HERE Global B.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 17, 2021

2020004604 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2021)

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