SAP SE

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 5, 2022

2020006661 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 5, 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. 15/299,245 10/20/2016 Jonathan Tiu 000005-058600US 9676 58735 7590 01/05/2022 Fountainhead Law Group P.C. Chad R. Walsh 900 LAFAYETTE STREET SUITE 301 SANTA CLARA, CA 95050 EXAMINER MACKES, KRIS E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2153 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/05/2022 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): docketing@fountainheadlaw.com klhussain@fountainheadlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JONATHAN TIU, XING JIN, and SAE-WON OM ____________ Appeal 2020-006661 Application 15/299,245 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before KARL D. EASTHOM, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. 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 the real party in interest as SAP SE. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-006661 Application 15/299,245 2 THE INVENTION The disclosed invention relates to “mapping technology” in “computing and mobile applications and services.” Spec. ¶ 1.2 Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A non-transitory machine-readable medium storing a program executable by at least one processing unit of a computing device, the program comprising sets of instructions for: receiving from a client device a query for geo-enriched data and a map extent specifying a geometry of a region of a map; identifying a plurality of geo-enriched data based on the query, wherein the plurality of geo-enriched data comprises a plurality of spatial data and a plurality of location data, wherein the plurality of spatial data is converted from the plurality of location data, wherein each location data in the plurality of location data describes a location, area, or region, wherein each spatial data in the plurality of spatial data defines a geometry of the location, area, or region described by a corresponding location data in the plurality of location data; storing the plurality of geo-enriched data; determining a subset of the plurality of geo-enriched data based on the map extent, wherein the geometry of the spatial data of each geo-enriched data in the plurality of geo-enriched data is contained in the geometry of the region of the map specified by the map extent; and providing the client device the subset of the plurality of geo-enriched data in order for the client device to render the map extent of the map comprising the subset of the plurality of geo-enriched data. 2 We refer to the Specification filed Oct. 20, 2016 (“Spec.”); the Final Office Action mailed Sept. 17, 2019 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed Mar. 18, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed July 20, 2020 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed Sep. 21, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2020-006661 Application 15/299,245 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Name Reference Date Nee et al. (“Nee”) US 2013/0304725 A1 Nov. 14, 2013 Marshall US 2013/0332373 A1 Dec. 12, 2013 Leva et al. (“Leva”) US 2015/0169139 A1 June 18, 2015 Mor et al. (“Mor”) US 2016/0321351 A1 Nov. 3, 2016 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 5-8, 12-15, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mor and Marshall. Ans. 3. Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mor, Marshall, and Leva. Ans. 3. Claims 4, 11, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mor, Marshall, Leva, and Nee. Ans. 3. ANALYSIS Claim 1 recites in relevant part: identifying a plurality of geo-enriched data based on the query, wherein the plurality of geo-enriched data comprises a plurality of spatial data and a plurality of location data, wherein the plurality of spatial data is converted from the plurality of location data, wherein each location data in the plurality of location data describes a location, area, or region, wherein each spatial data in the plurality of spatial data defines a geometry of the location, area, or region described by a corresponding location data in the plurality of location data. Appeal 2020-006661 Application 15/299,245 4 The Examiner finds that Mor’s retrieving objects from the database based upon a query teaches identifying data based on the query, and that Mor’s clusters teach spatial data. Final Act. 2-3 (citing Mor ¶¶ 24-25, 48- 54, Fig. 6). Specifically, the Examiner relies on Mor’s clusters, which are determined based on the location of the objects, to teach that the spatial data is converted from the location data as claimed. Id. at 3 (citing Mor ¶¶ 48- 54). According to the Examiner, Mor’s “objects are retrieved, or identified, based on the query (step 304) and the clusters are created, or identified, based on the retrieved objects (steps 312, 316, and 320),” and “[s]ince the objects are retrieved based on the query, any clusters created based on the objects would also be based upon the query” such that the identified data “comprises both the objects and the clusters.” Ans. 4. The Examiner relies on Mor’s objects having location data describing the location of the object to teach the claimed location data. Final Act. 3 (citing Mor ¶¶ 24-25). Appellant argues that Mor’s “objects cannot comprise the clusters” as required by the claim (i.e., plurality of geo-enriched data comprises a plurality of spatial data) because Mor’s “clusters are derived from objects retrieved from the database.” Appeal Br. 10. Specifically, Appellant argues that Mor’s query “is a query for objects” and “not a query for clusters,” and “cannot be interpreted as a query for clusters in rejecting the present limitation.” Reply Br. 3. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. As cited by the Examiner, Mor teaches “a system for displaying clustered objects on a map” with a database that “stores multiple objects that each is associated or tagged with geographic location information.” Mor ¶ 24. Mor further discloses that “a query to the DB may retrieve all the” Appeal 2020-006661 Application 15/299,245 5 desired data “that originate in some geographic region.” Id. ¶ 26. Mor’s “method begins by processor 50 receiving from user terminal 32 definitions of the displayed area on map 36, and a search query from module 44, at an input step 300.” Id. ¶ 63. Then, “[a]t a retrieval step 304, search engine 64 retrieves objects from DB 28 based on the search query and the displayed area.” Id. ¶ 64. Then, “[a]t a separate clustering step 312, processor 50 derives a cluster per cell” that “is based on the spatial distribution of the objects in the respective child cells of the finer resolution level.” Id. ¶ 65. In other words, Mor teaches querying the database for objects that are associated with geographic location information by inputting a search query and a defined display area on the map. Then, objects associated with geographic information are retrieved, and then they are clustered to cells of the objects based on the spatial distribution of the objects. Appellant also argues that Mor’s clusters “represent[] the spatial distribution of objects in a finer resolution level of a cell,” but do not “defin[e] a geometry of the location, area, or region described by the latitude/longitude coordinates or geocode of a particular object” as required by the claim and supported by the Specification. Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 4. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred. Rather, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Mor’s clusters can be various shapes and sizes, and that this teaches that the spatial data defines a geometry of the location, area, or region described by corresponding location data. See Final Act. 3 (citing Mor ¶¶ 51-52); Ans. 4-5. Specifically, as cited by the Examiner, Mor’s method includes “a separate clustering step 312” where “processor 50 derives a cluster per cell,” and “the Appeal 2020-006661 Application 15/299,245 6 cluster position and size for a cell of resolution L is based on the spatial distribution of the objects in the respective child cells of the finer resolution level.” Mor ¶ 65. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, along with the rejections of independent claims 8 and 15, and dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, which are not argued separately. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 1-20. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 5-8, 12- 15, 18-20 103 Mor, Marshall 1, 5-8, 12- 15, 18-20 2, 3, 9, 10, 16 103 Mor, Marshall, Leva 2, 3, 9, 10, 16 4, 11, 17 103 Mor, Marshall, Leva, Nee 4, 11, 17 Overall Outcome 1-20 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED