NAVICO HOLDING AS

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 3, 2020

2020000592 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 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.
15/246,929 08/25/2016 Kristopher C. Snyder 48379/09212 9700
27530 7590 08/03/2020
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
IP Department
One Wells Fargo Center
301 South College Street, 23rd Floor
Charlotte, NC 28202
EXAMINER
BAGHDASARYAN, HOVHANNES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/03/2020 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):
ip@nelsonmullins.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte KRISTOPHER C. SNYDER
____________

Appeal 2020-000592
Application 15/246,929
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, LISA M. GUIJT, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.

GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1, 3–6, and 8–19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Navico Holding AS as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-000592
Application 15/246,929
2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to “marine data analysis and, more
particularly, to systems, assemblies, and associated methods for generating a
fishing activity report based on aggregated marine data.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claims
1, 6, and 20 are the independent claims on appeal.2 Claim 1, reproduced
below with disputed limitations italicized for emphasis, is illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A marine data system comprising:
at least one marine electronic device comprising:
a sonar transducer configured to generate sonar data
indicative of fish activity or a structure,
a location sensor configured to determine a current
location associated with the sonar data,
a marine electronic device processor, and
a memory including a computer program code configured
to, with the marine electronic device processor, cause the
marine electronic device to:
determine at least one condition parameter
associated with the sonar data, wherein the at least one
condition parameter is not the current location, and
transmit at least the sonar data, the current location
associated with the sonar data, and the at least one
condition parameter associated with the sonar data to a
remote computing device; and
the computing device comprising:
a computing device processor, and
a memory including computer program code
configured to, with the computing device processor,
cause the computing device to:
receive a plurality of sets of sonar data, current
locations associated with the plurality of sets of the sonar
data, and condition parameters associated with the
plurality of sets of sonar data;

2 The claims are as amended by the Amendment after Final dated March 29,
2019.
Appeal 2020-000592
Application 15/246,929
3
receive a request form a user to display a condition
and location based fishing activity report, wherein the
request indicates at least one location and at least one
condition parameter associated with desired fishing
activity;
filter the plurality of sets of sonar data based on the
request to generate a fishing activity report, wherein the
fishing activity report includes one or more portions of
the plurality of sets of the sonar data that are associated
with the indicated at least one location and the at least
one condition parameter;
determine one or more optimal fishing condition
parameters based on the fishing activity report, wherein
the one or more optimal fishing condition parameters
includes a bait type or lure type; and
cause display of the fishing activity report on a
screen such that the one or more portions of the plurality
of sets of the sonar data are displayed in a report that
also indicates the at least one location, the at least one
condition parameter from the request, and the one or
more optimal fishing condition parameters.
THE REJECTION3
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejection of claims 1, 3–6, and 8–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Konig, Coleman, and Stechschulte.
NAME REFERENCE DATE
Stechschulte US 2004/0249860 A1 Dec. 9, 2004
Coleman US 2008/0195313 A1 Aug. 14, 2008
Konig US 2016/0146936 A1 May 26, 2016

3 The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 7, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as
unpatentable over Konig and Coleman, has been withdrawn. Ans. 3. The
Examiner determines that claim 20 is allowable, and claims 2 and 7 are
objected to as dependent on a rejected independent claim. Id.
Appeal 2020-000592
Application 15/246,929
4
OPINION
Independent claims 1 and 6
Appellant argues independent claims 1 and 6 as a group. Appeal Br.
10–12. We select claim 1 as representative, and claim 6 stands or falls with
claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Konig
generally discloses the marine data system, as claimed, however, the
Examiner determines that Konig does not teach that the processor and
memory of the remote computing device causes the remote computing
device to determine an optimal fishing condition parameter—and
specifically, a bait or lure type—based on a fishing activity report, as
required by claim 1. Final Act. 2–4 (citing Konig, e.g., Fig. 7).
Additionally, the Examiner finds that although Konig discloses causing a
display of a fishing activity report, as claimed, Konig does not teach that the
display includes bait or lure type as an optimal fishing condition parameter,
as required by claim 1. Id. at 2–4.
The Examiner finds that Stechschulte teaches these missing
limitations, and in particular, that Stechschulte teaches a system that collects
and analyzes data (i.e., process variables such as “lures and baits”), wherein
users “query the system based on any set of process variables” and “the
system generates a list of suggestions designed [to give a] chance of
success.” Ans. 4–54 (citing Stechschulte ¶¶ 79, 88) (emphasis omitted). The
Examiner finds that Stechschulte teaches that “the system allows [a] user to
conduct [a] comparison for any process variables” and “make [an] efficient
choice between competing options,” including “bait type or lure type.” Id. at

4 We refer to the Subsequent Examiner’s Answer dated November 1, 2019.
Appeal 2020-000592
Application 15/246,929
5
5 (citing Stechschulte ¶¶ 44, 79) (emphasis omitted). The Examiner also
finds that Stechschulte discloses predicting a process variable, which
implicitly includes “lure or bate type,” and that the results of the prediction
are displayed to the user. Id. at 6 (citing Stechschulte ¶¶ 79, 88, 89).
The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to a skilled
artisan to modify Konig’s remote computing device to include a
determination of bait or lure type based on a fishing activity report, as taught
in Stechschulte, and to include the bait and lure type on Konig’s display, “to
provide fisherman with [a] better fishing experience.” Final Act. 4 (citing
Stechschulte ¶¶ 14, 17, 44, 79, 84–101).
Appellant argues that, with respect to Stechschulte, “there is no
express disclosure of determining an optimal bait type or lure type.” Appeal
Br. 11 (citing Stechschulte ¶¶ 17, 79, 96, 97, 101); Reply Br.5 2. In
particular, Appellant submits that the Examiner errs by relying on “generic
references to ‘predictions’ or ‘suggestions’ passingly mentioned in
Stechschulte as adequately disclosing ‘determining’ an optimal bait type or
lure type” and that there is no teaching in Stechschulte of displaying an
optimal bait or lure type. Appeal Br. 11–12 (citing Stechschulte ¶¶ 14, 44,
79, 84–101); Reply Br. 2. Appellant concludes that the Examiner’s findings
are erroneous with respect to Stechschulte and that the Examiner’s reasoning
improperly relies on hindsight. Reply Br. 2.
Indeed, Konig discloses a marine electronics device having a sonar
transducer, a location sensor, a processor, and a memory, for generating
sonar data and an associated current location, as claimed. See, e.g., Konig ¶
5. Konig’s marine electronics device also determines condition parameters

