Kevin Cherveny et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 29, 2020

11044139 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 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.
11/044,139 01/27/2005 Kevin Cherveny 10171-12112A
(NC58008US)
9076
101535 7590 09/29/2020
Lempia Summerfield Katz LLC/HERE
20 South Clark Street
Suite 600
Chicago, IL 60603
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, CUONG H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2020 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 KEVIN CHERVENY, AARON CRANE,
LAWRENCE M. KAPLAN, JOHN JASPER, and RUSSELL SHIELDS
____________
Appeal 2018-008622
Application 11/044,139
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
KEVIN W. CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 26, 27, 36, 38–40, 42, 43, 46, 48, 58,
59, and 61.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Here
Global B.V., an organization having a place of business in Veldhoven,
Netherlands. Appeal Br. 2.
2 “An appeal, when taken, is presumed to be taken from the rejection of all
claims under rejection unless cancelled by an amendment filed by the
applicant and entered by the Office.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(c); see infra.
Appeal 2018-008622
Application 11/044,139

2

We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Subject Matter on Appeal
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a system and method for
updating and enhancing a geographic database. Spec. 1, ll. 11–14.
Claim 26, which is reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
26. A method of collecting data representing physical
features in a geographic region to update a central geographic
database comprising:
receiving a navigation related feature from a map database
associated with the central geographic database;
sensing, using sensor equipment in each of a plurality of
end users’ vehicles, a physical feature in an environment around
each of said end users’ vehicles while said end users’ vehicles
are being driven along roads;
collecting, using data collection equipment in each of said
plurality of end users’ vehicles, data from said sensor equipment
while said end users’ vehicles are being driven along said roads;
sending, with a wireless communication link, at least a
portion of the data collected by said data collection equipment to
the central geographic database;
wherein, based on comparing the portion of data collected
to data already stored in the central geographic database, the
central geographic database is updated using the portion of data
collected to provide navigation related features.
Appeal Br. 17, Claims App.
Appeal 2018-008622
Application 11/044,139

3

Rejections3
Claims 26, 27, 36, 38, 39, 42, 43, 46, and 48 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lanckton (US 5,517,419, iss.
May 14, 1996) and Mannings (US 6,169,515 B1, iss. Jan. 2, 2001).
Claim 40 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lanckton, Mannings, Zarmer (US 5,625,818, iss. Apr. 29,
1997), and Herz (US 5,835,087, iss. Nov. 10, 1998).
Claims 58, 59, and 61 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lanckton, Mannings, Poelstra (US 4,994,971, iss.
Feb. 19, 1991), and Peterson (US 5,332,180, iss. July 26, 1994).

ANALYSIS
Claims 26, 27, 36, and 46
Appellant argues that neither Lanckton nor Mannings disclose the
limitation “based on comparing the portion of data collected to data already
stored in the central geographic database, the central geographic database is
updated using the portion of data collected to provide navigation related
features” (Appeal Br. 8). The Examiner concedes that neither Lanckton nor
Mannings expressly disclose this limitation (Final Act. 5). However, the
Examiner submits that “using ‘filtered data’/’a portion of data’ are obviously
a task while/of collecting data; this teaching is not new to one of ordinary
skill in the art because one only collecting ‘related’/a portion data,” and that
“this claimed language only indicates a comparison of related data to a
stored data in a central database (see Mannings et al., claim 13, and

3 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 38, 42, and 59 under
35 U.S.C. § 112 (Ans. 3).
Appeal 2018-008622
Application 11/044,139

4

Mannings et al., clearly disclose ‘a central database’, in col. 8 lines 60–67
wherein data are collected and processed/stored in a central database)”
(Final Act. 5). The Examiner further submits that
[w]hile Mannings et al., do not disclose about updating a
central data using a portion of collected data to provide
navigation related features; however, Mannings teaches about
using “filtered data” (that is clearly “a portion of data”) while/of
collecting certain data; because only collecting “related”/a
portion of data would save time and effort while performing
this collecting task (see Mannings, col. 1 lines 41–43, and col. 2
lines 43–44)
(Ans. 4).
The Examiner further explains that the disputed limitation
only indicates a comparison of related data to a stored data in a
central database (e.g., to obtain valid/better data, see Mannings
et al., col. 9 lines 2–6, claim 13, and Mannings et al., clearly
disclose “a central database”, in col. 8 lines 60–67 wherein data
are collected and processed/stored/updated in a central
database)
(Ans. 5).
Appellant contends that the Examiner is improperly relying on
personal knowledge and “mere knowledge of a general use of a portion of
data does not suggest updating a central database using the portion of
data. . . . to provide navigation related features” (Appeal Br. 10). Appellant
submits that the cited portions of Mannings (claim 13 and column 8, lines
60–67) merely disclose the mobile part comparing movement information
with an expected range received from the fixed part, and automatically
reporting the movement measurements if the measurements are outside of
the expected range (claim 13), and using a central database to monitor
vehicle movements using traffic models to optimize traffic flows and
Appeal 2018-008622
Application 11/044,139

5

journey times of the monitored vehicles (col. 8, ll. 60–67) (Appeal Br. 11).
Appellant contends that “[a]ll discussion by Mannings, et al. of using a
central database to monitor vehicle movements and to provide navigational
instructions fails to suggest comparing data collected to data already stored
in the central geographic database” (Id.). Thus, Appellant argues that
Mannings, does “not teach or suggest updating a central database based on
comparing a portion of data collected to data already stored in the central
geographic database, or that a central database is updated based on the
comparison” (Id.).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner
erred. To begin with, we disagree with Appellant that the Examiner
improperly relies on personal knowledge (Appeal Br. 10). As the Examiner
explains, although Mannings does not expressly teach the comparing
limitation, Mannings does teach collecting vehicle movement information
and that “[u]sing the data collected by this method, it is possible for the
central system to derive a digital map of valid routes,” and that “[t]he
following data could be derived automatically: valid travel lanes; permitted
directions) of flow; allowable turns; average travel times; trends in travel
times according to time of day” (Mannings, col. 8, l. 60–col. 9, l. 7). We
agree with Examiner that “because ‘only related features are compared to
see a difference—this has been practiced by one with ordinary skill in the
art—the motivation has been expected for: a quicker time, requiring less use
of computer data/space, and saving users’ effort” (Ans. 11). We agree with
the Examiner’s reasoning that Mannings’s disclosure suggests to a person of
ordinary skill that data are compared in order to enable the updates that
Mannings discloses. See In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1179 (CCPA 1979)
Appeal 2018-008622
Application 11/044,139

6

(“Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a reference must be considered not only for what it
expressly teaches, but also for what it fairly suggests.”).
Appellant responds with several arguments. First, Appellant argues
that there is no citation for the Examiner’s conclusion as to what Mannings
suggests (Reply Br. 2). We disagree. As detailed above, the Examiner does
cite to evidence—the disclosure of Mannings—and provides articulated
reasoning with rational underpinnings to support the conclusion that
Mannings’s disclosure of collecting vehicle movement data and then using
those data to automatically derive such things as valid travel lanes; permitted
directions of flow; allowable turns; average travel times; trends in travel
times according to time of day, would suggest to a person of ordinary skill in
the art comparing data in order to update other data stored in a database.
Second, Appellant argues that
[e]ven if the data in Mannings is
“reviewed/compared/processed before updating/releasing
current data,” Mannings cannot teach or suggest comparing the
portion of data collected, for the physical feature in the
environment around each of said end users’ vehicles while said
end users’ vehicles are being driven along roads, to data already
stored in the central geographic database, and the central
geographic database is updated using the portion of data
collected to provide navigation related features
(Reply Br. 3). However, the Examiner relies on Lanckton in the
combination for teaching collecting data about physical features and
Mannings is relied on for its teachings and suggestions regarding a central
database and data processing. Thus, this argument improperly addresses the
references individually and not in combination, and is not persuasive. See
Soft Gel Techs., Inc. v. Jarrow Formulas, Inc., 864 F.3d 1334, 1341 (Fed.
Cir. 2017).
Appeal 2018-008622
Application 11/044,139

7

Finally, Appellant contends that the Examiner’s interpretation of “at
least a portion of the data” as “any/all data collected” is unreasonable (Reply
Br. 3–4). We disagree. Claim 26 recites “sending, with a wireless
communication link, at least a portion of the data collected by said data
collection equipment to the central geographic database” and then recites,
with added emphasis, “based on comparing the portion of data collected to
data already stored in the central geographic database, the central geographic
database is updated using the portion of data collected to provide navigation
related features.” From the quoted claim language, it is apparent that the
antecedent basis for the “portion of data collected” lies in the “sending”
limitation of claim 26. The “sending” limitation makes clear that what is
sent is “at least a portion” of the data collected. Based on this claim
language, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 12–13) that the “portion” could
be up to all of the data collected. Appellant does not apprise us of any
portion of the Specification, nor are we aware of any, that would suggest a
narrower construction.
In sum, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 26. Appellant does not raise any other arguments regarding claims 27,
36, and 46, which depend from claim 26. Thus, we sustain the rejection of
claims 26, 27, 36, and 46.
Claim 38
Claim 38 depends from claim 26 and further recites that “comparing
the portion of data collected to data already stored in said central geographic
database comprises identifying variances in the portion of data collected
based on historical data in said central geographic database.” Appellant
argues that, in addition to the arguments regarding claim 26, the references
Appeal 2018-008622
Application 11/044,139

8

fail to teach or suggest “identifying variances . . . based on historical data in
said central geographic database” (Appeal Br. 12). Appellant asserts that the
cited portion of Lanckton, column 9, lines 17–22, “only discuss[es]
confirming a located feature by additional camera data collected from the
opposite side of a vehicle” and “[c]onfirming data with an additional camera
fails to suggest identifying variances in the portion of data collected based
on historical data in said central geographic database” (Appeal Br. 12).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive for several reasons. First,
we disagree with Appellant that the cited portion “only discuss[es]
confirming a located feature by additional camera data collected from the
opposite side of a vehicle” (Appeal Br. 12). Instead, as the Examiner
explains, in order to confirm a feature as disclosed, differences—or
variances—must be determined (Ans. 5). Second, Appellant’s arguments
regarding the lack of a central database are not persuasive because the
Examiner relies on Mannings, not Lanckton, to teach that feature. Thus, we
sustain the rejection of claim 38.
Claim 39
Claim 39 depends from claim 38 and further recites that a “confidence
level” is associated with “data contained in said central geographic
database.” Appellant argues that “the cited references are completely silent
regarding confidence levels associated with data, and no art citations were
provided for this feature,” so “the rejection of claim 39 is unsupported and
based on purely conclusory statements” (Appeal Br. 13). We disagree. The
Examiner does cite Lanckton, column 9, lines 17–22, and while this passage
does not recite the words “confidence level,” the Examiner explains why this
passage would suggest to a person of ordinary skill the claimed “confidence
Appeal 2018-008622
Application 11/044,139

9

level.” Appellant fails to address this reasoning. We find the Examiner’s
reasoning to be rational and supported (Ans. 5). Thus, we sustain the
rejection of claim 39.
Claim 40
Claim 40 depends from claim 26. Appellant does not raise any
separate argument other than those considered above with respect to
claim 40. As discussed above with respect to claim 26, we did not find
Appellant’s arguments persuasive. Thus, we sustain the rejection of
claim 40.
Claims 42, 43, and 48
Claim 42 recites
a central geographic data manager that receives the
portion of the data collected by said data collection equipment
and updates the central geographic database using the portion of
the data collected and a confidence level for the portion of the
data collected, wherein the confidence level is indicative of a
certainty that the portion of data collected matches the physical
feature in the environment.
Appellant repeats its arguments for claims 26 and 39 regarding
“comparing” and “confidence level.” As we explained above, we were not
persuaded by these arguments. Thus, for the reasons explained above, we
sustain the rejection of claim 42.
Claims 43 and 48 depend from claim 42. Appellant raises no separate
arguments for those claims. Thus, we also sustain the rejection of claims 43
and 48.
Claims 58, 59, and 61
Independent claim 58 recites, in relevant part,
a central geographic data manager that receives the
portion of the data collected by said software programming,
Appeal 2018-008622
Application 11/044,139

10

performs a comparison of data previously stored in the central
database to the data collected by said software programming,
and updates the central database using the portion of the data
collected based on the comparison and a confidence level for
the portion of the data collected, wherein the confidence level is
indicative of a frequency that the positions of said roads are
collected by the plurality of end users’ vehicles.
Independent claim 59 recites, in relevant part,
using a computer-implemented method to compare the
information about the physical feature to data previously stored
in the central database and, based on the comparison, to update
the central database with the information about the physical
features that had been sent thereto to the central database,
wherein comparing the information about the physical feature
to data previously stored in the central database identifies a
variance in the information about the physical feature.
Independent claim 61 recites, in relevant part, “sending, with a
wireless communication link, at least a portion of the data collected by said
data collection equipment to the central geographic database based on the
comparison with the local map database and a confidence level for the
portion of the data collected.”
Appellant argues that none of the references disclose these features
(Appeal Br. 15). Appellant argues that the Examiner concedes that
Lanckton, Mannings, and Poelstra do not disclose this limitation (Id.).
Appellant submits that the Examiner looks to reference numeral 112 in
Figure 7 of Peterson for this feature, but Peterson merely discloses that
railway traffic is monitored and does not teach or suggest a central
geographic database (Id.). However, the Examiner relies on Mannings for
the central database (Ans. 8). Thus, Appellant’s attack on Peterson
individually does not persuade us that the Examiner’s finding are incorrect.
Moreover, the Examiner expressly incorporates the analysis from claim 26,
Appeal 2018-008622
Application 11/044,139

11

which we discussed above (Ans. 8). As we found above, the Examiner has
shown that the combination of Lanckton and Mannings teaches and suggests
the comparing limitation. As for “confidence level,” the Examiner repeats
the analysis we discussed above with respect to claim 39. Accordingly, for
these reasons and for the reasons expressed above with respect to claims 26
and 39, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 58, 59, and 61.

DECISION
The rejections of claims 26, 27, 36, 38–40, 42, 43, 46, 48, 58, 59, and
61 are affirmed.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
26, 27, 36,
38, 39, 42,
43, 46, 48
103(a) Lanckton, Mannings 26, 27, 36,
38, 39, 42,
43, 46, 48

40 103(a) Lanckton, Mannings,
Zarmer, Herz
40
58, 59, 61 103(a) Lanckton, Mannings,
Poelstra, Peterson
58, 59, 61
Overall
Outcome
26, 27, 36,
38–40, 42,
43, 46, 48,
58, 59, 61

Appeal 2018-008622
Application 11/044,139

12

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) (2011).
AFFIRMED