Ex Parte Kunath et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 11, 2017

14022856 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 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.
14/022,856 09/10/2013 Peter Kunath HRMN/0073US 1049
(P13040US)
98031 7590 08/15/2017
Artegis Law Group, LLP - Harman
7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104
Houston, TX 77095
EXAMINER
CHOI, YUK TING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2153
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/15/2017 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):
kcruz @ artegislaw.com
algdocketing @ artegislaw. com
rsmith @ artegislaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER KUNATH, JUERGEN WELSCHER,
VIKTOR SAMOKHIN, and ANDREAS PRINZ
Appeal 2017-005301
Application 14/022,856
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC B. CHEN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and IRVIN E. BRANCH,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-005301
Application 14/022,856
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1—3, 5—17, and 20. Claims 4, 18, and 19 have been indicated to be
allowable if rewritten in independent form. (Final Act. 22.) We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to updating a navigation device (14),
such that a difference file is transferred to the navigation device (Abstract).
The difference file indicates a difference between a second relational
database and a first relational database. (Id. )
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method of updating a database of a navigation
device, the method comprising:
receiving a difference file at the navigation device over a
wireless interface, the difference file indicating differences
between multiple database pages of a second relational
database and multiple database pages of a first relational
database, the differences between the multiple database pages
being combined into the difference file, the navigation device
storing a first compressed database version of the first relational
database;
restoring, by the navigation device, the database pages of
the second relational database from the first compressed
database version and the difference file, where the restoring is
performed on a page level and comprises:
reading and uncompressing a database page from
the first compressed database version;
modifying the uncompressed database page in
accordance with the difference file to restore a database
page of the second relational database;
2
Appeal 2017-005301
Application 14/022,856
compressing and appending the restored database
page of the second relational database to a target
database; and
allowing the restoring process to be interrupted
conditionally dependent upon whether an integer number
of database pages has been restored and
appended to the target database.
Claims 1—3, 5—7, 9—11, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ashby (US 7,082,443 Bl; July 25, 2006),
Richter (US 2012/0036150 Al; Feb. 9, 2012), and Baek (US 2006/0200500
Al; Sept. 7, 2006).
Claims 14—17 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ashby and Richter.
Claims 8 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ashby, Richter, Baek, and Nagai (US 2012/0124571 Al;
May 17, 2012).1
ANALYSIS
§103 Rejections—Ashby, Richter, and Baek
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 11—12; see
also Reply Br. 3) that the combination of Ashby, Richter, and Baek would
not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the
limitation “the difference file indicating differences between multiple
database pages of a second relational database and multiple database pages
1 Appellants do not present any substantive arguments with respect to the
rejections of claims 8 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Thus, any such
arguments are deemed to be waived.
3
Appeal 2017-005301
Application 14/022,856
of a first relational database, the differences between the multiple database
pages being combined into the difference file.”
The Examiner found that the compiler of Ashby, which forms updated
parcels for each baseline parcel by applying incremental updates based on
new geographic data, corresponds to the limitation “the difference file
indicating differences between multiple database pages of a second
relational database and multiple database pages of a first relational database,
the differences between the multiple database pages being combined into the
difference file.” (Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 5—6.) We agree with the
Examiner’s findings.
Ashby relates to “updating geographic databases used by computing
platforms that provide navigation-related features or services.” (Col. 1,
11. 7—9.) In particular, Ashby explains that an original version of a
geographic database, in which data is organized by parcels, is updated by
“[incremental update transactions are formed that identify the differences
between the parcels of data contained in the updated version of the
geographic database relative to the parcels in the original version.”
(Abstract.) Figure 8 of Ashby illustrates a method for updating geographic
databases 110 (col. 9,11. 57—59), such that “[a]t a later time (i.e., t=0+n), a
second process 310 updates the original versions of compiled geographic
databases 110 by forming, distributing, and applying incremental update
transactions 318 to the original versions of compiled geographic
databases 110 to form updated, compiled geographic databases 320” (col. 9,
1. 67 to col. 10,1. 5). Ashby further explains that for an “Updating Process,”
the compiler “groups[] data in each updated parcel that represent the same
features that were represented by data in a corresponding baseline parcel.”
4
Appeal 2017-005301
Application 14/022,856
(Col. 12,11. 39-41; see also Abstract.) Because Ashby explains that original
versions of geographic databases are updated at a later time (col. 9,1. 67 to
col. 10,1. 5) and such updates are grouped by feature on the original baseline
parcel (col. 12,11. 39-41), Ashby teaches the limitation “the difference file
indicating differences between multiple database pages of a second
relational database and multiple database pages of a first relational database,
the differences between the multiple database pages being combined into the
difference file.”
Appellants argue that “updated parcel does not identify differences in
Ashby, but rather the incremental update transaction identifies differences
between an updated parcel and a corresponding original parcel” and “this
grouping of updated parcels is not a grouping of differences (it is not a
grouping of incremental update transactions), but is simply a grouping of
updated parcels based on geographic features.” (App. Br. 12 (emphases
omitted).) Accordingly, Appellants argue, “these groupings of updated
parcels in Ashby cannot be equated to a difference file which indicates
differences between multiple database pages.” {Id.) However, as discussed
previously, the limitation “difference file” encompasses the original versions
of geographic databases of Ashby, which are incrementally updated at a later
time and grouped by feature. Moreover, Appellants have not pointed to any
special definition of “difference file” from the Specification that would
require a different interpretation.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Ashby,
Richter, and Baek would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation “the difference file indicating differences between
multiple database pages of a second relational database and multiple
5
Appeal 2017-005301
Application 14/022,856
database pages of a first relational database, the differences between the
multiple database pages being combined into the difference file.”
We are further unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 15;
see also Reply Br. 5—6) that the combination of Ashby, Richter, and Baek
would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the
limitation “allowing the restoring process to be interrupted conditionally
dependent upon whether an integer number of database pages has been
restored.”
The Examiner found that the database recovery process of Baek, in
which database recover after abnormal termination is dependent upon a
serial number comparison, corresponds to the limitation “allowing the
restoring process to be interrupted conditionally dependent upon whether an
integer number of database pages has been restored.” (Final Act. 7—8; see
also Ans. 7—8.) We agree with the Examiner’s findings.
Baek relates to “recovering a database that can be applied to a mobile
communication terminal.” (Abstract.) In particular, Baek explains that
recovering a database includes “assigning sequential serial numbers to the
original images of the pages before change,” such that in the event of an
abnormal termination, the recovery includes “confirming whether or not the
serial number of the last page in the database recovery area matches the total
number of pages stored in the database recovery area.” (117.) Furthermore,
Baek explains that after rebooting, “the read total number of pages stored in
the database recovery area with the serial number of the last page” are
compared, and “if the two compared values are identical, with the original
image of the page before modification stored in the database recovery area,
recovering the corresponding page in the database storage area,” but “if the
6
Appeal 2017-005301
Application 14/022,856
two values are different, deleting all pages stored in the database recovery
area.” (118.) Because the database recovery of Baek is dependent upon the
comparison of values, Baek teaches the limitation “allowing the restoring
process to be interrupted conditionally dependent upon whether an integer
number of database pages has been restored.”
Appellants argue that the “cited portion of Baek is not relevant to the
above limitations of independent claims 1 and 9, which relate to when the
restoring process can be conditionally interrupted and which do not relate to
continuing the restoring process after the restoring process is interrupted”
and “nowhere in Baek are the actual conditions under which the update
process may be abnormally terminated discussed.” (App. Br. 15.) However,
Appellants merely provide a conclusory statement that Baek does not teach
the limitation of claim 1 without pointing out with particularity how the
claim is distinguishable over Baek.
Appellants further argue that “in Baek, based on whether the two page
values match, either a recovery process or a deletion process is performed”
and “in Baek the recovery process and the deletion process are never
performed together” and thus, “the deletion process disclosed in Baek cannot
be properly interpreted as something that interrupts the disclosed recovery
process — again, the disclosed deletion process is never performed in
conjunction with the disclosed recovery process.” (Reply Br. 6.) However,
the Examiner cited to the comparison in Baek of “the read total number of
pages stored in the database recovery area with the serial number of the last
page” (118), rather than the deletion process of Baek, for teaching the
limitation “allowing the restoring process to be interrupted conditionally”
(emphasis added). Moreover, the limitation “allowing the restoring process
7
Appeal 2017-005301
Application 14/022,856
to be interrupted conditionally” is broad enough to encompass the database
recovery of Baek, in which all pages are deleted from the database storage
area if the two values are different.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Ashby,
Richter, and Baek would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation “allowing the restoring process to be interrupted
conditionally dependent upon whether an integer number of database pages
has been restored.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2, 3, and 5—7 depend from claim 1, and
Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments with respect to
these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, and 5—7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the same reasons discussed with respect to
independent claim 1.
Independent claim 9 recite limitations similar to those discussed with
respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not presented any
substantive arguments with respect to this claim. We sustain the rejection of
claim 9, as well as dependent claims 10, 11, and 13, for the same reasons
discussed with respect to claim 1.
§103 Rejections—Ashby and Richter
With respect to independent claim 14, Appellants merely reiterate
arguments previously presented with respect to the combination of Ashby
and Richter. (App. Br. 16—17.) We sustain the rejection of claim 14 for the
same reasons discussed with respect to rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ashby, Richter, and Baek.
8
Appeal 2017-005301
Application 14/022,856
Claims 15—17 and 20 depend from claim 14, and Appellants have not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 15—17 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent
claim 11.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—3, 5—17, and 20 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
9