Ex Parte Maurer et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 27, 201914223821 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/223,821 03/24/2014 12716 7590 07/01/2019 Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP (Google) 233 South Wacker Drive 6300 Willis Tower Chicago, IL 60606-6357 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jennifer Maurer 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. 3 l 730/4675-00C2 3725 EXAMINER SHIN, ANDREW ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2612 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/01/2019 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): mgbdocket@marshallip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JENNIFER MAURER, SEAN EGAN, and BRIAN CORNELL1 Appeal2018-008509 Application 14/223,821 Technology Center 2600 Before BARBARA A. BENOIT, SHARON PENICK, and RUSSELL E. CASS, Administrative Patent Judges. CASS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-3, 6-10, and 13-20. Appeal Br. 5.2 Claims 4, 5, 11, and 12 have been indicated to be allowable. Final Act. 14-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants list Google LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed March 2, 2018 ("Appeal Br.") 3. 2 Rather than repeat the Examiner's positions and Appellants' arguments in their entirety, we refer to the above mentioned Appeal Brief, as well as the following documents for their respective details: the Final Action mailed June 30, 2017 ("Final Act."); the Examiner's Answer mailed June 28, 2018 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") mailed August 28, 2018. Appeal2018-008509 Application 14/223,821 THE INVENTION The present invention relates to map rendering systems, such as electronic map display systems. Spec. ,i 2. The Specification explains that to render a map image, a device typically receives raster images from a dedicated server. Id. ,i 5. However, the Specification explains, raster image data typically requires a large amount of storage space for a comprehensive map, and it is difficult to efficiently manipulate raster images at a client device. Id. The invention seeks to overcome this problem by providing a mapping system in which a "client device may request map data from the map server via a communication network, and the map server in response may provide vector data and, in some cases, text data that describes map content as well as style data that indicates how the vector data and the text data should be rendered." Id. ,i 18. The "vector data may specify various geometric shapes (e.g., using mathematical descriptions) and indicate how these shapes should be positioned for rendering various map elements such as roads, buildings, parks, bodies of water, etc., while style data may describe such visual characteristics or properties as line thickness ( e.g., width in pixels), line color, one or more fill colors, etc. for various visual styles that may be applied to the vector data." Id. For example, the map server may indicate "which visual style applies to a vector based description of a map element for a particular map type, such as terrain, transit, traffic, bicycle trail, etc." Id. ,i 19. To this end, "several styles, each identified by a respective unique style identifier, may be defined," and"[ e Jach style may correspond to one or several visual styles for rendering map elements and/or labels according to different map types." 2 Appeal2018-008509 Application 14/223,821 For example, "a style with style identifier S1 may correspond to visual style VS1 for rendering a map element as a part of a basic map, visual style VS2 for rendering the same map element as a part of a terrain map, and visual style VSJ for rendering the same map element as a part of a traffic map or a transit map." Id. When first '"providing map data to the client,' the 'map server may assign style identifiers to vector descriptors' so that a particular vector descriptor is provided to the client device only once." Id. When "the user of the client device changes the map type for a certain region," the client device "may simply re-style the corresponding vector data." Id. For example, if the user decides to change the map type from a terrain map to a transit map without changing location, a server may provide to the client new style data for the transit map without providing new map tile data. Id. ,-i,-i 44-45. The client can then apply the new style data to the original vector map data to re- render the map as a transit map. Id. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims at issue: 1. A computing device comprising: one or more processors; a non-transitory computer-readable medium coupled to the one or more processors and storing instructions which, when executed on the one or more processors, cause the computing device to: receive, via a communication network, map data including (i) a description of geometries of a plurality of static map features and (ii) a description of first visual characteristics defined separately and independently of the description of the geometries, 3 Appeal2018-008509 Application 14/223,821 render the geometries in accordance with the first visual characteristics to generate a raster image of a first digital map, receive, via the communication network, a description of second visual characteristics for application to the geometries previously provided to the computing device as part of the map data, including not receive the description of the geometries with the description of the second visual characteristics via the communication network, wherein the descriptions of visual characteristics define raster images only when applied to geometries, and re-render the same previously received geometries of the plurality of static map features in accordance with the second visual characteristics to generate a raster map image of a second digital map. Appeal Br. A-1 (Claims Appendix). THE EXAMINER'S REJECTION AND APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, and 20 stand rejected as being unpatentable over Shi (US 2008/0109159 Al; published May 8, 2008) in view of Peterson (US 2010/0125552 Al; published May 20, 2010) and further in view of Ellert (US 5,760,793; issued June 2, 1998). Dependent claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17 stand rejected as unpatentable over Shi, Peterson, Ellert, and further in view of Pasold (US 2011/0177845 Al; published July 21, 2011). Dependent claims 18 and 19 stand rejected as unpatentable over Shi, Peterson, Ellert, and further in view of Owen (US 2009/0157718 Al; published June 18, 2009). In the Final Office Action, the Examiner finds that Shi teaches, inter alia, receiving map data including (i) a description of geometries of a 4 Appeal2018-008509 Application 14/223,821 plurality of static map features and (ii) a description of first visual characteristics defined separately and independently of the description of the geometries. Final Act. 4 (citing Shi ,i,i 9-10, 24-25, 42-43, 54). The Examiner also finds that Shi teaches rendering the geometries in accordance with the first visual characteristics to generate a first digital map. Id. ( citing Shi ,i,i 10, 43). The Examiner finds that Shi does not explicitly teach "receiv[ing], via the communication network, a description of second visual characteristics for application to the geometries previously provided to the computing device as part of the map data, including not receiving the description of the geometries with the description of the second visual characteristics via the communication network, wherein the descriptions of visual characteristics define raster images only when applied to geometries." Id. at 4-5. The Examiner finds that these limitations are found in Peterson, pointing to paragraphs 2, 4, 27, 36-37, and 48. Id. at 5. Specifically, the Examiner states that: Peterson teaches receiving or providing a second description of visual characteristics (i.e. updated information) [0048, also see 0027, 0036-0037]. The updated information includes preferences such as colors, fonts, and icons used to render map objects [0036]. Also, the map viewer only receives the updated information without all the map objects [0048]. The map objects include polygons and three dimensional data (i.e. description of geometries) [0004, also see 0002, 0037]. Moreover, Peterson further teaches the map objects as static information such as buildings [0025]. For example, Figure 4A illustrates one or more missile silos which are examples of buildings [0044]. Therefore, Shi as modified by Peterson and Ellert does teach receiving or providing, via a communication network, a description of visual characteristics for application 5 Appeal2018-008509 Application 14/223,821 to geometries of static map features previously provided to a computing device. Ans. 4. Appellants argue that Peterson does not disclose providing second visual characteristics "for application to previously provided geometries of static map features." Appeal Br. 12-13. Appellants argue that the portions of Peterson cited by the Examiner (paragraphs 48 along with 27 and 36) "relate to displaying 'moving objects, such as aircraft, troops in the field, missiles, etc." Id. at 13. "Clearly," Appellants argue, "these dynamic objects are not static map features, but rather the opposite of static map features." Id. As to the buildings in Peterson, Appellants argue that "Peterson mentions buildings merely as examples of 'static information,'" but does not disclose "receiving, via a communication network, a description of visual characteristics to be applied to the geometries of buildings." Id. at 14. To the contrary, Appellants argue, "Peterson at most discloses receiving new positions of aircraft, missiles," and other moving objects. Id. Thus, according to Appellants, Peterson does not disclose "receiving a description of second visual characteristics for application to the previously provided geometries and subsequently re-rendering of 'the same previously received geometries ... in accordance with the second visual characteristics." Id. Appellants further contend that the Examiner erred in interpreting paragraph 36 of Peterson to disclose that "updated information includes preferences such as colors, fonts, and icons used [to] render map objects." Reply Br. 2. Appellant argues that: To the extent that Peterson mentions "updated information for map objects associated with the map viewer" (par. 6), at no point does this reference suggest that the updated information include "colors, fonts, and icons used render map objects" 6 Appeal2018-008509 Application 14/223,821 mentioned at par. 36, or have anything to do with the "preferences" discussed at par. 36. Peterson explains that "first and second preferences 219, 229 may include preferred styles to define, for example, colors, fonts, and icons used to render map objects" (par. 36) and illustrates storage of these preferences 219, 229 in respective configurations 218, 228 of map viewers in Fig. 2 .... Peterson does not suggest that that the preferences are received "via a communication network ... for application to geometries of static map features previously provided to a computing device," nor is there any reason why Peterson would suggest doing so. More particularly, there is simply no reason why the data provider 495 or 496 would provide, in addition to aircraft location or missile position (see Fig. 4A), user's preferences for a map viewer, via a communication network. Reply Br. 2-3. Thus, Appellants argue, "[b]ecause Peterson fails to disclose receiving updated information that includes preferences such as colors, fonts, and icons used render map objects," Peterson does not disclose "receiv[ing], via the communication network, a description of second visual characteristics for application to the geometries previously provided to the computing device," as claim 1 requires. Id. at 3. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not established obviousness of claim 1. First, we agree that the "colors, fonts, and icons" described in paragraph 36 of Peterson are not "updated information" applied to "geometries previously provided to the computing device as part of the map data." Peterson ,-J 36. Paragraph 36 states that these "colors, fonts, and icons" are included within "[fJirst and second preferences 219,299" which are included within a "first configuration 218" and a "second configuration 219." Id. The first configuration 218 is associated with a "first map viewer 250" and the second configuration 228 is associated with "a second map viewer 260." Id. The first and second map viewers "execute on a first and 7 Appeal2018-008509 Application 14/223,821 second client computer, respectively." Id. ,i 25; see id. ,i 45; Fig 2; Fig. 4 reference nos. 460, 462. For example, the first map viewer can be a computer used to "display aircraft information in a combat zone or theater such as a first enemy aircraft violating a no-fly zone and a second friendly aircraft intercepting the enemy aircraft," and the second map viewer can be a separate computer used to "display defense system information such as the first enemy aircraft approaching anti-aircraft missile defense systems." Id. ,i 25. Thus, the different "colors, fonts, and icons" are used for different map viewers running on different computers. They are not applied to "geometries previously provided" to a computing device, or used to "re- render the same previously received geometries" in accordance with the new characteristics, as claim 1 requires. We also agree with Appellants that paragraph 48 of Peterson does not teach applying second visual characteristics to "geometries of a plurality of static map features" previously provided to the computing device. The moving objects discussed in paragraph 48, specifically aircraft, are not "static map features." Id. ,i 48. The same is true of other moving objects, such as troops in the field, and missiles. Id. ,i 27. As to buildings, Peterson states that buildings may be rendered with first visual characteristics, such as by "providing visual effects (e.g., line widths, line styles, font, font sizes, icons, models, color schemes, etc.) on a map." Id. ,i 40. However, the Examiner has not shown that Peterson teaches or suggests receiving second visual characteristics applied to "geometries previously provided to the computing device" for those buildings, or that these second visual characteristics are used to "re-render" geometries of those buildings in accordance with the second visual characteristics. 8 Appeal2018-008509 Application 14/223,821 Consequently, we find that the Examiner has failed to establish obviousness of claim 1 based on Shi, Peterson, and Ellert. We therefore reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We also reverse the rejections of claims 2, 3, 6-10, and 13-20, which are either dependent on claim 1 or recite similar limitations, and are rejected on the same or substantially similar bases. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 6-10, and 13-20. REVERSED 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation