Ex Parte Seastrom et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 29, 2018

14286504 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/286,504 05/23/2014 Robert Seastrom
58406 7590 05/31/2018
BARRY W. CHAPIN, ESQ.
CHAPIN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, LLC
352 Turnpike Road
Suite 110
Southborough, MA 01772
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
TWC14-06(14-22) 1879
EXAMINER
LANG, MICHAEL DEAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2018 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@chapin-ip-law. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT SEASTROM, WESLEY E. GEORGE IV, and
CHRIS R. ROOSENRAAD 1
Appeal2017-007952
Application 14/286,504
Technology Center 3600
Before DANIELS. SONG, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
ANTHONY KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judges.
SONG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
Final Action (hereinafter "Final Act.") rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-20, 22,
24, and 28--44 in the present application (App. Br. 2). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Collectively referred to as "Appellant" herein. The real party in interest is
Time Warner Cable Enterprises LLC (Appeal Brief (hereinafter "App. Br.")
2).
Appeal2017-007952
Application 14/286,504
The claimed invention is directed to a method and system for
correcting geodata (Title, Spec. 2, 11. 24--25). Independent claims 1 and 29,
illustrative of the claimed subject matter, read as follows (App. Br. 51, 57,
Claims App'x):
1. A method comprising:
via computer processor hardware, performing operations
of:
initiating display of a point of interest as being located at
particular coordinates on a map, the map displayed on a display
screen of a mobile communication device;
receiving location information specifying a current
location of the mobile communication device in a geographical
reg10n;
in response to an input command from a user of the mobile
communication device to update map data based on a proposed
actual location of the point of interest, forwarding the location
information specifying the current location of the mobile
communication device and an identity of the point of interest
over a network to a map management resource, the map
management resource determining a degree of reliability that the
proposed actual location of the point of interest is correct based
on the current location of the mobile communication device.
29. A method comprising:
via computer processor hardware, performing operations
of:
initiating display of a point of interest as being located at
particular coordinates on a map, the map displayed on a display
screen of a mobile communication device;
subsequent to displaying the point of interest, receiving
selection of a corresponding display symbol representing the
point of interest;
2
Appeal2017-007952
Application 14/286,504
initiating display of multiple options on the display screen,
the multiple options specifying different types of possible errors
that can be associated with the corresponding display symbol;
and
receiving input from the user selecting one of the multiple
options, the selected option specifying an attribute of the
corresponding display symbol that is incorrect.
Independent claim 10 is directed to a method similar to claim 1, but
does not include language pertaining to determining a degree of reliability
(App. Br. 52, Claims App'x). Independent claim 19 is directed to a system
that performs operations similar to those recited in claim 10, and
independent claim 28 is directed to a computer-readable storage hardware
having instructions for performing operations similar to those recited in
claim IO (id. at 54, 56).
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 41--44 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
being indefinite (Final Act. 3).
2. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-20, 22, 24, and 28--43
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Haro et al. (US
2013/0337830 Al, pub. Dec. 19, 2013 (hereinafter "Haro")) (Final
Act. 4).
ANALYSIS
Only those arguments actually made by the Appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments that the Appellant could have
3
Appeal2017-007952
Application 14/286,504
made but chose not to make have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365-
66 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075-76 (BPAI 2010
(precedential) ).
Rejection 1
The Examiner rejects claims 41--44 as being indefinite because claim
41 lacks antecedent basis for the limitation "the second location," and claims
42--44 ultimately depend from claim 41 (Final Act. 3). The Appellant does
not submit arguments with respect to this rejection. Accordingly, Rejection
1 is summarily affirmed.
Rejection 2
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-20, 22, 24, and 28--43 as
anticipated by Haro (Final Act. 4, citing Haro i-fi-1 79-87). Thus, the position
of the Examiner is that Haro discloses each and every limitation of these
claims, and that there is no difference between the claimed invention and
Haro, as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Karsten Mfg. Corp.
v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Scripps Clinic
& Research Found. v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir.
1991 ).
The Appellant disagrees and argues, inter alia, that in Haro, "there is
no indication that the respective user of user equipment in Haro inputs a
command to update map data based upon a proposed actual location of the
point of interest." (App. Br. 17). In that regard, the Appellant summarizes
4
Appeal2017-007952
Application 14/286,504
its argument asserting that "[t]here is no user proposed actual location of a
point of interest in a request; there is no request, there is no determining
correctness based on a location of the mobile communication device with
respect to the proposed location, etc." (Reply Br. 7).
We agree with the Appellant. It is clear that each of independent
claims 1, 10, 19, and 28 requires a point of interest being displayed at a first
location, and a second, actual location for that recited point of interest (See
App. Br. 51-57, Claims App'x). For example, claim 1 recites "a proposed
actual location"; claim 10 recites "a second location"; claim 19 recites "an
actual location"; and claim 28 recites "an actual location." (Id.). Each of
these claims further recites limitations pertaining to this second location of
the recited point of interest. For example, claim 1 "determin[ es] a degree of
reliability that the proposed actual location of the point of interest is correct
based on the current location of the mobile communication device"; claim
10 "updat[ es] map data to specify that an actual location of the point of
interest is the second location instead of the first location"; and claims 19
and 28 "update map data to specify an actual location of the point of
interest". (Id.).
It is clear that in view of the Specification, a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have understood these claims and the limitations therein, are
directed to updating and correcting map data to correct errors in the
displayed location of a point of interest to the second location (see generally,
Spec. pgs. 1-5, 12, 17-22; Figs. 3-5). In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (claims are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, reading claim
5
Appeal2017-007952
Application 14/286,504
language in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art).
In contrast, Haro does not disclose a point of interest being displayed
at a first location, and a second, actual location for that recited point of
interest. Correspondingly, Haro also does not disclose the additional
recitations in the claims pertaining to this second location for the recited
point of interest, such as determining a degree of reliability, or updating map
data to indicate that this second location is the actual location of the point of
interest instead of the displayed first location. In that regard, as the
Appellant argues with respect to claim 1 for example, "there is no indication
that the respective user of user equipment in Haro inputs a command to
update map data based upon a proposed actual location of the point of
interest." (App. Br. 17).
The Examiner asserts, with respect to independent claim 10 for
example, that Haro discloses, inter alia, map information indicating a point
of interest is located at a first location, receiving communication indicating
that the point of interest is located at a second location, and updating map
data to specify the actual location of the point of interest is the second
location instead of the first location (Final Act. 6-7, citing Haro, Figs. 8A-
8C, i-fi-1 79-87). The Examiner's findings are not supported by
preponderance of the evidence as the cited portions of Haro do not indicate
displaying a first location for a point of interest, and a second, actual
location for that recited point of interest.
To the extent that the Examiner may be interpreting stay points and/or
location seeds of Haro to correspond to first and second locations of the
6
Appeal2017-007952
Application 14/286,504
point of interest, such interpretation is unreasonably broad, especially
considering that Haro itself, discloses "points of interest" as being distinct
from stay points and location seeds (Haro, Title, Abst., i-fi-f l, 28). We
discern no reasonable basis to conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would understand Haro in that manner. Indeed, while somewhat limited,
the evidence before us appears to indicate that a "point of interest" is a term
of art readily understood by those of ordinary skill in the art. As the
Appellant argues, in Haro, "first respective user equipment provides
feedback indicating its current location to produce a location seed (stay
point)," such seeds being used to determine "points of interest or events by
analyzing user postings associated with a respective location seed." (App.
Br. 17; see generally Haro i134). It is evident that Haro discloses a method
and apparatus for detecting a point of interest using geotagged data and
geolocation seeds so that the detected point of interest can be added to a map
(Haro, Title, Abst.). However, it fails to disclose a second location of that
point of interest, or various other steps recited in these claims pertaining to
that second location.
As to independent claim 29 also reproduced above, the Examiner
finds that Haro discloses, inter alia, displaying multiple options specifying
different types of errors that can be associated with a selected symbol, and
receiving input from the user selecting one of the options (Final Act. 8,
citing Haro i-fi-185-87). However, we agree with the Appellant that "[a]t
most, Haro only indicates that a point of interest needs verification," thereby
indicating that the location may be unreliable (App. Br. 17). While Haro
does display information that a point of interest may need verification (Haro
7
Appeal2017-007952
Application 14/286,504
i-f 86, Fig. 10), it does not disclose any mechanism or method for the
suggested automatic or manual verification as to the point of interest. In that
regard, Figure 10 of Haro does not indicate any user selectable options
specifying different types of possible errors that can be associated with a
displayed symbol as required by independent claim 29. As such, the
Examiner's finding to the contrary is not supported by preponderance of the
evidence.
Therefore, in view of the above, the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1, 10, 19, 28, and 29 as being anticipated by Haro is
reversed. Accordingly, the Examiner's anticipation rejection of dependent
claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11-18, 20, 22, 24, and 30-43 is also reversed. The
remaining arguments between the Appellant and the Examiner as to the
other limitations recited in the various independent claims, and dependent
claims, are moot.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Examiner's rejection of claims 41--44 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b) is summarily AFFIRMED.
2. The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-20, 22, 24, and
28--43 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Haro is REVERSED.
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8