HERE Global B.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 29, 2020

2019006421 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2020)

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.
14/836,392 08/26/2015 Michael Weiland 10171-12108B
(NC58132US)
2122
101535 7590 06/29/2020
Lempia Summerfield Katz LLC/HERE
20 South Clark Street
Suite 600
Chicago, IL 60603
EXAMINER
MANCHO, RONNIE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3666
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2020 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-us@lsk-iplaw.com
hereipr@here.com
pair_lsk@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL WEILAND, GREGORY NYCZAK,
WILLIAM MCDONOUGH, MICHAEL TSENGOURAS,
DAVID SHUMAN, and PAUL FORD
____________

Appeal 2019-006421
Application 14/836,392
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 2–4, 6–13, 15–18, 20, 21, and 25–28.2 We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as HERE Global B.V.
Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 1, 5, 14, 19, and 22–24 are canceled. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-006421
Application 14/836,392

2
In explaining our Decision, we refer to the Specification filed
August 26, 2015 (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action mailed November 1,
2018 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed February 21, 2019 (“Appeal
Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed July 3, 2019 (“Ans.”), and the Reply
Brief filed August 29, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention “relates to methods for representing
roads as data in a database.” Spec. 1:3–4. Claims 2, 11, and 18 are
independent. Claim 2, reproduced below from page 29 (Claims Appendix)
of the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
2. A method comprising:
receiving position data from one or more sensors,
wherein the position data describes a position of a vehicle on a
road segment;
querying a road database, by a processor coupled
therewith, based on the position of the vehicle on the road
segment;
receiving, by the processor, intersection data from the
road database, wherein the intersection data includes a set of
legal maneuvers through an intersection and a confidence value
for a maneuver of the set of legal maneuvers, the confidence
value indicative of a likelihood that a geometry of the maneuver
accurately predicts a vehicle path through the intersection, such
that the confidence value represents a probability that the
vehicle is on the vehicle path indicated by the geometry of the
maneuver when the vehicle maneuvers through the intersection;
and
providing, by the processor, a driving assistance
command based on the intersection data to control the vehicle.
Appeal 2019-006421
Application 14/836,392

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
Kinoshita US 5,642,093 June 24, 1997
Froeberg US 6,028,550 Feb. 22, 2000
Kaji US 6,269,304 B1 July 31, 2001
Kimura US 6,385,536 B2 May 7, 2002
REJECTIONS3
I. Claims 2–4, 6–10, 18, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaji, Kimura¸ and Froeberg.
II. Claims 11–13, 15–17, and 25–28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaji, Kimura¸ Froeberg, and Kinoshita.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I – Obviousness based on Kaji, Kimura¸ and
Froeberg
Claims 2–4, 6, and 8–10
In contesting the rejection of claims 2–4, 6, and 8–10, Appellant
presents arguments for independent claim 2 and does not separately argue
dependent claims 3, 4, 6, and 8–10. See Appeal Br. 12–16. We select
claim 2 as representative, and claims 3, 4, 6, and 8–10 stand or fall with
claim 2. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018).
The Examiner finds that Kaji teaches a method comprising most of
the limitations recited in claim 2. Final Act. 5–6 (citing Kaji, 3:39–51,

3 A rejection of claims 11–13, 15–17, and 25–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement was
withdrawn by the Examiner. Final Act. 2–4; Ans. 3.
Appeal 2019-006421
Application 14/836,392

4
4:5–48, 5:18–67, 6:33–65, 7:11–22, 7:52–65, Figs. 1–9, 16). The Examiner
finds that Kaji teaches “intersection data including a set of maneuvers
through an intersection, but does not disclose a driving assistance command
based on the intersection data to control the vehicle.” Id. at 6. However, the
Examiner finds that Kimura discloses this feature. Id. (citing Kimura, 2:54–
58, 5:29–6:4, 8:19–45, 9:11–23, 10:18–24, 12:17–22, 13:30–35, 15:59–62,
17:55–56, 23:24–27, Figs. 9, 10, 12, 17–34). The Examiner determines that
it would have been obvious “to modify Kaji as taught by Kimura for the
purpose of providing assistance in controlling a vehicle when cornering[,]
e.g.[,] at an intersection or fork.” Id. at 6–7 (citing Kimura, code (57), 9:11–
23, 12:17–22, 13:30–35).
The Examiner finds that the combination of Kaji and Kimura does not
disclose a confidence value. Final Act. 7. However, the Examiner finds that
Froeberg teaches . . . a navigation (col. 3, lines 49–63) method,
wherein intersection data (figs. 4–6; col. 7, lines 15–20; col. 8,
lines 16–22; col. 9, lines 1–20, etc) includes a set of legal
maneuvers through an intersection (figs. 4–8) and a confidence
value for a maneuver of the set of legal maneuvers (figs. 4–8,
each shows a confidence value for a set of legal maneuvers
through an intersection), the confidence value (col. 11, lines
11–59, col. 12, lines 17–26) indicative of a likelihood that a
geometry of the maneuver accurately predicts a vehicle path
(e.g. how close is actual vehicle path 810 to path 840; col. 10,
lines 46 to col. 11, line 10) through the intersection (confidence
value refers to the accuracy of a path through the intersection;
see fig. 8; col. 3, lines 64 to col. 4, line[] 2; col. 7, lines 15–20,
lines 52–64; col. 11, lines 11–59; col. 12, lines 17–26), such
that the confidence value represents a probability that the
vehicle is on the vehicle path indicated by the geometry of the
maneuver when the vehicle maneuvers through the intersection
(probability that vehicle is on path 810 is shown by a distance
e.g. 841 by which the position of the vehicle is away from a
Appeal 2019-006421
Application 14/836,392

5
path 810 through an intersection; col. 10, lines 46 to col. 11,
line 10).
Id. (emphasis omitted). The Examiner determines that it would have been
obvious “to modify Kaji and Kimura as taugh[t] by Froeberg for the purpose
of providing accurate and speedy determination of a travel path at an
intersection where paths meet and diverge.” Id. (citing Froeberg, 3:13–39,
3:64–4:8).
Appellant argues that Froeberg does not teach or suggest the claimed
confidence value. Appeal Br. 11–16; Reply Br. 2–4. Appellant asserts that
“Froeberg relates to tracking a vehicle in order to determine which path,
from a plurality of paths, the vehicle has taken.” Appeal Br. 14 (emphasis
omitted). Appellant asserts that,
Even though Froeberg discloses correlation data that indicates
how closely a vehicle is tracking a particular path, the
correlation data relates to a path actually taken by the vehicle.
The correlation data is not, however, indicative of a likelihood
that a particular path, or geometry, accurately predicts the
vehicle path through an intersection (i.e., a path not yet taken),
as required by claim 2.
Id. (emphasis omitted). Appellant asserts that “the prior art discloses a value
(i.e., correlation data) that relates to a path actually taken by a vehicle
whereas the claim language requires a value (i.e., confidence value) that
relates to a vehicle path not yet taken.” Id. at 15; see also id. at 15–16
(asserting that “the confidence value is received before the vehicle actually
takes the predicted path”). According to Appellant,
Froeberg does not teach or suggest receiving any sort of
probability relating to whether a vehicle will be on a predicted
path represented by a geometry of a maneuver before when the
vehicle actually maneuvers through the intersection. The only
probability referred to in Froeberg relates to position accuracy
Appeal 2019-006421
Application 14/836,392

6
of a vehicle’s determined path, which . . . refers to the actual
path of the vehicle taken and not a predicted path of the vehicle.
Id. at 16 (citing Froeberg, 10:61–11:10, 11:27–33); see also Reply Br. 2
(asserting “that ‘when the vehicle maneuvers’ indicates a future action”).
We are not persuaded by this line of argument because it is not
commensurate with the scope of claim 2. Claim 2 recites, in relevant part,
that “the confidence value represents a probability that the vehicle is on the
vehicle path indicated by the geometry of the maneuver when the vehicle
maneuvers through the intersection.” Appeal Br. 29 (Claims App.)
(emphasis added). The claim does not recite that the confidence value
represents a probability that a vehicle “will be” on a predicted path “before”
the vehicle actually maneuvers through the intersection, as asserted by
Appellant. Id. at 16. Limitations not appearing in the claim cannot be relied
upon for patentability. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982)
(“Many of appellant’s arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are
not based on limitations appearing in the claims.”). Moreover, we are
unpersuaded by Appellant’s contention that “when the vehicle maneuvers,”
as recited in claim 2, necessarily requires “a future action” (Reply Br. 2)
because the term “when” also encompasses a present tense action.
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s determination that the subject matter of claim 2 would have been
obvious. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 2, and claims 3, 4,
6, and 8–10 falling therewith, as unpatentable over Kaji, Kimura¸ and
Froeberg.
Appeal 2019-006421
Application 14/836,392

