Ex Parte Sandberg

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 18, 2016

12827417 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/827,417 06/30/2010
10949 7590 04/20/2016
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jesper Sandberg
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.
042933/390151 5055
EXAMINER
WANG, JIN CHENG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2618
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/20/2016 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JESPER SANDBERG
Appeal2014-006551
Application 12/827,417
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Nokia Corporation as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal2014-006551
Application 12/827,417
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to methods, apparatuses and
computer program products for automatically generating suggested
information layers. Spec. 14--19.
Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
facilitating provision of a plurality of layers of
information, the layers of information relate in part to one or
more items of virtual information corresponding to information
indicative of a current location of an apparatus;
determining that at least one of the layers of information
is enabled to provide one or more items of virtual information
currently being displayed, the items of virtual information
correspond to locations of real world objects in or proximate to
the current location;
determining, via a processor, whether one or more other
information layers of the layers are associated with content for
the current location based on a determination that the number of
items of virtual information for the enabled layer of information
is below a predetermined threshold; and
automatically suggesting one or more of the other layers
of information for selection in response to the number of items of
virtual information being below the predetermined threshold.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Geel en US 2004/0243307 Al Dec. 2, 2004
Mukai US 2010/0149399 Al June 17, 2010
Achthoven US 2010/0280747 Al Nov. 4, 2010
2
Appeal2014-006551
Application 12/827,417
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Geelen in view of Mukai and Achthoven. Final Act. 7-
31.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant. We do not
review the claims de nova; instead, we only review arguments presented on
appeal. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010) (precedential)
("If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue - or, more
broadly, on a particular rejection-the Board will not, as a general matter,
unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection."). We
disagree with Appellant's arguments regarding claims 1-20, and we
incorporate herein and adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final
Act. 7-31 ), and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's
Answer in response to Appellant's arguments (Ans. 2--49). We incorporate
such findings, reasons, and rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise
noted. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments
regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows.
Appellant argues the cited prior art does not teach or suggest the
second determining step or the automatically suggesting step recited in claim
1. App. Br. 7. More specifically, Appellant argues the prior art does not
teach or suggest automatically suggesting additional layers in response to the
3
Appeal2014-006551
Application 12/827,417
items of virtual information "being currently displayed" on the screen is
less than a preset threshold. App. Br. 10-11; see also App. Br. 12-14, 17-
19. Instead, Appellant argues the most Geelen teaches is that in response to
a user adjusting a zoom level, different point of interest ("POI") types are
displayed. App. Br. 13 (citing Geelen i-f 52). Appellant also argues Mukai
teaches no more than a system that limits the number of landmarks displayed
so that the number of landmarks does not exceed a maximum landmark
count. App. Br. 18 (citing Mukai i-f 254).
The Examiner finds Geelen teaches showing additional POis-
including different types of PO Is-as a user zooms in or out of a map if the
number of PO Is otherwise displayed would be less than the maximum
number of POis allowed (a preset threshold). Final Act. 9-12; Ans. 4--18.
The Examiner further finds Mukai teaches "when the number of landmarks
of a hierarchical order is below the maximum count of landmarks, additional
landmarks of other hierarchical orders are automatically selected so as to
approximate the upper limit of the count of landmarks" (a preset threshold).
Final Act. 15 (emphasis omitted); see also Ans. 26-28. The Examiner
further finds the combination of Geelen, Mukai, and Achthoven2 teaches the
second determining step and the automatically suggesting steps recited in
claim 1.
The problem with Appellant's argument, as we see it, is that there are
many general disagreements with the Examiner's findings, but very few-if
any-arguments pointing to specific errors made by the Examiner and
specifically pointing out why the prior art does not teach what the Examiner
2 The Examiner finds Achthoven teaches layers. Final Act. 23-24.
Appellant does not challenge that finding.
4
Appeal2014-006551
Application 12/827,417
says the prior art teaches. Then, in those arguments specifically pointing to
the claim language, Appellant argues the prior art does not teach the claim
limitation; but Appellant never convincingly rebuts the Examiner's specific
identification of the claim limitations in the prior art. That is, while
Appellant argues the references do not show or suggest a particular claimed
feature, Appellant has not shown, convincingly, any error in the Examiner's
reasonmg.
For example, Appellant focuses the argument on the number of items
of virtual information being currently displayed being below a
predetermined threshold. App. Br. passim. However, as the Examiner
points out, that phrase does not appear in the second determining or
automatically suggesting limitations in dispute. See Ans. 15-16.
Arguments that are not commensurate with the scope of the claim are not
persuasive of Examiner error. In re Self, 671F.2d1344, 1348 (CCPA
1982).
As another example, Appellant states "a user adjusting a zoom
control to display more POis, as at most disclosed by Geelen," does not
teach or suggest the claim limitation. App. Br. 12. However, there is no
discussion or argument as to why it does not teach or suggest the claim
limitation. Id. Merely disagreeing with the Examiner's conclusion on the
scope of the claim and whether the prior art teaches it is not sufficient.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, along
with the rejection of claims 10 and 19, which are argued on the same
grounds (App. Br. 19), and claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20, which are not argued
separately (App. Br. 20).
5
Appeal2014-006551
Application 12/827,417
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims
1-20.
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
6