HERE Global B.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 26, 2022

2020005929 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2022)

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. 15/336,267 10/27/2016 Gavril Giurgiu 064359/486544 8891 139885 7590 01/26/2022 HERE Global/Alston & Bird One South at The Plaza 101 South Tryon Street, Suite 4000 Charlotte, NC 28280-4000 EXAMINER RUIZ, ANGELICA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2162 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/26/2022 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 GAVRIL GIURGIU and ALEX AVERBUCH Appeal 2020-005929 Application 15/336,267 Technology Center 2100 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2020-005929 Application 15/336,267 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-26. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to Appellant “the present invention relates to map generation and revision and, more particularly, to revising map geometry based on probe data collected including automatically and semi- automatically correcting map geometry anomalies.” Spec. 1 (Technological Field). Claim 1, reproduced below with bracketed labels added and a dispositive limitation emphasized in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A map services provider system comprising: [(i)] a communications interface configured to receive probe data points from a plurality of probes, wherein the probe data comprises at least one of heading information and location information for each probe data point, and [(ii)] at least one processor configured to: [(a)] match the probe data to a link segment to generate map- matched probe data; 1 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed March 4, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed August 17, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); the Final Office Action mailed November 5, 2019 (“Non-Final Act.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 16, 2020 (“Ans.”); and the Specification filed October 27, 2016 (“Spec.”). Rather than repeat the Examiner’s findings and Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we refer to these documents. 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as HERE Global B.V. Appeal Br. 2 Appeal 2020-005929 Application 15/336,267 3 [(b)] calculate a difference between the at least one of heading information and location information of the map-matched probe data points and of the link segment; [(c)] determine a statistical mean of the difference between the at least one of heading information and location information of the map- matched probe data points and the link segment; [(d)] determine an error of the statistical mean of the difference between the at least one of heading information and location information of the map-matched probe data points and the link segment; and [(e)] flag the link segment for manual review in response to the statistical mean of the difference between the at least one of heading information and location information of the map-matched probe data points and the link segment being greater than the error of the statistical mean multiplied by a biasing factor. Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.). Each of independent claims 8, 15, and 22 recites a limitation corresponding to the disputed limitation of claims 1. Id. at 21-22 (claim 8), 24 (claim 15), 26 (claim 22). REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS The prior art relied upon by the Examiner are: Name Reference Date Breed et al. (“Breed”) US 2007/0152804 A1 July 5, 2007 Hirsch et al. (“Hirsch”) US 2011/0208424 A1 Aug. 25, 2011 Witmer US 2012/0116678 A1 May 10, 2012 The Examiner rejects: a. claims 1-5, 8-12, 15-19, and 22-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Witmer and Hirsch (Final Act. 7-12); and b. claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Witmer, Hirsch, and Breed (Final Act. 12-15). Appeal 2020-005929 Application 15/336,267 4 We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the contentions and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). We address the rejections below. ISSUE Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of references teaches or suggests a process configured to calculate a difference between the at least one of heading information and location information of the map- matched probe data points and of the link segment as recited in claim 1 and similar limitations of independent claims 8, 15, and 22? ANALYSIS The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over the combined teachings of Witmer and Hirsch. Final Act. 7-9. The Examiner relies upon Witmer’s disclosure of creating a digital representation of a transportation network (e.g., a road) based on data generated by a probe for teaching all limitations except for the limitation of claim 1’s element (ii)(e). Id. at 7-8 (citing Witmer ¶¶ 213-14, 20, 40, 89, 128, 179; Figs. 4, 5, 17, 18). Addressing the noted deficiency of Witmer, the Examiner finds Hirsch’s disclosure of including “[r]oad map feedback is . . . in a tightly coupled GPS and dead- reckoning system that collects wheel speed transducer data over a vehicle’s network to compute vehicle range and direction” (Hirsch, Abstract) teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1’s element (ii)(e). Id. at 8-9 (citing Hirsch §§ 241, 117, 188, Figs. 4-5). According to the Examiner it would have been obvious “to incorporate the teachings of Hirsch into the method of Witmer to take advantage of using a plurality of error calculations. The Appeal 2020-005929 Application 15/336,267 5 modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement error calculations to define offset values.” Id. at 9. Appellant contends that, inter alia, Witmer fails to teach the functionality recited by claim 1’s element (ii)(b). Appellant argues as follows. Claim 1 recites that the processor is configured to “calculate a difference between the at least one of heading information and location information of the map-matched probe data points and of the link segment.” The Final Office Action alleges that Witmer teaches this feature, citing paragraphs [0020] and [0089]. Paragraph [0020] describes only building the transportation network, but fails to teach or suggest that a difference is calculated between probe data and a link segment. Paragraph [0089] describes only that probe data includes latitude and longitude. Neither paragraph, nor any disclosure of Witmer relates in any manner to establishing a difference between collected probe data (including heading and location) and a map- matched road segment heading and location. The cited disclosure and quotations thereof fail to mention identifying a difference of any kind between probe data and any other data, such that Witmer clearly fails to teach or suggest a processor configured to “calculate a difference between the at least one of heading information and location information of the map- matched probe data points and of the link segment.” Hirsch fails to correct this deficiency and was not cited to do so. Appeal Br. 14. In response to Appellant’s contention, the Examiner repeats reasoning for the rejection as set forth in the Final Action. Ans. 4-7; cf. Final Act. 3- 5, 7-9. Appellant replies, contending that “arguments provided in the Appeal Brief are not overcome by the responses included in the Examiner’s Answer.” Reply Br. 2. According to Appellant “Hirsch is only concerned Appeal 2020-005929 Application 15/336,267 6 with the heading of a vehicle, and establishing an error thereof. Hirsch does not relate in any way to flagging a link segment for manual review when probe data fails to correspond to digital map data by a specific error threshold.” Id. at 4. Thus, Appellant maintains that “[t]he Final Office Action and the Examiner’s Answer fail to demonstrate that Witmer teaches the calculation of any difference between heading or location information of a map-matched probe data point and of the link segment to which the probe data is map matched.” Id. at 2. We are persuaded the rejection is improper because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or reasoning to show that Witmer teaches or suggests claim 1’s processor configured to calculate a difference between the at least one of heading information and location information of the map- matched probe data points and of the link segment. The Specification discloses that “[a] portion of a route, a lane, a road, a highway, a street, a trail, a thoroughfare, and/or the like may be referred to as a link segment.” Spec. ¶ 49. Further described is that “real time data may include information indicative of the speed of a vehicle, the location of a vehicle, the time the data was collected, and/or the like” and “[d]ata points within a set of real time data may be referred to as probe data.” Spec. ¶ 57. We do not ascertain from the Examiner’s application of Witmer where the reference discloses calculating a difference between these items of information, i.e., between Witmer’s route (e.g., Witmer’s digital map of road segments) and probe traces (e.g., Witmer’s probe data generated by probe vehicles). That is, the Examiner fails to show and we do not ascertain where or how any disclosure of Witmer cited by the Examiner, including probe traces linked with geographic objects in a digital geographic network (Witmer ¶ 20), a Appeal 2020-005929 Application 15/336,267 7 mean probe trace (Witmer ¶ 40), probe data consisting of sequential measurements of probe trace points including heading and velocity (Witmer ¶ 89), a normal distribution of location measurements using GPS (Witmer ¶ 128), and progressive mean probe tract processing (Witmer ¶ 179), teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claim 1’s element (ii)(b). The Examiner, furthermore, does not rely on the teachings attributable to Hirsch for this limitation. See Final Act. 8-9. Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner errs in finding all limitations of claim 1 are taught or suggested by the combined teachings of Witmer and Hirsch. Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellant, we do not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, or the rejection of independent claims 8, 15, and 22, which include language similar to the argued limitation of claim 1. Nor do we sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-21, and 23-26 which stand with their respective base. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of a. claims 1-5, 8-12, 15-19, and 22-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Witmer and Hirsch; and b. claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Witmer, Hirsch, and Breed. Appeal 2020-005929 Application 15/336,267 8 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-5, 8-12, 15-19, 22- 26 103 Witmer, Hirsch 1-5, 8-12, 15-19, 22- 26 6, 7, 13, 14, 20, 21 103 Witmer, Hirsch, Breed 6, 7, 13, 14, 20, 21 Overall Outcome 1-26 REVERSED