Ex Parte Boyd et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 9, 2010

10707368 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 9, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte KENNETH BOYD and JOSEPH NEAL
____________________

Appeal 2009-004119
Application 10/707,3681
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: June 9, 2010
____________________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, STEPHEN C. SIU, and JAMES R. HUGHES,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Application filed December 9, 2003. The real party in interest is Ford
Global Technologies, Inc. (Br. 2.)
Appeal 2009-004119
Application 10/707,368

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9
under authority of 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). The Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences (BPAI) has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented an adaptive look ahead system and method for
operating a vehicle. The system includes inputs providing vehicle
information (e.g., steering wheel angle), and vehicle path information, which
includes the radius of curvature of the road (on which the vehicle is
operating) to a model. The system determines a curvature of the intended
vehicle path, a look ahead scale factor based on the curvature of the intended
vehicle path, an updated (revised) look ahead point based on the look ahead
scale factor, and a steering wheel angle input for the model based on the
updated look ahead point and the intended vehicle path. (Spec. ¶¶ [0002],
[0009]-[0010].)2

Representative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as
follows:
1. A simulation system for simulating an operation of an
automotive vehicle comprising:

2 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”) and Appeal Brief (“Br.”)
filed July 23, 2007. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
mailed October 30, 2007.
Appeal 2009-004119
Application 10/707,368

3
an input providing vehicle information and path
information, an initial steering wheel input, and an initial look
ahead point, wherein the path information comprises a road
radius of curvature;
a controller having a vehicle computer model therein,
said controller programmed to determine a curvature of an
intended path from the path information, determine a look
ahead scale factor as a function of the intended path radius of
curvature, determine a revised look ahead point as a function of
the look ahead scale factor, determine a steering wheel angle
input to the computer model by comparing the revised look
ahead point and the intended path, operate the computer model
with the steering wheel angle input, and generate an output in
response to the vehicle model and the initial steering wheel
input.

References
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability:
Huei Peng & Masayoshi Tomizuka, Optimal Preview Control for
Vehicle Lateral Guidance, Research Reports, California Partners for
Advanced Transit and Highways (PATH), Institute of Transportation
Studies, UC Berkeley (1991) (hereinafter “Peng”).

R. S. Sharp & V. Valtetsiotis, Optimal Preview Car Steering Control,
Vehicle System Dynamics, Supplement 35 (ICTAM 2000), pp. 101-117
(2001) (hereinafter “Sharp”).

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Sharp and Peng.

Appeal 2009-004119
Application 10/707,368

4
ISSUE
Based on our review of the administrative record, Appellants’
contentions, and the findings and conclusions of the Examiner, the pivotal
issue before us is as follows.
Does the Examiner err in finding the Sharp and Peng references are
properly combinable, and does the Examiner provide a rationale for the
reference combination?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
Examiner’s Findings
1. The Examiner provides a rationale for combining the Sharp and
Peng references – specifically the Examiner cites to Peng,3 stating that:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of
steering control, at the time of the present invention, to modify
Sharp’s method of determining a look ahead scale factor with
Peng’s use of the radius of curvature. The motivation for doing
so would have been to reduce error in calculating preview data
by taking into consideration changes in road curvature.
(Ans. 4, citing Peng at 6.)

ANALYSIS
Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of claims 1-9,
instead arguing claims 1-9 as a group. (Br. 5, 7.) We accept Appellants’
grouping of the claims, and choose independent claim 1 as representative of

3 The Examiner mistakenly cites to Peng, page 5, paragraphs 1 and 2. We
find this typographical error to be harmless, as the Peng reference explicitly
describes the advantages of utilizing a road curvature in calculating a
preview control function to reduce tracking error and resultant lateral
acceleration. (Peng at 6.)
Appeal 2009-004119
Application 10/707,368

