Ex Parte Busch

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 28, 2016

12479452 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/479,452 0610512009
29450 7590
BARLEY SNYDER
101 Lindenwood Drive
Suite 100
Malvern, PA 19355
02/01/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Alexander Busch
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.
46889-908 1484
EXAMINER
FAN, HONGMIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2016 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):
berwynipdocket@barley.com
hsalamone@barley.com
sanastasi@barley.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXANDER BUSCH
Appeal2014-004429
Application 12/479,452
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-004429
Application 12/479,452
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1---6 and 8-32. Claim 7 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention is directed to a traffic control system. (Spec.
i-f 1 ). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A traffic control system for switching a traffic switch, comprising:
a virtual loop detector defined by a dimension from an intersection of
at least two convening roadways;
an intersection control module for sending information regarding a
position and dimensions of the intersection and the virtual loop detector, the
intersection control module receiving information and requests from
incoming traffic and analyzing incoming traffic information in order to
determine if the traffic switch changes;
a vehicle control module identifying location and analyzing
information received from the intersection control module, the vehicle
control module sending a light switch request when a vehicle is traveling
toward the intersection and in the virtual loop detector; and
wherein requests from incoming vehicles traveling within the virtual
loop detector will be analyzed to determine if the traffic switch changes;
wherein the light switch request is analyzed by the intersection control
module in order to determine if the traffic switch changes according to other
light switch requests from the incoming traffic.
2
Appeal2014-004429
Application 12/479,452
The Examiner ;s Rejections
Appellant seeks our review of the following rejections:
Claims 1--4, 10-13, 15-22, and 25-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Matta (US
6,064,319; issued May 16, 2000) and Ebner et al. (US 6,985,090 B2; issued
Jan. 10, 2006).
Claims 8, 9, 14, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Matta, Ebner, and Bachelder
(US 7,868,783 B2; issued Jan. 11, 2011).
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Matta, Ebner, and Peddie et al. (US
7 ,688,222 B2; issued Mar. 30, 2010).
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Matta, Ebner, and Yamamoto et al.
(US 7,873,474 B2; issued Jan. 18, 2011).
ANALYSIS
After consideration of each of Appellant's arguments, we agree with
the Examiner. We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner's findings and
conclusions as set forth in the Examiner's Answer and in the action from
which this appeal was taken. (Ans. 2-23; Final Act. 2-11). Our discussions
here will be limited to the following points of emphasis as follows.
Rejection of claims 1, 21, and 31
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Matta
and Ebner teaches or suggests the limitations recited in independent claims
1, 21, and 3 1?
3
Appeal2014-004429
Application 12/479,452
Appellant contends the combination of Matta and Ebner "does not
teach a system where information is being communicated back and forth
between an intersection control module and a vehicle for a light request to
occur." (App. Br. 19). Appellant argues Matta teaches an independent
system that lacks an exchange of communication between the vehicle and
the intersection, while the traffic light in Ebner does not analyze the light
requests that are transmitted based on information from the intersection
control module. (App. Br. 19--20).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. The Examiner finds
Appellant's invention obvious over the combination of Matta and Ebner.
(Final Act. 2-5; Ans. 2---6). The Examiner relies on Matta to teach or
suggest all claim limitations except "an intersection control module for
sending information regarding a position and dimensions of the intersection
and the virtual loop detector[,]" where the Examiner relies on Ebner. (Final
Act. 4; Ans. 2-7). That is, the Examiner relies on the combination of Matta
and Ebner to teach or suggest two-way communication between the vehicle
and the intersection control module (i.e., Matta's communication from the
vehicle to the intersection control module and Ebner' s communication from
the intersection control module to the vehicle). (Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 2-7;
Matta, col. 3, 11. 4--10; Ebner, col. 7, 11. 10-31). Moreover, the Examiner
relies on the control system in Matta to analyze the light switch requests
received from the vehicle in order to determine if the traffic switch changes
according to other light switch requests from the incoming traffic. (Final
Act. 3, citing Matta, col. 5:34--50; Ans. 4). We find Appellant's arguments
attack the Matta and Ebner references in isolation, but do not substantively
address the combined teachings and suggestions of Matta and Ebner as
4
Appeal2014-004429
Application 12/479,452
relied upon by the Examiner. One cannot show nonobviousness '"by
attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references.~' In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800
F .2d 1091, l 097 (Fed. Cir. 1986 ). Appellant has not pointed to any reason,
supported by sufficient facts, explaining why the combined functionality of
Matta and Ebner as described by the Examiner would not result in the
features recited in claims 1, 21, and 31.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Matta and Ebner teaches or suggests all of the claim
limitations in independent claims 1, 21, and 31.
Issue 2: Did the Examiner improperly combine the teachings of Matta
and Ebner?
Appellant contends the combination of Matta and Ebner is not proper.
First, Appellant argues the Examiner has failed to articulate a basis for
substituting Ebner's functionality into Matta. (App. Br. 18-19; Reply Br. 5-
6).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. Matta teaches
storing the information about the location of the virtual detection loop in the
vehicle. (Matta, col. 2, 11. 51-54). The Examiner relies on Ebner to teach
sending that information to the vehicle from the intersection control module.
(Final Act. 4; Ans. 9). The Examiner finds incorporating the intersection
control module for sending information regarding an intersection as taught
by Ebner into Matta's system would provide the clear advantage of
centralizing that information so each individual vehicle would not have to be
equipped with the hardware and software to store the information, which
5
Appeal2014-004429
Application 12/479,452
would reduce cost, increase reliability, and allow more vehicles to use the
system. (Ans. 7-8; see also Final Act. 4--5). We find this to be sufficient
articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to support the
combination. S'ee KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 lJ.S. 398, 416 (2007)
(the substitution of a known element for another is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than obtain predictable results). Appellant does not
persuasively argue why the substitution as proposed by the Examiner does
not result in predictable resuHs.
Second, Appellant contends 1\tiatta teaches away from having an
intersection control module that sends information regarding a position and
dimensions of the intersection because 1V1atta teaches the vehicle tracking
unit in the vehicle; rather than the control systern, provides that infonnation.
(App. Br. 20-23; Reply Br. 7).
\Ve are not persuaded by .Appellant's teaching away arguments.
Teaching away requires a reference to actually criticize, discredit, or
otherwise discourage the claimed solution. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195,
1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("The prior art's mere disclosure of more than one
alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives
because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage
the solution clairned"). \Ve agree with the Examiner that J'viatta teaches an
alten1ative (storing the infonnation in the vehicle as opposed to receiving
that infrnmation from the intersection control module), \vhich does not
constitute criticizing, discrediting, or othenvise discouraging the solution
claimed. (See Ans. 11-12).
Fina11y, Appellant contends substituting Elmer's functionality into
I\1atta render's 1\tfatta unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. (App. Br. 24;
6
Appeal2014-004429
Application 12/479,452
Reply Br. 9). Speci ficaHy, Appellant contends Matta would fail to work
because it relies on the function of vehicle components. (App. Br. 25).
vVe are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. We note
Appellant's identification of the intended purpose of l\1atta's invention is too
narrow. l\1atta 's purpose is to regulate switching of a traffic light (l\tfatta
Abstract, col. 1, lL 5-7). l\1oreover, as the Examiner points out,
incorporating Ebner' s teachings into Matta replaces the reliance on the
vehicle components in order to centralize the functionality. (Ans. 17). Such
a combined system can likewise regulate switching of a traffic light
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in combining
Matta and Ebner. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claims 1, 21, and 31.
Rejection of claims 2-6, 8-20, 22-30, and 32
Appellant does not provide separate arguments for the Examiner's
rejection of dependent claims 2---6, 8-20, 22-30, and 32. (App. Br. 26-28).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2---6, 8-20, 22-
30, and 32 for the same reasons as set forth above.
7
Appeal2014-004429
Application 12/479,452
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-
32 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
ELD
8