Ex Parte Piippo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2016

13527176 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 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.
13/527,176 06/19/2012 Petri Matti Olavi Piippo P6418US00 2342
11764 7590
Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C.
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
11/30/2016 EXAMINER
BRIER, JEFFERY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2016 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
Nokia. IPR @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETRI MATTI OLAVI PIIPPO, SAMPO TUOMAS VAITTINEN,
and JUHA HENRIK ARRASVUORI
Appeal 2015-007497
Application 13/527,1761
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN A. EVANS, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 1—20 and 49. Claims 21—48 are
cancelled. Claims Appendix. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Nokia Corporation as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed March 20, 2015, “App. Br.”), the Reply Brief
(filed August 11, 2015, “Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed June
Appeal 2015-007497
Application 13/527,176
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to systems and methods for enabling users to view
an image of a location from different fields-of-view. See Abstract.
INVENTION
Claims 1 and 11 are independent. An understanding of the invention
can be derived from a reading of representative Claim 1 (see App. Br. 26),
which is reproduced below with some formatting added:
1. A method comprising facilitating a processing of and/or
processing (1) data and/or (2) information and/or (3) at least
one signal, the (1) data and/or (2) information and/or (3) at least
one signal based, at least in part, on the following:
a rendering of a user interface element representing a
field-of-view;
at least one determination of one or more parameters of
the field-of-view, based, at least in part, on one or more
interactions with the user interface element; and
at least one determination of whether a portion of at least
one panoramic image is visible in the field-of-view based, at
least in part, on the one or more parameters; and
a rendering of another user interface element
representing the portion of the at least one panoramic image
that is visible in the field-of-view,
wherein the another user interface element overlays the
user interface element.
11, 2015, “Ans.”), the Final Office Action (mailed October 23, 2014, “Final
Act.”), and the Specification (filed June 19, 2012, “Spec.”) for their
respective details.
2
Appeal 2015-007497
Application 13/527,176
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Adabala US 2008/0180439 A1 July 31,2008
Williamson US 2010/0123737 A1 May 20, 2010
1. Claims 1—20 and 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b/pre-AIA
2nd |) as being indefinite. Final Act. 6—7.
2. Claims 1—8, 10-18, 20, and 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as anticipated by Williamson. Final Act. 8—13.
3. Claims 9 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Williamson and Adabala. Final Act. 13—15.
ANAFYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1—20 and 49 in light of
Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. We consider Appellants’
arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 5—24.
Claims 1-20 and 49: Indefiniteness.
With respect to independent Claims 1 and 11, the Examiner finds the
claimed “user interface element” corresponds to circle 407 in Appellants’
Specification Figures 4A-4F. Final Act. 9. The Examiner finds the claimed
“user interface element” reads on any one of Williamson’s circular
orientation overlays 450, 550, 610, or 750. Id.
Appellants contend Examiner’s interpretation of the claimed “user
interface element” is unreasonable. App. Br. 6. Appellants argue the
Specification defines the claimed “user interface element,” not as circle 407
as found by the Examiner, but as square element 403. Id. at 7 (citing Spec.,
142; Fig. 4C).
3
Appeal 2015-007497
Application 13/527,176
The Examiner finds that Appellants’ “argument is not persuasive
because” the claimed “user interface element” and “another user interface
element overlays the user interface element” are “interpreted by the
Examiner and by Appellants to cover different user interface elements of
Appellants disclosure. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claims have not
been clearly identified to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Ans. 13—14.
The claims recite a “user interface element” and “another user
interface element.” The Specification3 refers to these terms inconsistently.
For example, Paragraph 65 recites “another user interface element 407,” “the
first user interface element 403,” “the other user interface element 407,” “the
user interface element 407,” and “the user interface element 403” referring
to Figures 4A and 4B. Thus, Paragraph 65 uses Numerals 403 and 407 to
refer to the claimed “the user interface element.” Moreover, Numeral 407 is
described both as “the other user interface element 407,” “the user interface
element 407” (i.e., with and without the recitation “the other”). The ‘446
Publication, | 65.
Similarly, with reference to Figures 4C and 4D, Paragraph 66 recites
“user interface element 403” and “user interface 407.”
Paragraph 67 recites “user interface element 407” and “the user
interface element 407.” However, Paragraph 68 recites “user interface
element 403” (not 407).
Notwithstanding a lack of absolute clarity, the Examiner finds the
Specification is interpretable.4 See Ans. 13. The Examiner finds “circle 407
3 We refer to Pre-Grant Publication US 2013/0335446 (“the ‘446
publication”).
4 Should prosecution in this case continue, Appellants may wish to consider
clarifying reference to the claimed “user interface element” and the claimed
4
Appeal 2015-007497
Application 13/527,176
‘represents’ a 360 degree view around a given point-of-interest and triangle
415,417,419 within circle 407 ‘represents’ the view shown in user interface
element 403.” Id. In view of this finding, the Examiner determines the prior
art is applicable to the claims.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection under
35U.S.C. § 112.
Claims 1-8,10-18,20, and 49: Anticipation by Williamson.
Appellants contend the Examiner correlates Williamson’s “orientation
overlay” with the claimed “user interface element” and Williamson’s “pie­
shaped indicator” with the claimed “another user interface element.” App.
Br. 16. Appellants argue Williamson’s orientation overlay describes a map
overlay of the panoramic image (the “street view panorama”). Id.
Appellants argue Williamson discloses the orientation overlay, at most
receives interactions which change the field-of-view parameters only with
regards to zooming in/out of the map and panning along the map. Id.
Appellants maintain Williamson fails to provide any disclosure relating to a
“determination of whether a portion of at least one panoramic image is
visible in the field-of-view based, at least in part, on the one or [more]
parameters; and a rendering of another user interface element representing
the portion of the at least on panoramic image that is visible in the field-of-
view,” as claimed. Id. Appellants further argue Williamson describes the
pie-shaped indicator as an overlay to the map which can always display the
visible panoramic image, but Williamson does not disclose what would
“another user interface element.”
5
Appeal 2015-007497
Application 13/527,176
occur if the pie-shaped indicator is panned off the map, therefore, the
claimed “determination of whether a portion of at least one panoramic image
is visible” need not be made. Id.
The Examiner’s Answer does not respond to Appellants’ contention
that Williamson fails to provide any disclosure relating to a “determination
of whether a portion of at least one panoramic image is visible in the field-
of-view”; nor Appellants’ contention that Williamson fails to disclose
regarding the consequence of the “pie-shaped indicator” being panned off
the map. Independent claims 1 and 11 contain similar limitations regarding
the “determination” which the Examiner has not shown to be disclosed by
Williamson. We therefore decline to sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§102.
Claims 9 and 19: Obviousness over Williamson and Adabala.
The Examiner does not apply Adabala to the deficiencies identified in
Williamson. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1—20 and 49 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 is REVERSED.
The rejection of Claims 1—8, 10-18, 20, and 49 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is REVERSED.
The rejection of Claims 9 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
REVERSED.
REVERSED
6