5
Appellants’ arguments and groupings. Accordingly, we treat Appellants’
claims 2-9 as standing or falling with representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007).
Appellants contend the Sharp and Peng references are not properly
combinable. Specifically, Appellants contend “that one skilled in the art
would not look to combine the references as suggested by the Examiner”
(Br. 5), “the teachings of Sharp are specifically independent of the path
characteristics” (Br. 6), and therefore, “no motivation to include road radius
of curvature in the control scheme of the Sharp reference exists” (Br. 7). We
interpret Appellants’ arguments to assert that there is no motivation to
combine Sharp and Peng because Sharp teaches away from utilizing road
curvature in its calculations – i.e., “that Sharp teaches path tracking error and
its teachings are independent of the characteristics of the path itself” (Br. 7).
Appellants do not contest or dispute the Examiner’s findings with
respect to the Sharp and Peng references. (Br. 5-7.) Rather, Appellants
confine their arguments to the Examiner’s combination of the Sharp and
Peng references. Accordingly, we address only the combinability of the
prior art references.
After reviewing the record on appeal, we adopt the Examiner’s
findings with respect to the Sharp and Peng references (Ans. 3-4, 8-10) as
our own. The Examiner finds (and we agree) that Sharp teaches each feature
of Appellants’ representative independent claim 1, except that “the path
information [includes] a road radius of curvature, [and that] the look ahead
scale factor [is] a function of the intended path radius of curvature.” (Ans.
4.) The Examiner finds that Peng describes “controlling a vehicle using an
optimal preview control algorithm[, and] Peng teaches [an] input having
Appeal 2009-004119
Application 10/707,368

6
path information containing a radius of curvature (page 6 last paragraph)
. . . [and] determining a look ahead scale factor as a function of the intended
path radius of curvature (page 9 equation 17[)].” (Ans. 4.) The Examiner
also provides a rationale for combining the Sharp and Peng references. (FF
1.)
Thus, we find that the Sharp and Peng references collectively would
have taught or suggested each feature of Appellants’ claim 1 to one of skill
in the art at the time of Appellants’ invention. We also find that the
Examiner articulates a rationale for combining the Sharp and Peng
references based on “some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Therefore, we conclude, as did the Examiner, that it would have been
obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of Appellants’ invention
to combine the Sharp and Peng references because modifying Sharp’s
method for determining a look ahead scale factor with Peng’s teaching of
utilizing a path (road) radius of curvature would have reduced “error in
calculating preview data by taking into consideration changes in road
curvature.” (FF 1.) We conclude that combining Sharp’s vehicle steering
control system with Peng’s utilization of radius of curvature for vehicle
lateral guidance and control is tantamount to the predictable use of prior art
elements according to their established functions – an obvious improvement.
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the references are
not properly combinable. (Br 5-7.) The Examiner has articulated a rational
reason (motivation) for combining the references – thus, a motivation for
Appeal 2009-004119
Application 10/707,368

7
combining the references does exist. We do not find that the references
teach away from one another, or the recited invention – which appears to be
the thrust of Appellants’ arguments. We find that skilled artisans would not
have been discouraged from following the path set out in Sharp and Peng,
nor would they be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken
by Appellants. See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 990.
Whether a reference teaches away from a claimed invention is a
question of fact. In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005). A
reference may be said to teach away from the invention if the reference
criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages modifying a reference to
arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed.
Cir. 2004); In re Haruna, 249 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re
Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “[W]hen the prior art teaches
away from combining certain known elements, discovery of a successful
means of combining them is more likely to be nonobvious.” KSR, 550 U.S.
at 416 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 51-52 (1966)). We will
not, however “read into a reference a teaching away from a process where
no such language exists.” DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland
KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Moreover, the Examiner provides detailed findings and conclusions
with respect to the Sharp and Peng references. (Ans. 3-4, 8-10.) Appellants
did not file a Reply Brief, nor did Appellants provide any persuasive
evidence supporting the assertions of alleged error in the Examiner’s
positions. Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us to find error in
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1-9. Therefore, we affirm
the Examiner’s rejections of the claims.
Appeal 2009-004119
Application 10/707,368

8

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
On the record before us, we find the Examiner did not err in finding
the Sharp and Peng references are properly combinable. Thus, on the record
before us, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-9 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

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

msc

Angela M. Brunetti, PLLC
3233 Lake Forest Dr.
Sterling Heights MI 48314