5 We refer to the Reply Brief dated October 11, 2019.
Appeal 2020-000592
Application 15/246,929
6
associated with the sonar data (other than current location): “marine
electronics device 610 may collect data such as water temperature, location,
speed, speed over ground, speed over water, bearing, heading, sonar data,
over-head conditions, wind speed and direction, atmospheric temperature,
current, cast data, catch data, and other data.” Konig ¶ 58. Konig also
discloses transmitting, receiving, recording, and aggregating the sonar data,
current location, and condition parameters to generate historical data, for
example, using a cloud server or other computing networks, wherein the data
may be collected from other fishermen. See, e.g., id., Fig. 2; see also id. ¶¶
27–33. Konig further discloses receiving user input criteria (i.e., “location,
date, tide, wind direction and strength, water temperature, or species” or
“[o]ther input criteria” (id. ¶ 39)) “to retrieve relevant historical sonar data”
(i.e., filtered data) (id. ¶ 40 (emphasis added)), and to generate a report (i.e.,
a condition and location based fishing activity report), which includes the
sonar data and current location, on a display (id. ¶ 42).
Moreover, Konig discloses displaying suggestions to the user based
on the generated report; for example, Konig discloses that retrieved sonar
data points from historical sonar data “may be weighted based on the input
criteria, and then combined to form suggestions.” Konig ¶ 46; see also
Konig, Fig. 4 (depicting a method 400 of receiving input criteria 410, using
input criteria to retrieve relevant historical sonar data 420, analyzing
retrieved sonar data to make suggestions relevant to the input criteria 430,
and displaying suggestions 440). For example, Konig discloses that “if there
is a greater amount of sonar activity or Fish IDs [(identifications)] in certain
conditions, method 400 may suggest fishing in those conditions.” Id. ¶ 48
(emphasis added). Thus, to the extent the Examiner finds that Konig does
Appeal 2020-000592
Application 15/246,929
7
not disclose determining an optimal fishing condition parameter based on
the fishing activity report, and displaying the optimal fishing parameter, we
do not agree. Rather, a preponderance of the evidence supports a finding
that Konig discloses determining and displaying optimal fishing condition
parameters. See, e.g., Konig ¶¶ 46–48 (disclosing suggesting a good area in
which to fish based on user inputs such as time of day and season of the
year, and a generated fishing activity report based on historical sonar data).
As set forth supra, the Examiner relies on Stechschulte for disclosing
that bait or lure type, as claimed, are known fishing condition parameters,
such that it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to include
Stechschulte’s bait or lure type as an optimal fishing condition parameters
when presenting suggestions to the user of Konig’s marine data system. In
particular, Stechschulte discloses that
[f]ishing is a sport that is dramatically impacted by the interplay
between a large number of process variables. Time of year,
time of day, weather conditions, lunar and solar cycles, water
conditions, lake topography, large vegetation and structures,
fish population, angler tendencies and capabilities, boat
conditions, fishing rigs and lures and bait presentation all work
together to produce the “fishing experience”.
Stechschulte ¶ 44. Stechschulte specifically states that “process variables
associated with the actual fishing experience [include] lures and bait
presentation.” Id.¶ 79. Stechschulte also discloses that “[t]he data loggers
integrate GPS . . . and weather information,” and with respect to fishing, also
collect data such as “bait and tackle.” Id. ¶ 14 (emphasis added).
Stechschulte further discloses that a use of the collected and stored data is
for “Predictions”:
the algorithms will allow the user to predict, based on historical
information, what might work under current or assumed
Appeal 2020-000592
Application 15/246,929
8
conditions. The user has the ability to query the system based
on any set of process variables. The system responds by
generating a list of suggestions designed to optimize the
angler’s chances of success.
Id. ¶ 88.
Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument supra that
Stechschulte fails to disclose determining bait or lure type as an optimal
fishing parameter. Rather, a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s finding that Stechschulte discloses that bait or lure type are
recognized in the prior art as process variables (or optimal fishing condition
parameters), and as such, Stechschulte teaches a person of ordinary skill in
the art that it is valuable to collect data about bait or lure type for use in
making predictions. Put another way, Stechschulte at least suggests, if not
expressly discloses, that the predicted “what” in “what might work” refers to
what bait or lure type might work, when disclosing that the data loggers
collect data regarding bait or lure type and the data is used to generate a list
of suggestions for optimizing the angler’s chance of catching fish.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1, and claim 6 falls with claim 1. Appellant chose not to present
arguments for the patentability of dependent claims 3–5 and 8–19 apart from
the arguments presented for the independent claims supra, and therefore, for
essentially the same reasons as stated supra, we also sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 3–5 and 8–19.
Appeal 2020-000592
Application 15/246,929
9
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–6, 8–19 103 Konig, Coleman,
Stechschulte
1, 3–6, 8–19
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