Ex Parte Chow et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 14, 201613474818 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 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. 13/474,818 05/18/2012 Stephen Y. Chow YOR920120073US1 4501 29154 7590 FREDERICK W. GIBB, III GIBB & RILEY, LLC 844 West Street SUITE 200 ANNAPOLIS, MD 21401 12/16/2016 EXAMINER KEEHN, RICHARD G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2456 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/16/2016 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): support @ gibbiplaw .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEPHEN Y. CHOW, GRANT D. MILLER, NADER M. NASSAR, RICHARD J. NEWHOOK, and ERICH D. WALLS Appeal 2015-004809 Application 13/474,818 Technology Center 2400 Before THU A. DANG, ERIC S. FRAHM, and KRISTEN L. DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judges. DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1—4, 6-9, 11-21, and 23-251 2, all of the pending claims in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 Appellants indicate the real party-in-interest is International Business Machines Corporation. App. Br. 3. 2 Claims 5, 10, and 22 have been cancelled. Appeal 2015-004809 Application 13/474,818 BACKGROUND The disclosed invention relates to “systems and associated methods for traffic event data source identification, traffic event data collection and traffic event data storage.” Spec. 11. Representative claims 1 and 13, reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, read as follows (disputed limitations in italics)'. 1. A traffic event data source identification system comprising: a first monitoring system onboard a vehicle; an inter-monitoring system communication device onboard said vehicle and comprising a radio frequency communication device having a limited broadcast range and comprising any of a radio frequency identification (RFID) device, a near field communication (NFC) device, and a Bluetooth®-enabled communication device', a memory onboard said vehicle; and, a system bus onboard said vehicle and electrically connecting said first monitoring system, said inter-monitoring system communication device and said memory, said first monitoring system detecting a traffic event involving said vehicle, said inter-monitoring system communication device broadcasting a monitoring system discovery signal in response to said traffic event such that said monitoring system discovery signal is automatically broadcast from a location of said traffic event immediately following said traffic event, said inter-monitoring system communication device further receiving, in response to said discovery signal, at least one response signal from at least one second monitoring system within said limited broadcast range such that said at least one second monitoring system is automatically identified as a potential data source, which was within a predetermined distance of said location of said traffic event at approximately a time of said traffic event, and 2 Appeal 2015-004809 Application 13/474,818 said memory storing a list of all second monitoring systems responding to said discovery signal. 13. A traffic event data storage system comprising: a traffic event database server maintaining a traffic event database stored in memory; and a network interface device electrically connected to said traffic event database server, said network interface device receiving, from a first monitoring system onboard a vehicle, first data captured by said first monitoring system in response to detection by said first monitoring system of a traffic event involving said vehicle, said network interface device further receiving, from said first monitoring system, a list of all second monitoring systems that responded to a monitoring system discovery signal, said monitoring system discovery signal having been broadcast, in response to said detection of said traffic event, by said first monitoring system and, thereby automatically broadcast from a location of said traffic event immediately following said traffic event, said monitoring system discovery signal further having been broadcast using a radio frequency communication device having a limited broadcast range and comprising any of a radio frequency identification (RFID) device, a near field communication (NFC) device, and a Bluetooth®-enabled communication device, said second monitoring systems being within said limited broadcast range such that said second monitoring systems are automatically identified as potential data sources, which were within a predetermined distance of said location of said traffic event at approximately a time of said traffic event, said network interface device further receiving, from at least one second monitoring system, second data captured by said at least one second monitoring system in response to a data capture request signal transmitted 3 Appeal 2015-004809 Application 13/474,818 to said second monitoring systems by said first monitoring system using said radio frequency communication device, and said traffic event database server inputting said first data, said list, and said second data into said traffic event database and associating said first data, said list, and said second data with a unique identifier for said traffic event. REJECTION AND PRIOR ART Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-21, and 23-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Integrated Transport Information System, May 7, 2012 (“ITIS”), Eubank et al. (US 2007/0102527 Al; May 10, 2007) (“Eubank”), and Lagassey (US 2008/0252485 Al; Oct. 16, 2008). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ arguments in the Brief, the Examiner’s Answer, and the arguments in the Reply Brief. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments addressing claims 13-17. We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings and conclusions of law addressing claims 13-17. We are, however, persuaded by Appellants’ arguments addressing claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, 12, 18- 21, and 23-25. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments below for emphasis. Claims 1-4. 6-9. 11. 18-21. and 23-25 Claim 1 recites “a first monitoring system onboard a vehicle,” “an inter-monitoring system communication device onboard said vehicle,” a memory onboard said vehicle,” and “a system bus onboard said vehicle and electrically connecting said first monitoring system, said inter-monitoring 4 Appeal 2015-004809 Application 13/474,818 system communication device, and said memory.” Independent claims 6, 18, and 23 recite limitations similar to claim 1. The Examiner finds that ITIS’s disclosure of an Automatic Incident Detection system teaches a first monitoring system, and ITIS’s disclosure of updates from cameras as part of the ITIS, occurring across a network, and in response to detecting traffic incidents teaches an inter-monitoring system communication device. See Final Act. 3 (citing ITIS 2-3). The Examiner further finds that ITIS’s disclosure of updates from the cameras as part of the ITIS system teaches a memory. See id. (citing ITIS 3). The Examiner also finds that ITIS teaches a system bus electrically connecting the first monitoring system, the inter-monitoring system communication device and the memory based on ITIS’s disclosure of the Automatic Incident Detection in a vehicle traffic environment, CCTV surveillance cameras, and explanation that “[sjince they are closed-circuit (a form of system bus), they are connected to the Advanced Traffic Management System, and are therefore co-located[].” Id. at 3^4 (citing ITIS 2-3). The Examiner acknowledges that ITIS does not disclose onboard a vehicle. See id. at 4. The Examiner further acknowledges that ITIS and Eubank does not explicitly disclose a system bus onboard a vehicle and electrically connecting the first monitoring system, the inter-monitoring system communication device and the memory. See id. at 8. The Examiner relies on Lagassey for teaching these limitations based on Lagassey’s disclosure of a vehicle equipped with OnStar which sends messages and alerts to a central monitoring system to assist General Motors vehicle purchasers, such as by reporting when the vehicle has been in an accident based on airbag deployment sensors electrically connected to the OnStar 5 Appeal 2015-004809 Application 13/474,818 computer, and sending GPS coordinates of the vehicle to the monitoring service during an emergency call placed when the airbag deploys. See id. at 8-9 (citing Lagassey 1160). Appellants argue that ITIS, Eubank, and Lagassey do not disclose “a system bus onboard said vehicle and electrically connecting said first monitoring system, said inter-monitoring system communication device and said memory.” App. Br. 14, 20-21, 33, 39^40; see Reply Br. 5. Appellants contend that ITIS does not refer to a system bus onboard a vehicle or a system bus that electrically connects multiple components. See App. Br. 14, 22, 34, 41; Reply Br. 5. Appellants also contend that Eubank does not refer to a system bus onboard a vehicle or a system bus that electrically connects multiple components. See App. Br. 15, 23, 35, 42. Appellants assert that Lagassey implicitly discloses a system bus that is onboard a vehicle and that electrically connects an airbag deployment monitoring system, but a connection to a memory is not disclosed. See id. at 18, 25, 37-38, 44^45; see Reply Br. 8 (“Lagassey only discloses communication between a monitoring system and an onboard/integrated OnStar phone, but does not disclose an electrical connection over a system bus between three discrete components including a monitoring system, an inter-monitoring system communication device . . . and a memory.”). In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner clarifies that “the vehicle’s bus limitation was cited in Lagassey, not Eubank.” Ans. 6. Based on the record before us, we agree with Appellants’ arguments. In particular, as combined by the Examiner, ITIS, Eubank, and Lagassey fail to teach or suggest a system bus onboard the vehicle and electrically connecting the first monitoring system, the inter-monitoring system 6 Appeal 2015-004809 Application 13/474,818 communication device, and the memory. Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the rejection of claims 1—4, 6-9, 11, 18-21, and 23-25. Claims 13-17 Appellants argue that ITIS, Eubank, and Lagassey do not teach or suggest: (1) “said network interface device further receiving, from said first monitoring system, a list of all second monitoring systems that responded to a monitoring system discovery signal, said monitoring system discovery signal having been broadcast, in response to said detection of said traffic event, by said first monitoring system and, thereby automatically broadcast from a location of said traffic event immediately following said traffic event;” (2) “said monitoring system discovery signal further having been broadcast using a radio frequency communication device having a limited broadcast range and comprising any of a radio frequency identification (RFID) device, a near field communication (NFC) device, and a Bluetooth®-enabled communication device;” (3) “said second monitoring systems being within said limited broadcast range such that said second monitoring systems are automatically identified as potential data sources, which were within a predetermined distance of said location of said traffic event at approximately a time of said traffic event;” (4) “said network interface device further receiving, from at least one second monitoring system, second data captured by said at least one second monitoring system in response to a data capture request signal transmitted to said second monitoring systems by said first monitoring system using said radio frequency communication device;” and (5) “said traffic event database server inputting said first data, said list, and said second data into said traffic event database and associating said first data, said list, and said second data with a unique identifier for said traffic event.” See App. Br. 27-28. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments because a question arises as to whether the disputed claim limitations, which recite the use or 7 Appeal 2015-004809 Application 13/474,818 functions of the traffic event database server, are entitled to patentable consideration. Here, the disputed limitations do not limit the structure of the traffic event database server and the network interface device electrically connected to the traffic event database server, but merely recite the use or functions of the traffic event database server and network interface device. Although applicants are free to define something by what it does rather than by what it is, there is inherent risk in doing so. See In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212 (CCPA 1971). One risk is that the recited use will cover any and all embodiments capable of performing the recited use or function. See id. at 213; see also In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Schreiber’s contention that his structure will be used to dispense popcorn does not have patentable weight if the structure is already known, regardless of whether it has ever been used in any way in connection with popcorn.”). Apparatus claims, similar to the system recited in claim 13, “cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard co. v. Bausch &Lomb, Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); but see In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“adapted to” clause limited a machine claim where “the written description makes clear that ‘adapted to,’ as used in the [] [application, has a narrower meaning, viz., that the claimed machine is designed or constructed to be used as a rowing machine whereby a pulling force is exerted on the handles.”) We agree with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner’s findings that ITIS, Eubank, and Lagassey teach or suggest the traffic event database server and a network interface device electrically connected to the traffic event database server. See Final Act. 3-10 (citing ITIS 2-3; Eubank || 47, 52; Lagassey 1160). 8 Appeal 2015-004809 Application 13/474,818 The remaining limitations recited in claim 13 do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the combined teachings of ITIS, Eubank, and Lagassey because they describe the intended use or function of the traffic event database server, and the network interface device. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 and dependent claims 14-17, not argued separately (see App. Br. 27-32). DECISION We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 13-17. We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, 18-21, and 23- 25. 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-IN-PART 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation