Ex Parte Maurer et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 27, 2019

14223821 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2019)

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