7
Claim 7
In rejecting claim 7, which depends indirectly from claim 2, the
Examiner finds that Kimura discloses that “the intersection type identifier
indicates a roundabout intersection, a railroad crossing intersection, or a
standard [intersection].” Final Act. 8 (citing Kimura, 6:28–35, 6:53, 7:1–26,
Figs. 1, 4, 12, 17–34).
Appellant argues that the “cited portions [of Kimura] disclose a lane
marker detector, not an intersection type identifier that indicates specific
types of intersections.” Appeal Br. 17 (citing Kimura, 6:28–35, 6:53,
7:1–26). The Examiner responds by finding that “Kimura teaches
intersection data that includes [an] intersection type identifier indicative of a
standard intersection.” Ans. 10. The Examiner explains that, “[i]n Kimura,
the database 24 stores the route/map data. As shown in FIG. 3, this
ro[u]te/map data includes various data such as map data, road data, node
data, intersection data, fork data which includes fork information used in
this invention.” Id. (some emphasis omitted) (citing Kimura, 8:19–27); see
also id. at 10–11 (“The intersection data includes information indicating the
type of intersection, the intersection number, the presence or absence of
traffic signals, and the like.” (quoting Kimura, 8:43–45)). In this regard,
Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s position. See generally Reply Br.
Given Kimura’s teaching that “ro[u]te/map data includes various data such
as . . . intersection data” (Kimura, 8:20–21, Fig. 3) and that “intersection
data includes information indicating the type of intersection” (id. at 8:43–44
(emphasis added)), we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that
Kimura only discloses a lane marker detector (Appeal Br. 17).
Appeal 2019-006421
Application 14/836,392

8
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s determination that the subject matter of claim 7 would have been
obvious. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 7.
Claims 18, 20, and 21
In contesting the rejection of claims 18, 20, and 21, Appellant presents
arguments for independent claim 18 and does not separately argue
dependent claims 20 and 21. See Appeal Br. 17–20. We select claim 18 as
representative, and claims 20 and 21 stand or fall with claim 18.
Appellant initially relies on the arguments advanced for the
patentability of claim 2. See Appeal Br. 17–19 (arguing that Froeberg does
not disclose the claimed confidence value). For the reasons discussed above,
Appellant’s arguments fail to apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 2
and, likewise, fail to apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 18.
Appellant also argues that,
Even assuming, arguendo, that the correlation data and
accuracy of the determined path of Froeberg correspond to the
claimed confidence value, . . . the correlation data and accuracy
information do not relate to a maneuver through a standard
intersection, as claimed, namely an intersection having one or
more paths from at least one incoming lane to at least one
outgoing lane.
Appeal Br. 19 (emphasis omitted). Appellant asserts that “Froeberg does not
teach or suggest determining travel paths through a standard intersection, as
claimed, but rather simply tracks which path of two diverging paths a
vehicle is actually on.” Id. We are not persuaded by this argument because
the Examiner does not rely on Froeberg for teaching data relating to an
intersection having one or more paths from at least one incoming lane to at
least one outgoing lane. See Final Act. 11; see also Ans. 15. Instead, the
Appeal 2019-006421
Application 14/836,392

9
Examiner relies on Kaji for teaching “navigation data [that] includes a set of
legal maneuvers through a standard intersection having one or more paths
from at least one incoming lane to at least one outgoing lane.” Final Act. 10
(citing Kaji, Figs. 4, 6, 8, 16; 5:51–6:32). In other words, the Examiner’s
rejection is based on the combined teachings of Kaji, Kimura, and Froeberg,
and, thus, Appellant’s argument against Froeberg individually is
unpersuasive of error. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981)
(“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually
where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.”).
Moreover, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that
“Froeberg does not teach or suggest determining travel paths through a
standard intersection, as claimed” (Appeal Br. 19) because it is not
commensurate with the scope of claim 18. Claim 18 recites, in relevant part,
“receiv[ing] navigation data from the road database, wherein the navigation
data includes a set of legal maneuvers through a standard intersection having
one or more paths from at least one incoming lane to at least one outgoing
lane.” Id. at 32–33 (Claims App.). The claim does not recite “determining
travel paths through a standard intersection,” as asserted by Appellant. Id. at
19; see also In re Self, 671 F.2d at 1348.
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s determination that the subject matter of claim 18 would have
been obvious. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 18, and claims
20 and 21 falling therewith.
Appeal 2019-006421
Application 14/836,392

10
Rejection II – Obviousness based on Kaji, Kimura¸ Froeberg,
and Kinoshita
Claims 11–13, 16, 17, and 26–28
In contesting the rejection of claims 11–13, 16, 17, and 26–28,
Appellant presents arguments for independent claim 11 and does not
separately argue dependent claims 12, 13, 16, 17, and 26–28. See Appeal
Br. 20–25. We select claim 11 as representative, and claims 12, 13, 16, 17,
and 26–28 stand or fall with claim 11.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 relies on substantially similar
findings and reasoning as to the combination of Kaji, Kimura, and Froeberg
discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 2. See Final Act.
12–15. Additionally, the Examiner finds that “Kaji, Kimura, and Froeberg
disclose the invention as indicated, but do not particularly mention providing
a safety or another driving assistance function based on the deviation and the
confidence value.” Id. at 15. However, the Examiner finds that
Kinoshita teaches . . . providing, by a processor, a safety or
another driving assistance function (collision warning; col. 5,
lines 23–25; col. 6, lines 22–34) based on a deviation (vehicle
deviates from a vehicle path; figs. 5, 8, 11; col. 6, lines 22–34;
col. 6, lines 49–64) and the confidence value (standard
deviation of transverse displacements from course or lane; col.
6, lines 22–34; col. 6, lines 49–64).
Id. at 15–16 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner determines that it would
have been obvious “to modify Kaji, Kimura, Froeberg, as taught by
Kinoshita[,] for the purpose of implementing safety driving by providing a
collision warning to a driver when a vehicle the driver is driving deviates
from a path.” Id. at 16.
Appellant initially relies on the aforementioned arguments advanced
for the patentability of claim 2. See Appeal Br. 21–22 (arguing that
Appeal 2019-006421
Application 14/836,392

11
Froeberg does not disclose the claimed confidence value). For the reasons
discussed above, Appellant’s arguments fail to apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim 2 and, likewise, fail to apprise us of error in the rejection
of claim 11.
Appellant also argues that Kinoshita’s driving assistance function is
not based on a deviation of the actual path of a vehicle from a predicted path
or a confidence value, as claimed. Appeal Br. 24. According to Appellant,
The Office Action equates the standard deviation of transverse
displacements to the claimed confidence value. See Office
Action, p. 1[6]. However, a standard deviation is not the same
thing as a confidence value. A standard deviation is a measure
or quantity calculated to indicate an amount of variation
between values, or to indicate the extent of a deviation of
values.
Id. This argument is unpersuasive because Appellant does not proffer any
evidence to support the contention that Kinoshita’s standard deviation of
transverse displacements “is not the same thing as a confidence value.” Id.
Appellant’s assertion amounts to nothing more than attorney argument
unsupported by evidence and, thus, does not apprise us of error. See In re
Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding that attorney
arguments or conclusory statements are insufficient to rebut a prima facie
case of obviousness). Moreover, Appellant’s argument does not address the
combination of reference teachings relied on by the Examiner to address the
disputed limitation. Here, the Examiner relies on Froeberg for teaching the
claimed confidence value and determining whether the vehicle deviates from
an indicated path (Final Act. 14–15), and the Examiner relies on Kinoshita
for teaching providing another driving assistance function based on a
deviation and a confidence value (id. at 15–16). In other words, Appellant’s
Appeal 2019-006421
Application 14/836,392

12
argument against Kinoshita alone does not identify error in the Examiner’s
proposed combination of Kaji, Kimura, Froeberg, and Kinoshita.
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s determination that the subject matter of claim 11 would have
been obvious. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 11, and claims
12, 13, 16, 17, and 26–28 falling therewith, as unpatentable over Kaji,
Kimura¸ Froeberg, and Kinoshita.
Claim 15
In contesting the rejection of claim 15, Appellant relies on the same
arguments advanced for the patentability of claim 7. See Appeal Br. 25
(asserting that “Kimura fails to teach or suggest that the ‘type of
intersection’ data includes one of standard, roundabout, and railroad crossing
as recited in claim 7”), 17 (asserting that Kimura “disclose[s] a lane marker
detector, not an intersection type identifier that indicates specific types of
intersections”). For the reasons discussed above, Appellant’s arguments fail
to apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 7 and, likewise, fail to apprise
us of error in the rejection of claim 15. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claim 15.
Claim 25
In contesting the rejection of claim 25, Appellant relies on the same
arguments advanced for the patentability of claims 2 and 11. See Appeal
Br. 26 (asserting that “Froeberg fails to teach or suggest a confidence
value”), 27 (asserting that, “As discussed above for claim 11, while
Kinoshita may disclose a driving assistance command, the driving assistance
command of Kinoshita is not based on a deviation of a vehicle’s actual path
from a predicted path of the vehicle, as claimed.”). For the reasons
Appeal 2019-006421
Application 14/836,392

13
discussed above, Appellant’s arguments fail to apprise us of error in the
rejections of claims 2 and 11 and, likewise, fail to apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim 25. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 25.
CONCLUSION
In summary,
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
2–4, 6–10, 18,
20, 21
103(a) Kaji, Kimura¸
Froeberg
2–4, 6–10, 18,
20, 21

11–13, 15–17,
25–28
103(a) Kaji, Kimura¸
Froeberg, Kinoshita
11–13, 15–17,
25–28

Overall Outcome
2–4, 6–13,
15–18, 20, 21,
25–28

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED