Ex Parte Basnayake et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 201612616858 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/616,858 11/12/2009 Chaminda Basnayake P009167-RD-MJL 3478 81466 7590 02/26/2016 MacMillan, Sobanski & Todd, LLC - GM One Maritime Plaza 720 Water Street 5th Floor Toledo, OH 43604 EXAMINER ALAM, MIRZA F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2689 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/26/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte CHAMINDA BASNAYAKE and DONALD K. GRIMM ____________ Appeal 2014-004348 Application 12/616,8581 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1). We reverse. Invention Appellants’ invention relates to providing traffic flow rate awareness to a driver of a vehicle based on Global Positioning System (GPS) data and data from other vehicles, communicated wirelessly. Based on the communications from other vehicles, lane-level traffic flow rates for a 1 Appellants identify GM Global Technology Operations, LLC, a subsidiary of General Motors Company, as the real party in interest. (Appeal Br. 2.) Appeal 2014-004348 Application 12/616,858 2 plurality of road lanes may be constructed and displayed. Advisory information based on differing conditions in different lanes may be provided. (Spec. ¶¶ 3, 13–16, Abstract.) Illustrative Claim Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative: 1. A traffic flow advisory system comprising: a locating device for identifying a position of a driven vehicle; a communication device for exchanging vehicle position data, speed data, and heading data with remote vehicles; a processor for constructing a traffic flow rate in each of a plurality of lanes of a road based on the position data and speed data; and a human machine interface for indicating to a driver of the driven vehicle the traffic flow rate of each of the road lanes. Rejection The Examiner rejects claims 1–8 and 10–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sumner (US 5,164,904; Nov. 17, 1992) and Barth et al. (US 2010/0076675 A1; Mar. 25, 2010) (“Barth”). (Final Action 3–19.) The Examiner rejects claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sumner, Barth, and Coughlin (US 2007/0276582 A1; Nov. 29, 2007). (Final Action 20.) Issue Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Sumner and Barth teaches or suggests “a traffic flow rate in each of a plurality of lanes of a Appeal 2014-004348 Application 12/616,858 3 road” and “the traffic flow rate of each of the road lanes,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that the combination of Sumner and Barth teaches or suggest the limitations of claim 1. (Final Action 3–5, 21–22; Answer 2– 4.) Sumner describes the provision of real-time traffic congestion data to drivers. (Sumner, Abstract.) With respect to the claim limitation of “a traffic flow rate in each of a plurality of lanes of a road,” the Examiner finds that Sumner teaches or suggests this where it describes determining the occupancy of a “particular section” of roadway. (Final Action 4, 21; Answer 2–3, citing Sumner col. 4, ll. 33–37.) Additionally, the Examiner cites (Answer 3) Sumner’s teaching that the term “arterial and street” is defined “as applying to any non-freeway type road, including but not limited to streets, boulevards, avenues, roads, and lanes” (Sumner col. 5, ll. 5–12, emphasis added). Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding that Sumner teaches or suggests discriminating between traffic flow rates in a plurality of lanes of a road. (Appeal Br. 5.) Appellants argue that Sumner’s discussion of the occupancy of a section of a roadway relates to sections of a road, and that these sections are shown in Sumner’s division of a road map of an area into cells where cells are defined by direction of travel and major arterial roadways within the cell. (Id. at 5–6, citing Sumner col 6, ll. 34–36, 41–45; Reply Br. 2.) Thus, Appellants argue that for each cell, “[o]ccupancy with respect to each lane of the travelled road is not described,” and that “Sumner Appeal 2014-004348 Application 12/616,858 4 only describes the congestion of the roadway in general, not each lane of travel.” (Appeal Br. 6.) The Examiner’s interpretation is unsustainable because the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a traffic flow rate in each of a plurality of lanes of a road” and “traffic flow rate of each of the road lanes” when read in light of the Specification, requires traffic flow rates for each of at least two lanes of travel on one road, in which a driver may alternatively travel when proceeding on the road. (See Spec. ¶ 2, “a driver switches lanes from a currently driven lane to an adjacent lane,” “a driver may be forced to make a lane change in a short period of time with limited information about the surrounding lanes;” Fig. 3; ¶ 18, “Fig. 3 illustrates a mapping of the lanes of a roadway. The roadway 34 includes a left lane 36, a center lane 38, a right lane 40, and a merging lane 42,” “Vehicles traveling in a same course heading within a width-based region are used to establish the respective lanes of travel.”) Appellants are correct that Sumner’s discussion of cells provides congestion information on a per-cell basis, including congestion information for “each section of highway or ‘link’” (Sumner col. 7, ll. 1–2) in which data is provided for the link. These cells describe the “particular section” of roadway for which information is provided in Sumner, and if a roadway in Sumner consisted of multiple lanes, no differentiation between the occupancy of these lanes is taught or suggested. Additionally, Sumner’s teaching that “non-freeway type road[s]” include “boulevards, avenues, roads, lanes, and other road surfaces designed to service local traffic” (Sumner col 5., ll. 8–13, emphasis added) does not teach or suggest lanes according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1, but rather Appeal 2014-004348 Application 12/616,858 5 provides a non-exclusive list of a variety of smaller roads which may be included in the definition of a “non-freeway type road” in Sumner. The Examiner does not persuasively show any teaching in Sumner of traffic flow rate in a plurality of lanes of a road. The Examiner does not rely on Barth with respect to the disputed recitations of claim 1. (See Final Action 3–5, 21–22; Answer 2–4.) Thus, we agree with Appellants the Examiner’s findings do not show the combination of Sumner and Barth teaches or suggests “a traffic flow rate in each of a plurality of lanes of a road” and “the traffic flow rate of each of the road lanes.” Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 1, and similarly rejected claims 2–8 and 10–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Examiner does not rely on Coughlin with respect to the disputed limitations of claim 1, on which claim 9 depends. (Final Action 20.) Thus the Examiner’s findings do not show the combination of Sumner, Barth, and Coughlin teaches or suggests the disputed limitations. Accordingly, we also do not sustain the examiner’s decision rejecting claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20. REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation