Ex Parte Landau et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 15, 2017

13876745 (P.T.A.B. May. 15, 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.
13/876,745 06/07/2013 Andreas Landau BOSC.P7896US 1034
24972 7590 05/17/2017
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
NEW YORK, NY 10019-6022
EXAMINER
FINK, THOMAS ANDREW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2124
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/17/2017 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):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREAS LANDAU and CAROLINE USSAT
Appeal 2017-001119
Application 13/876,745
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner
twice rejecting claims 11—21, all the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to “road-based navigation
systems,” and more particularly to “ascertaining at least one exit probability
from a land area identifiable in a digital map as open terrain” (Spec. 1,11. 1—
3, 10).
Appeal 2017-001119
Application 13/876,745
Claim 11 is illustrative:
11. A method for ascertaining at least one exit
probability from a land area identifiable in a digital map as open
terrain, starting from a position within the land area, the method
comprising:
subdividing the land area into a plurality of cells,
with an initial transition probability being assigned to at least one
transition from one of the cells to an adjacent one of the cells, the
transition being situated between the position and an edge of the
land area;
adapting the initial transition probability of the
transition, in response to a presence of at least one item of
information from the digital map to obtain an adapted transition
probability for the transition, the item of information being
associated with one of the cells or with the adjacent cell; and
ascertaining the exit probability, the exit probability
being ascertained using the adapted transition probability.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
Rl. Claims 11—19 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Reid (Reid and Bryson, “A Non-Gaussian Filter for
Tracking Targets Moving Over Terrain,” Lockheed Palo Alto Research
Laboratory (1978)).
R2. Claims 20 and 21 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Reid or, in the alternative, under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Reid.
2
Appeal 2017-001119
Application 13/876,745
Claim Groupings
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claim 11, as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
ANALYSIS
Rejection under § 102 over Reid
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that Reid disclose “an initial
transition probability being assigned to at least one transition from one of
the cells to an adjacent one of the cells, the transition being situated between
the position and an edge of the land area” and “ascertaining the exit
probability, the exit probability being ascertained using the adapted
transition probability,” as recited in claim 11?
Appellants contends that “Reid teaches a directional probability” and
“calculates the probability of movement on a grid-divided terrain” but “does
not take into any account the probability of leaving the current grid-square,
or the probability of transitioning from the current grid-square to an adjacent
one” (App. Br. 4-5).
First, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that there is “no definition of
‘exit probability’ in the specification” (Ans. 10). Appellants’ Specification
merely describes in an exemplary embodiment that a “vehicle is situated at a
position 400 within a land area 402” and “[ejvery transition from one cell of
grid 406 to an adjacent cell is assigned a respective initial transition
probability” in order to determine from “position 400 an exit path 416”
which has “an exit probability of reaching a particular cell on the edge of the
3
Appeal 2017-001119
Application 13/876,745
land area” (Spec. 25—26; see Fig. 4). However, Appellants’ Specification
does not provide any limiting definition for a “transition” or “initial
transition probability,” or for an “exit” or “exit probability.” Therefore, the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “transition probability,”
when read in light of the examples given in the Specification, includes the
probability of movement between cells or areas of the grid; and the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claimed “exit probability,” includes the
probability of movement from an original location to another location within
an open area.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that “Reid calculates the
probabilities of the target moving into a cell (grid square) from each the 8
adjacent cells (i.e. transition probabilities)” (Ans. 12), and is “concerned not
with movements in the particular square of interest (i, j), but rather the
movements in the squares surrounding the particular square of interest (i, j)”
(Ans. 15), and “that transition probabilities are the very basis of Reid’s
algorithm” (Ans. 18). We further agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Reid’s “Pm is not only the transition probability, but also the probability the
target is on the road (i.e. the probability the target is on the road and thus no
longer in the land area where it started...)” (Ans. 20).
For example, Reid discloses:
...a method for tracking ground targets moving over terrain
which explicitly accounts for terrain constraints... The terrain
is divided in a grid network of equally sized squares. Since the
primary effect of terrain pertains to target mobility, each grid
square is assigned eight terrain factors.
(Reid §§ 1,2, emphases added).
Sum all the probabilities from adjacent cells moving into cell (i,
j) . . . Determine the proportions of moving probability which
4
Appeal 2017-001119
Application 13/876,745
will stop and proportion of stationary probability which will
remain stopped . . . Determine the proportion of moving
probability which will keep moving and the likelihood of motion
in each direction . . . Normalize the above likelihoods to
probabilities over each individual cell. . . Determine proportion
of stationary probability which will start moving and the
likelihood of motion in each direction . . . Normalize the above
likelihoods to probabilities over each cell and add to previously
moving probabilities ... Move probabilities in corridors between
grid squares up one time increment.. . Substitute new stationary
and moving probabilities.
(Reid Table 1, emphases added). In other words, Reid describes tracking
targets over an area that is divided into a grid network, and determining
initial, as well as adapted, probabilities of target movement in each direction.
Appellants fail to provide persuasive evidence or argument that Reid’s
determination of probabilities of a target moving in each direction in a grid
network does not describe determining the probability of movement between
cells or areas of the grid and the probability of movement from an original
location to another location within the grid or open area. Thus, we agree
with the Examiner’s finding that Reid’s direction probabilities for a target in
a grid network describes “an initial transition probability being assigned to at
least one transition from one of the cells to an adjacent one of the cells, the
transition being situated between the position and an edge of the land area”
and an “exit probability, the exit probability being ascertained using the
adapted transition probability,” as recited in claim 11.
For at least these reasons, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of independent claim 11, as
well as dependent claims 12—19, not separately argued, is sustained.
5
Appeal 2017-001119
Application 13/876,745
Rejection under § 102 and alternatively §103 over Reid
Appellants fail to provide separate arguments for the patentability of
claims 20 and 21 (see App. Br. 3, 5). Therefore, the Examiner’s § 102
rejection, and alternative § 103 rejection, of claims 20 and 21 is sustained for
similar reasons as noted supra.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections Rl—R2 for claims 11—21.
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
6