Ex Parte Long

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 7, 2019

14861317 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 7, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/861,317 09/22/2015
62008 7590 01/09/2019
MAIER & MAIER, PLLC
345 South Patrick Street
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Cody Long
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
06740001US 3207
EXAMINER
WORDEN, THOMAS E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/09/2019 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):
patent@maierandmaier.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CODY LONG
Appeal 2018-004693
Application 14/861,31 7
Technology Center 3600
Before LINDA E. HORNER, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 7, and 9--13. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies Clever Devices Ltd. as the Applicant and real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-004693
Application 14/861,317
THE INVENTION
Appellant's invention relates to vehicle navigation systems. Spec. ,r 8.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A method for providing waypoint data to a vehicle
controller, this method comprising:
obtaining, with a processor, from a memory module, a
plurality of coordinate locations describing a vehicle route;
generating, with the processor, the vehicle route that
incorporates said coordinate locations by utilizing an
application programming interface (API) or a database that is
oriented toward providing mapping data or route information;
obtaining, with the processor, from the memory module,
route data describing the route;
transforming, with the processor, the route data into
coordinate data, the route data further comprising encoded
latitude and longitude data, the coordinate data further
comprising a plurality of data points expressed in longitude and
latitude form;
converting, with the processor, this coordinate data into
properly-spaced waypoint data, the step of converting the
coordinate data into properly-spaced waypoint data comprising
ensuring that no sequential waypoints are more than a
predetermined distance from one another;
designating, with the processor, a plurality of the waypoints
in the waypoint data as scheduled stops of a vehicle route;
storing, with the processor, in the memory module, the
waypoint data in a form accessible to the vehicle controller;
accessing the waypoint data via the vehicle controller, the
vehicle controller further comprising a vehicle controller
processor and a vehicle controller memory and configured to
automatically control the operation of at least one component of
the vehicle;
with the vehicle, traversing the vehicle route and
performing the plurality of scheduled stops; and
controlling the operation of at least one component of the
vehicle based on the waypoint data accessed by the vehicle
2
Appeal 2018-004693
Application 14/861,317
controller while the vehicle is traversing the vehicle route, and
based on a measurement of an odometry system of the vehicle;
wherein the at least one component of the vehicle comprises
an automated voice announcement system and an external
display, and wherein the vehicle controller is configured to
access instructions associated with the waypoint data and
automatically trigger an announcement from the automated
voice announcement system and automatically trigger
information to be displayed on the external display based on the
instructions.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
DeLorme
Schmier
Litvack
US 6,321,158 Bl
US 6,374,176 Bl
US 2011/0313655 Al
Nov. 20, 2001
Apr. 16, 2002
Dec. 22, 2011
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite for
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which
the inventor regards as the invention.
2. Claims 1, 4, 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Litvack and DeLorme.
3. Claims 2, 3, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Litvack, DeLorme, and an obvious design choice.
4. Claims 6, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Litvack, DeLorme, and Official Notice. 2
2 Schmier is relied on as exemplary art in conjunction with the Examiner
taking Official Notice. Final Action 20.
3
Appeal 2018-004693
Application 14/861,317
OPINION
Indefiniteness of Claim 12
The Examiner considers claim 12 indefinite because it includes the
words "an external mapping API" twice such that it is not clear whether the
second external mapping API is the same as or different from the first
external mapping APL Final Action 2.
Appellant's Appeal Brief does not mention, must less challenge, the
Examiner's rejection. See generally Appeal Br. Under the circumstances,
we will treat the rejection as uncontested and it is hereby summarily
sustained. See MPEP § 1205.02 (9th ed. 2018). 3
Unpatentability of Claims 1-4 and 10, 11 and 13
over Litvack and DeLorme
Claims 1--4 and 10-13 are argued as a group. Appeal Br. 10-15. We
select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Litvak discloses the invention of claim 1,
except for: (1) automatic control of a vehicle component based on
measurement of an odometry system 4; and (2) triggering an automated voice
announcement. Final Action 3-7. The Examiner relies on DeLorme as
disclosing odometry and voice announcements. Id. at 7. The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to modify Litvak with the teachings of
3 "If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the
appellant's brief, appellant has waived any challenge to that ground of
rejection and the Board may summarily sustain it, unless the examiner
subsequently withdrew the rejection in the examiner's answer." Id.
4 Litvack uses GPS components for automatic control of a vehicle
component. Final Action 7 ( citing Litvack ,r 95).
4
Appeal 2018-004693
Application 14/861,317
DeLonne to achieve the claimed invention. Id. According to the Examiner,
a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this to limit the expense
of the vehicle system by not using GPS components and to provide waypoint
notification to users and passengers. Id. at 7-8.
Appellant argues that Litvak lacks controlling the operation of a
vehicle component based on waypoint data. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant
argues that Litvak merely communicates a map that is displayed on a user's
computer monitor. Id. Appellant concedes, however, that Litvak obtains
mapping information by tracking the route of a vessel in real-time and
displays the actual tracked position of a vessel. Id. at 11-12.
In response, the Examiner states that Litvak displays the actual
tracked positions of vessels while en route and that the route is also
displayed on a monitor. Ans. 3. The Examiner identifies Litvak's monitor
as a "controlled component" of the vehicle within the meaning of claim 1.
Id.
In reply, Appellant argues that Litvak is controlled to show waypoints,
but is not controlled "based on" the waypoints. Reply Br. 5.
The Examiner correctly finds that Litvak's monitor qualifies as a
"component" of a vehicle within the meaning of claim 1. Ans. 3. 5
Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that Litvak controls such
component (or monitor) "based on" the waypoints. Id. at 4. The Examiner
finds that Litvak displays the actual tracked positions of vessels together
with displaying the waypoints, and that this occurs while the vehicle (vessel)
5 Even if, for argument sake, Litvak's monitor is not a "controlled
component" as claimed, any such deficiency is cured by DeLorme' s voice
output system. DeLorme, col. 30, 11. 21-25; col. 32, 11. 18-25; col. 54, 1. 58
-col. 55, 1. 15.
5
Appeal 2018-004693
Application 14/861,317
is traversing a route. Id. As the vessel's position and the waypoints are
displayed relative to each other, the Examiner's finding of fact is supported
by a preponderance of the evidence.
Appellant next argues that Litvak fails to control operation of a
component "based on measurement of an odometry system of the vehicle."
Appeal Br. 13. Appellant further argues that DeLorme fails to disclose the
use of odometry in a manner that would motivate a person of ordinary skill
in the art to combine it with Litvack. Id. Appellant emphasizes that the
claimed invention uses GPS waypoint data in combination with an odometry
system. Id. According to Appellant, the claimed system uses a combination
of GPS data and dead-reckoning data to identify a position between
waypoints. Id. Appellant takes the position that DeLorme teaches GPS and
dead-reckoning navigation as alternatives to each other ("interchangeable
equivalents"). Id. at 14. Appellant contends that modifying Litvack by the
teachings of DeLorme would require a substantial reconstruction or redesign
of Litvack. Id. Appellant criticizes the Examiner's reasoning for making
the proposed combination. Id. at 14-15.
In response, the Examiner first points out that, contrary to Appellant's
position, the claim does not require both a GPS and an odometry system.
Ans. 4 ("nowhere in the claims is a GPS required"). Thus, according to the
Examiner, merely replacing the GPS system of Litvak with an
odometry/dead reckoning system as taught by DeLorme is both proper and
sufficient to teach the claimed invention. Id. The Examiner then proceeds
to state:
Regardless of this opinion, there are many old and well known
reasons for why a system that generally requires a GPS system
for positioning (like the one disclosed by Litvack) would also
6
Appeal 2018-004693
Application 14/861,317
Id.
have an odometry/dead-reckoning system (like the one taught
by DeLorme ), particularly to provide a redundant positioning
means that may work even in the event of an electrical failure,
GPS failure, satellite failure, or when there is poor satellite
signal reception like when going through tunnels or being
around large obstacles, etc.
In reply, Appellant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would understand, based on the teachings of the Specification, that the step
of controlling a vehicle component while the vehicle is traversing the route,
necessarily requires non-odometric components. Reply Br. 6.
Id.
A person of ordinary skill in the art, interpreting the claims
based on their broadest reasonable interpretation, would thus
interpret the claims of the present application to refer to the
process described in the specification, or at the very least would
interpret the claims to refer to both odometric and non-
odometric components of the system. This would make the
system into a hybrid of an odometric system and a non-
odometric system, contradicting the Examiner's assertion that
"nowhere is the claimed invention 'a hybrid system."'
Litvak discloses a navigation assistance system for maritime
applications. Litvak, Abstract. Litvak's system includes a database that
stores waypoint data ("waterway data"). Id. An over-water route is derived
in response to user information and the waypoint data in the database. Id.
The route is communicated to the user in the form of a map that is displayed
on the user's computer monitor. Id. ,r 11. "The route may include latitude
and longitude coordinates that define trip leg termini and waypoints." Id.
