Beaver Road Suite 109 Troy, MI 48084-2813 EXAMINER SAMPLE, JONATHAN L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3664 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/19/2012 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 KEVIN R. KRAUSE and WILLIAM E. ITALIA ____________ Appeal 2010-007152 Application 11/273,659 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JAMES P. CALVE, and SCOTT A. DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judges. STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-007152 Application 11/273,659 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Kevin R. Krause and William E. Italia (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) claims 1-23 as anticipated by Agnew (US 6,950,745 B2, issued Sep. 27, 2005). We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6. THE INVENTION Appellants’ invention relates to a system and method for providing a navigation route to a mobile vehicle including receiving navigation route information (e.g., local and destination information) at a call center, determining an off-route condition or wireless conditions, based on the navigation route, and transmitting a message to the vehicle including information based upon the off-route condition or the wireless conditions associated with the navigation route. Spec. 26, paras. [000114]-[000117] and fig. 11. Claims 1, 10, and 19 are representative of the claimed invention and read as follows: 1. A method of providing a navigation route to a mobile vehicle, the method comprising: determining, at a call center, a navigation route based on information included in a navigation route request; determining, at the call center, at least one of i) an off-route condition, or ii) a wireless connection condition associated with the navigation route; transmitting the navigation route from the call center to a telematics unit in the mobile vehicle; and transmitting a data packet from the call center to the telematics unit, the data packet including at least one of i) the off-route condition, or ii) the wireless connection condition associated with the navigation route. Appeal 2010-007152 Application 11/273,659 3 10. A computer usable medium comprising computer readable program code for providing a navigation route to a mobile vehicle, the medium comprising: computer readable program code for determining, at a call center, a navigation route based on information included in a navigation route request; computer readable program code for determining, at the call center, at least one of i) an off-route condition, or ii) a wireless connection condition associated with the navigation route; computer readable program code for transmitting the navigation route from the call center to a telematics unit in the mobile vehicle; and computer readable code for transmitting a data packet, from the call center to the telematics unit, the data packet including the at least one of i) the off-route condition, or ii) the wireless connection condition associated with the navigation route. 19. A system for providing a navigation route to a mobile vehicle, the system comprising: means for determining, at a call center, a navigation route based on information included in a navigation route request, means for determining, at the call center, at least one of i) an off-route condition, or ii) a wireless connection condition associated with the navigation route; means for transmitting the navigation route from the call center to a telematics unit in the mobile vehicle; and means for transmitting a data packet, from the call center to the telematics unit, the data packet including the at least one of i) the off-route condition, or ii) the wireless connection condition associated with the navigation route. Appeal 2010-007152 Application 11/273,659 4 SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 requires inter alia, determining and transmitting to the user “at least one of i) an off-route condition, or ii) a wireless connection condition associated with the navigation route.” Similarly, claims 10 and 19 require a computer readable program code and respectively, a means for determining and transmitting to the user “at least one of i) an off-route condition, or ii) a wireless connection condition associated with the navigation route.” App. Br., Claims Appendix. Pointing to various portions of Agnew (col. 2, ll. 61-65; col. 3, l. 56- col. 4, l. 7; col. 4, ll. 25-65; col. 8, ll. 11-17 and 45-67; col. 10, ll. 5-35), the Examiner found that Agnew teaches a process (as per claim 1) and a device (as per claims 10 and 19) for determining and transmitting to the user “at least one of i) an off-route condition, or ii) a wireless connection condition associated with the navigation route.” Ans. 3-4. In response, Appellants argue that in Agnew the navigation route itself is transmitted to the user and not an off-route condition and/or a wireless connection condition, as called for by each of independent claims 1, 10, and 19. App. Br. 12. We agree. In a first instance, we note that we could not find any portion of Agnew and the Examiner has not pointed to any portion (see Ans. 3-4) that Appeal 2010-007152 Application 11/273,659 5 teaches a wireless connection condition1 associated with the navigation route. Agnew teaches a navigation guidance system that provides a user with a calculated navigation route by using time-related models for traffic speeds expected on the calculated route. Agnew, Abstract. See also, App. Br. 11. Although we appreciate that the system of Agnew can alter the calculated navigation route if “a previously calculated route becomes congested or if the user deviates from the calculated route,” we do not find that real-time deviation from a calculated (navigation) route constitutes an off-route condition, as called for by each of independent claims 1, 10, and 19. See Agnew, col. 8, ll. 11-17. Appellants’ Specification describes an off-route condition as “a variety of route maneuvers . . . along a determined [calculated] route where it is possible for the user to navigate the vehicle off-route, such as intersecting roads, paths, turn-offs, and the like.” Spec. 13, paras. [00046] and [00050]. For example, in Appellants’ Figure 9, calculated navigation route 930 includes no wireless connection condition 950 and off-route condition 960. See also, Spec., para. [000108]. Hence, in contrast to Agnew where an alternate route is calculated and transmitted to the user for use as the new route in response to congestion on, or a user’s deviation from, the calculated (navigation) route, an off-route condition, as called for by each of independent claims 1, 10, and 19, is determined and transmitted to the user for use in conjunction with the calculated route. In other words, Agnew’s 1 Appellants’ Specification describes wireless connection conditions as including “both active and inactive wireless connection information.” Spec., para. [0058]. Appeal 2010-007152 Application 11/273,659 6 alternate route constitutes a real-time correction of a calculated (navigation) route to create a new navigation route and not an off-route condition “where it is possible for the user to navigate the vehicle off-route” (see Spec. 13, para. [00046]) and then return to the planned route (see Spec. 15, paras. [0051-0052] and Spec. 25, para. [00108]).2 Thus, we agree with Appellants that Agnew fails to teach a process (as per claim 1) and a device (as per claims 10 and 19) for determining and transmitting to the user “at least one of i) an off-route condition, or ii) a wireless connection condition associated with the navigation route.” For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 19 and their respective dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Agnew cannot be sustained. SUMMARY The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-23 is reversed. REVERSED Klh 2 Agnew discloses that a traffic database with information regarding school holidays, annual events, and factors that may affect road are used to speed up the route calculation process, but this information is used by the route calculation unit 47 and is not sent to a driver with the calculated route. See Agnew, col. 4, ll. 25-35.