HERE Global B.V.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 17, 20212020004604 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 14/669,827 03/26/2015 Craig BARNES P8249US00 8328 11764 7590 12/17/2021 DITTHAVONG, STEINER, & MLOTKOWSKI 201 N. Union Street, Suite 110 Alexandria, VA 22314 EXAMINER MAHMOOD, REZWANUL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2164 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/17/2021 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 CRAIG BARNES, AARON RINCOVER, ARNAUD DE VALLOIS, and MARCO KRAUS ____________ Appeal 2020-004604 Application 14/669,827 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–9 and 11–20, which are all of the pending claims. Claims 10 and 21–48 have been cancelled. Appeal Br. 2.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies HERE Global B.V. (also doing business as HERE International B.V.) as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-004604 Application 14/669,827 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention relates to user interaction with a digital map, including sketching or drawing on the map and selecting map elements such as buildings or points of interest along a street or route. See Spec. ¶¶ 1–2. Claims 1, 11, and 18 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added): 1. A method comprising: receiving a drawing input of one line or one polyline along a street, a waterway, or a path via a mapping user interface corresponding to a plurality of continuous geographic coordinates, wherein the mapping user interface is being shared among a plurality of user devices; processing, by an apparatus, the drawing input to determine one or more selection parameters of at least one spatial query for a point of interest category, wherein the point of interest category is different from a building category; causing, at least in part, a querying of at least one spatial index based, at least in part, on the one or more selection parameters and the at least one spatial query, to determine a plurality of footprints of geographic features directly adjacent to the street, the waterway, or the path and located within a threshold distance from each of the continuous geographic coordinates and to determine one or more of the footprints of one or more of the geographic features that contain one or more points of interest of the point of interest category, wherein the at least one spatial index indexes the one or more geographic features as containing the one or more points of interest, and wherein the geographic features include, at least in part, one or more buildings, one or more map geographic areas, or a combination thereof; causing, at least in part, a first representation of the footprints located within the threshold distance as highlighted on edges of the footprints comparing with other footprints on the mapping user interface; causing, at least in part, a subsequent representation of the one or more footprints containing the one or more points of Appeal 2020-004604 Application 14/669,827 3 interest as highlighted on edges of the one more footprints among the footprints located within the threshold distance and the other footprints on the mapping user interface; causing, at least in part, an enablement of the one or more footprints in the subsequent representation to be selectable on the mapping user interface; in response to receiving of a user selection of one of the one or more footprints containing the one or more points of interest, causing, at least in part, a generation of annotations describing a user activity planned for users of the user devices at a point of interest corresponding to the selected footprint, wherein the user selection is received from one of the user devices, and wherein the annotations are generated by more than one of the users and are collaboratively generated and shared among the users in real-time; and updating the subsequent representation with at least one o[f] the annotations pointing toward the selected footprint on the mapping user interface in real-time with respect to the receiving of the user selection. Appeal Br. 14–15 (Claims App.). Appeal 2020-004604 Application 14/669,827 4 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 5–9, 11–13, and 15–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Florance,2 Laurenzo,3 von Kaenel,4 Edecker,5 Geelen,6 and Smith.7 Non-Final Act. 5–49. The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Florance, Laurenzo, von Kaenel, Edecker, Geelen, Smith, and Ren.8 Non-Final Act. 49–51. OPINION Appellant argues that the combined references fail to teach or suggest a generation of annotations describing a user activity planned for users of the user devices at a point of interest corresponding to the selected footprint, wherein the user selection is received from one of the user devices, and wherein the annotations are generated by more than one of the users and are collaboratively generated and shared among the users in real-time; and updating the subsequent representation with at least one o[f] the annotations pointing toward the selected footprint on the mapping user interface in real-time with respect to the receiving of the user selection as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 11 and 18. Appeal Br. 10. According to Appellant, neither von 2 Florance et al., US 2009/0132316 A1, published May. 21, 2009. 3 Laurenzo et al., US 2011/0145228 A1, published June 16, 2011. 4 von Kaenel et al., US 2004/0117358 A1, pub. June 17, 2004. 5 Edecker et al., US 2014/0280180 A1, published Sept. 18, 2014. 6 Geelen et al., US 2011/0029227 A1, published Feb. 3, 2011. 7 Smith et al., US 2010/0118025 A1, published May 13, 2010. 8 Ren et al., US 2014/0267282 A1, published Sept. 18, 2014. Appeal 2020-004604 Application 14/669,827 5 Kaenel nor Smith describes users collaboratively annotating a map and map elements. Id. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. The Examiner relies upon Smith (and not von Kaenel), making specific findings as to how Smith teaches those features. Non-Final Act. 12–14; Ans. 4–7. For example, the Examiner cites Smith’s disclosure of a map application with information regarding an object or point of interest provided within the footprint or boundary of the object and user-annotated information regarding a point of interest displayed in the map application and shared with other users. Smith ¶¶ 60, 108. As the Examiner points out, Appellant provides no specific argument as to why the Examiner’s findings with respect to Smith are erroneous. See Appeal Br. 10–12; Ans. 16. Rather, Appellant’s argument amounts to no more than reciting the claim language and alleging that Smith is deficient, which is not an argument for patentability of the claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”). Appellant further argues that the motivation provided by the Examiner to combine Smith with the other cited references is a conclusory statement amounting to mere speculation, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have looked to Smith to remedy the deficiencies of the other cited references, absent improper hindsight analysis. Appeal Br. 11–12. Appeal 2020-004604 Application 14/669,827 6 Similarly, Appellant argues that the motivation provided by the Examiner to combine von Kaenel with the other cited references is insufficient to support a conclusion of obviousness. Id. at 11; Reply Br. 4. We find that the Examiner provides sufficient reasoning in combining both von Kaenel and Smith with the other cited references. The Examiner relies upon von Kaenel for a “drawing input of one line or one polyline along a street, a waterway, or a path” as recited in claims 1, 11, and 18. Non-Final Act. 9 (citing von Kaenel ¶¶ 6, 516, 775, 778, 789); Ans. 8 (citing von Kaenel ¶¶ 9, 244). Noting that Florance, Laurenzo, and von Kaenel all relate to a digital map user interface, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine von Kaenel’s input lines or polylines (see von Kaenel ¶¶ 516, 775) with Florance and Laurenzo in order to provide “an improved spatial and geospatial information system by using spatial and/or geospatial information to explore, analyze, visualize, and communicate spatial relationships.” Non-Final Act. 9 (citing von Kaenel ¶ 6); Ans. 8–9. Adding Smith to the combination of references, the Examiner concludes that all of the combined references relate to a digital map user interface and that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Smith’s shareable user annotations with the other cited references in order to “shar[e] and visualize[e] information based on geographic locations by monitoring user activities with regard to a displayed map.” Non-Final Act. 14 (citing Smith Abstract); Ans. 13–14. As such, the Examiner provides an articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the conclusion of obviousness, and Appellant has not shown why the Examiner's analysis is incorrect. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) Appeal 2020-004604 Application 14/669,827 7 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Appellant does not present persuasive argument or evidence that the Examiner’s rejection is based on knowledge gleaned only from Appellant’s disclosure, or based on knowledge beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellant that the combination of von Kaenel and Smith with the other cited references is based on impermissible hindsight. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Appellant argues that it would not have been obvious to combine six references absent hindsight analysis. Reply Br. 2; see Appeal Br. 11. However, as the Examiner points out, it is well settled that the number of references required to show obviousness does not, by itself, demonstrate that the claimed subject matter would have been unobvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Ans. 15; see In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (affirming obviousness rejection over 13 references) (“The criterion . . . is not the number of references, but what they would have meant to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention.”). As stated above, we find that the Examiner provides articulated reasoning with sufficient rational underpinning to support the conclusion of obviousness, and Appellant has not shown why the Examiner's analysis is incorrect. Moreover, Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings regarding the claim limitations for which four of the six applied references are relied upon by the Examiner, nor does Appellant provide any persuasive argument in the Appeal Brief that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the teachings of those references in the proposed manner. Appeal 2020-004604 Application 14/669,827 8 In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues for the first time that Florance is “not related to the present approach for processing one or more user interactions and/or drawing inputs on mapping user interface to cause a selection of one or more map elements based, at least in part, on the drawing inputs” and that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would not have turned to Florance” for teachings of such. Reply Br. 3. We do not consider those assertions because they are improper new arguments. See 37 C.F.R. 41.41(b)(2). For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that Appellant has shown Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent claims 1, 11, and 18 and dependent claims 2–9, 12–17, 19, and 20 not argued separately by Appellant. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–9 and 11–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 5–9, 11–13, 15–20 103 Florance, Laurenzo, von Kaenel, Edecker, Geelen, Smith 1–3, 5–9, 11–13, 15–20 4, 14 103 Florance, Laurenzo, von Kaenel, Edecker, Geelen, Smith, Ren 4, 14 Overall Outcome 1–9, 11–20 Appeal 2020-004604 Application 14/669,827 9 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation