Ex Parte Nurmi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2016

13035497 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2016)

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.
13/035,497 02/25/2011 Mikko Antero Nurmi P5117US00 2944
30671 7590 12/01/2016
DITTHAVONG & STEINER, P.C.
Keth Ditthavong
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
HEINLE, COURTNEY D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/01/2016 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):
docket@dcpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MIKKO ANTERO NURMI
Appeal 2015-0030031
Application 13/03 5,4972
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, JAMES A. WORTH, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WORTH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134
and 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision refers to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
July 23, 2014) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Dec. 30, 2014), and the
Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Feb. 24, 2014) and
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Oct. 30, 2014).
2 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Nokia Corporation
(Appeal Br. 1).
Appeal 2015-003003
Application 13/035,497
Introduction
Appellant’s application is titled “Method and Apparatus for Providing
Route Information in Image Media,” and relates to “the use of location
and/other device sensor information to make [an] imaging task more
engaging for consumers by for instance providing historical route
information as overlays in captured images.” (Spec. 12).
Claims 1 and 11 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 11,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
11. An apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory including computer program
code for one or more programs,
the at least one memory and the computer program
code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause
the apparatus to perform at least the following,
process and/or facilitate a processing of one
or more images to determine, at least in part,
location information, orientation information, or a
combination thereof of a user device while
capturing the one or more images, or at a time
when the one or more images were captured;
determine route information including one
or more routes the device, a user of the device, one
or more other users associated with the user, or a
combination thereof had traveled; and
process and/or facilitate a processing of the
one or more images, the location information, the
orientation information, the route information, or a
combination thereof to generate at least one
rendering of at least a portion of the route
information for display in the one or more images.
(Appeal Br. 14—15, Claims App.)
2
Appeal 2015-003003
Application 13/035,497
Rejections on Appeal3
The Examiner maintains, and Appellant appeals, the following
rejections:
I. Claims 1—4, 6—14, 16—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lindner (US
2011/0313653 Al, pub. Dec. 22, 2011) and Figueroa (US
2009/0254268 Al, pub. Oct. 8, 2009).
II. Claims 5 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Lindner, Figueroa, and Kudo
(US 2005/0251325 Al, pub. Nov. 10, 2005).
ANALYSIS
Claim 11 and its dependent claims
We interpret claim 11 to require an apparatus configured to determine
“route information” defined as “one or more routes the device, a user of the
device, one or more other users associated with the user, or a combination
thereof had traveled.” (Claims App’x). Based on the presence of the
modifier “had” in the claim phrase “had traveled,” we further interpret the
recited “route information” to refer to a “route” traveled on a previous trip
(rather than a route that has just been traveled on a present trip). This
interpretation is confirmed by the enumerated ways in which the recited
“route” may have been traveled—i.e., by “the device,” “a user of the
device,” or “one or more other users associated with the user”—as the
associated users are understood to have been on a previous trip (rather than
the present trip). Related limitations of claim 11 further recite that the
3 A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been withdrawn. See Ans. 2.
3
Appeal 2015-003003
Application 13/035,497
“route information” is used, in turn, to “generate at least one rendering of at
least a portion of the route information for display in the one or more
images” (Claims App’x).
The Examiner relies on paragraph 15 of Figueroa for the “route
information,” as disputed by Appellant. This portion of Figueroa describes
computing a detected position of the computing navigation device “[b]y
storing a plurality of detected positions, a detected route 40 actually traveled
by the computing navigation device 12 may be computed by the GPS
receiver 42, and passed to the route module 54.” However, this portion of
Figueroa is unclear, at best, as to whether route 40 is traveled on a present
trip or on a previous trip, as required by claim 11. As such, we are
persuaded by Appellant that Figueroa does not necessarily disclose a
navigation system configured to determine a route from a previous trip for
display. See Appeal Br. 7—9. Accordingly, we determine that the Examiner
failed to make a prima facie case of obviousness. We, therefore, do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection under § 103(a) of claim 11 and its
dependent claims.
Claim 1 and its dependent claims
Independent claim 1 contains similar language and requirements as
independent claim 11. We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under
§ 103(a) of claim 1 and its dependent claims, for similar reasons as for
independent claim 11.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20 is reversed.
4
Appeal 2015-003003
Application 13/035,497
REVERSED
5