The user's route is tracked by GPS in real time. Id. ,r 95. The en route
position of the vessel is displayed on on-board monitors. Id. In addition, the
7
Appeal 2018-004693
Application 14/861,317
map display includes the route, waypoints, and obstructions to be avoided.
Id.; Figs. 4--9.
DeLorme discloses an integrated routing/mapping information
system. DeLorme, Abstract. The system uses a personal digital assistant
(PDA) equipped with GPS or other position sensing capability. Id. In use,
the PDA displays directions, text and map formats, the user's current
position, heading, speed, and elevation. Id. Audible signals identifying the
next tum along the user's planned route are also provided. Id.
You can also combine DeLorme' s GPS receiver with your
handheld computer to monitor your position, heading, speed
and elevation as you travel. You can follow your Route
Directions as you travel and your handheld computer will beep
60 seconds before your next tum.
Id., Fig. 1A6-1. DeLorme computes and displays the time and distance
from the user's current position to the next waypoint ("next tum or route
change"). Id. at 11, Fig. 1A6-6. DeLorme also features a voice output
system. Id., col. 30, 11. 21-25; col. 32, 11. 18-25; col. 54, 1. 58- col. 55,
1. 15.
[W]hile driving, the user of an in-vehicle embodiment can tum
off the map display as an unnecessary visual distraction, using
step 457 to retain spoken output about waypoints, route
directions as well as other located audio information pertaining
to places along the way. Step 457 also permits simultaneous
audio-visual output, for example, so that the driver can listen to
audio output about his or her travel plans while a passenger is
also looking at the highlighted route and other information on
the map display.
Id. col. 55, 11. 6-14.
Having reviewed Litvak and DeLorme in relation to the arguments
presented by Appellant, we find Appellant's arguments unpersuasive.
8
Appeal 2018-004693
Application 14/861,317
Persons of ordinary skill understand that determining the current position of
a vehicle can be accomplished using either odometric ( dead reckoning) or
non-odometric systems. Well-known odometric systems include, for
example, inertial reference systems and sensors that measure wheel rotation.
Non-odometric systems are systems that rely on external reference points
and include GPS and radio navigation beacons. DeLorme teaches the use of
both odometric and non-odometric systems, alone or in "hybrid" systems.
See DeLorme, col. 13, 11. 2-8.
The disputed claim limitation at issue is "controlling ... based on a
measurement of an odometry system of the vehicle." Reply Br. 4. Appellant
uses the term "odometer," or derivatives thereof, only twice in the
Specification, each time in the Background Section. Spec. ,r,r 2, 3. Neither
"odometer" nor "odometry" is operatively defined in the Specification,
either explicitly or implicitly. Under the circumstances, we accord the term
"odometry" its broadest, reasonable interpretation. 6 See In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (explaining that during
examination, pending claims are given their broadest reasonable
construction consistent with the Specification).
Using a broad but reasonable construction of odometry, a vehicle
component is controlled based on stored/accessed waypoint data and
measurement of an odometry system. Claims App., claim 1. A person of
ordinary skill in the art would understand that the controlled event can be
6 "In navigation, odometry is the use of data from the movement of
actuators to estimate change in position over time through devices such as
rotary encoders to measure wheel rotations." Wikipedia, Visual Odometry,
https:// en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual odometry (last visited December 2 7,
2018).
9
Appeal 2018-004693
Application 14/861,317
triggered several different ways, including: (1) by traveling a specified
distance measured by an odometer, which distance is measured from a
designated waypoint; 7 and/or (2) arriving at a designated waypoint as
determined by an odometric navigation system; and/or (3) calculating an
estimated time or arrival (ET A) to a designated waypoint based on a current
position that is determined using an odometric navigation system.
Appellant's Specification provides almost no teaching disclosure as to how
odometry is actually used to trigger the controlling event. See generally
Spec.
Turning our attention to the applied art in the Examiner's rejection,
DeLorme discloses that:
The GPS receivers further provide very exact date/time
information and compute information including the direction
and rate of travel, time and distance to and from start or finish
or intermediate waypoints along a planned travel route or
course. Alternative position sensing devices include loran,
other radio location, dead reckoning, and hybrid systems.
DeLorme, col. 13, 11. 2-8. (emphasis added). DeLorme's dead reckoning
functionality corresponds to Appellant's odometry. DeLorme's dead
reckoning functionality can be used as the sole means of positioning or in
conjunction with non-odometric techniques in a "hybrid" system. Id.
We find unpersuasive Appellant's arguments that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would not have combined the teachings of Litvak and
DeLorme. A motivation to combine can be found in "any need or problem
known in the field of endeavor at the time of the invention and addressed by
7 Under this option, either odometric or non-odometric techniques can be
used to determine arrival at the designated waypoint from which odometric
techniques are then used to trigger the controlling event.
10
Appeal 2018-004693
Application 14/861,317
the patent." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). "[T]he
analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject
matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences
and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ."
Id. at 418. An implicit motivation to combine exists when the improvement
is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a
product that is more desirable. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. v. CH
Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
In the instant case, the Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have modified Litvak with the automated announcement
system taught by DeLorme and would have done so to provide notifications
to users and passengers as they approach an upcoming location. Final
Action 8. With this combination/modification of the prior art, it is easy to
see that the pilot of a maritime vessel using Litvak' s system would benefit
from an audio alert advising of an upcoming waypoint that required, for
instance, a change in course. The Examiner has stated an adequate rationale
to combine the prior art in the manner proposed in the rejection.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we determine the Examiner's
findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and that
the Examiner's legal conclusion of unpatentability is well-founded.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's unpatentability rejection of
claims 1--4 and 10, 11, and 13 over Litvack and DeLorme.
Unpatentability of Claims 2, 3, and 12
over Litvak, DeLorme, and Design Choice
Appellant does not argue for the separate patentability of claims 2, 3,
and 12 apart from arguments asserted against the rejection of claim 1 that we
11
Appeal 2018-004693
Application 14/861,317
previously considered and found unpersuasive. See generally Appeal Br.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, and 12. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (failure to separately argue claims).
Unpatentability of Claims 6, 7, and 9
over Litvak, DeLorme, and Admitted Prior Art, or alternatively,
over Litvak, DeLorme, and Official Notice as exemplified by Schmier
Claims 6, 7, and 9 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1.
Claims App. Appellant argues these claims as a group. Appeal Br. 16-19.
We select claim 6 as representative.
Claim 6 adds the limitation: "using the automated voice
announcement system to play an announcement to passengers of the vehicle
when a selected waypoint has been reached." Appeal Br. 22, Claims App.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well-known in the art to
automatically announce or display the arrival or approach to waypoints or
stops so that passengers may know where they are on their route or may be
made aware of the need to exit the passenger vehicle at a particular
waypoint/stop. Final Action 20. As evidence to support the taking of
Official Notice, the Examiner relies on Schmier. Id.
Appellant argues that Schmier fails to support the Examiner's taking
of Official Notice. Appeal Br. 16-17. Basically, Appellant argues that
Schmier is deficient because it does not disclose each and every limitation of
the claims. Id. This argument is not persuasive, as the Examiner relies on
Litvak and DeLorme as disclosing the limitations of claim 1 and only relies
on Official Notice, as evidenced by Schmier, for the limitation directed to
voice announcements to passengers.
12
Appeal 2018-004693
Application 14/861,317
The Examiner's reliance on Official Notice, as evidenced by Schmier,
is well taken. Schmier teaches:
Addressable display devices for passengers preferably are
mounted within the vehicle located to be in easy view of
passengers. Several individual displays or a display unit with
several screens can be mounted within a vehicle. These
displays, for example, inform passengers of upcoming cross
streets, transit stops, notice of connecting transit lines, the time
available before connecting transit line vehicle arrives at the
stop, or how long it will hold for passengers, notice of
upcoming local stores and business services, destinations,
information regarding the following transit vehicle for those
who would like to step off the bus in order to do business, and
informational and advertising messages related or not related to
the location of the transit vehicle.
Schmier, col. 6, 11. 5-18. Schmier further discloses that passenger
notification can be delivered using either visual or auditory systems.
Id. at col. 11, 11. 24--25. These disclosures are sufficient to support the
Examiner's taking of Official Notice.
Furthermore, we note that Appellant's Background Section of the
Specification admits:
Mass transit vehicles typically employ an information system in
order to provide passengers with status updates and other useful
information. For example, a controller installed on a mass
transit vehicle such as a bus or shuttle may, when the vehicle is
approaching a stop or when a stop has been requested, play pre-
recorded audio and/or display text on a sign to announce that
the stop is approaching.
Spec. ,r 1. The foregoing admission effectively refutes Appellant's position
that voice announcement systems in mass transit vehicles are not well
known.
13
Appeal 2018-004693
Application 14/861,317
Taking the foregoing into account, the Examiner's position is well
supported by the record before us. We are not apprised of Examiner error
and, therefore, sustain the Examiner's Section 103 unpatentability rejection
of claims 6, 7, and 9.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1--4, 6, 7, and 9--13 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
14