Ex Parte Clamont Bello

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 10, 2018

14873832 (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/873,832 10/02/2015
121691 7590 05/14/2018
Ford Global Technologies, LLC/
King & Schickli, PLLC
800 CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 200
Lexington, KY 40503
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Claudio Alberto Clamont Bello
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.
83577977 5311
EXAMINER
WU,ZHENY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/14/2018 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):
uspto@iplawl.net
laura@iplawl.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CLAUDIO ALBERTO CLAMONT BELLO
Appeal2018-000706
Application 14/873,832
Technology Center 2685
Before THU A. DANG, JOHNNY A. KUMAR,
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-000706
Application 14/873,832
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-7 and 9-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
WE AFFIRM.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claims 1, 2, and 9 under appeal read as follows:
1. A rear closure obstacle detection system for a motor
vehicle having a rear closure, comprising:
an obstacle detector;
an indicator; and
a controller configured to actuate said rear closure
obstacle detection system and detect an obstacle to opening of
said rear closure while said motor vehicle is actively being
parked, wherein said controller is configured to activate said
rear closure obstacle detection system when a transmission of
said motor vehicle is put in reverse.
2. The rear closure obstacle detection system of claim 1,
wherein said obstacle detector monitors a swing radius of said
rear closure.
9. A method of detecting an obstacle to opening a rear
closure of a motor vehicle, comprising:
monitoring, by means of an obstacle sensor, a swing
radius of said rear closure member while said motor vehicle is
actively being parked; and
indicating, by means of an indicator, if an obstacle is
detected.
1 Appellant is Ford Global Technologies, LLC, which according to the
Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2
Appeal2018-000706
Application 14/873,832
Rejections
Claims 1-7, 9-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. I02(a) as
being anticipated by Buchanan Jr. et al. (US 2002/0084675 Al pub. July 4,
2002, hereinafter "Buchanan").
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Buchanan in view of White (US 2004/0080431 Al pub. Apr. 29, 2004).
Appellant's Contentions
1. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a) because in Buchanan "the reverse sensing system
42 is distinct from the liftgate sensing system 26." App. Br. 10.
2. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2
and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a) because "Buchanan does not teach
monitoring, by means of an obstacle sensor, a swing radius of the rear
closure member." App. Br. 12. Appellant also contends "Buchanan only
monitors the rear closure member, i.e., the liftgate, when the vehicle is
parked, not when the 'vehicle is actively being parked."' Id.
3. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 14
under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) because "the Action fails to articulate any reason
based on a rational underpinning as to why it would have been obvious to
modify Buchanan by incorporating the teachings of White." App. Br. 14.
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1, 2, and 9 as being
anticipated?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 14 as being obvious?
3
Appeal2018-000706
Application 14/873,832
ANALYSIS 2
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments (Appeal Brief) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with
Appellant's conclusions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons, as to contentions 1-3, set
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2---6) in response to
Appellant's Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight the following points.
As to Appellant's above contention 1 (regarding claim 1), Appellant's
statement "the reverse sensing system 42 is distinct from the liftgate sensing
system 26" (App. Br. 10) overlooks the Abstract in Buchanan that teaches
"[t]he invention uses the same sensors to perform both functions."
(Emphasis added.)
Further, we agree with the Examiner that:
both systems utilize the same obstacle detection system in steps 28
and 44 to detect for obstruction. The liftgate sensing system and the
reverse sensing system are different in names due to the mode of the
vehicle that it is in but the actual system used to detect for obstacle is
the same for both systems, and that system is the obstacle detection
system as disclosed in Fig. 2. Therefore, obstacle detection system of
Fig. 2 is configured to detect for obstacle during parking mode or in
reverse mode.
Ans. 3.
2 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 3-7, 10-13, 15, and 16.
Except for our ultimate decision, the rejection of these claims is not
discussed further herein.
4
Appeal2018-000706
Application 14/873,832
As to Appellant's above contention 2 (regarding claims 2 and 9), we
agree with the Examiner's analysis (Ans. 4) in response to Appellant's
arguments. The Examiner correctly points out that Buchanan explicitly
discloses a liftgate 12 that is hinged to swing open and the obstacle detection
system monitors for obstacles along the swing radius of the liftgate as it
opens (id., citing Figs. IA, IB, and 3 of Buchanan).
As to Appellant's contention regarding the "monitoring ... while said
motor vehicle is actively being parked" limitation recited in claim 9, we
disagree. Appellant fails to explain why they deem the limitation
monitoring while the vehicle is actively being parked patentably
distinguishable over Buchanan's monitoring of the liftgate when the vehicle
is parked. We find Appellant's assertion to be conclusory. Such
unsupported attorney argument is entitled to little probative value. In re
Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d
699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
As to Appellant's above contention 3 regarding comb inability of
Buchanan and White, we disagree. The Examiner finds, and we agree:
[B]oth Buchanan and White are in the same field of vehicle detection
system. White cures Buchanan's deficiency by teaching a rear-view
mirror that displays an indication when an obstacles is detected in the
rear side of the vehicle. See Fig. 1-4, abstract and para [0018] "Thus,
the inventive distance detection and display system minimizes driver
distractions by providing a display of the distance between an obstacle
and the front or rear of the vehicle in the rearview mirror and/ or
sideview mirror."
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify
Buchanan's vehicle to display a visible alarm on the rear-view mirror
of the vehicle to appropriately notify the driver and to minimize driver
distraction.
5
Appeal2018-000706
Application 14/873,832
Final Act. 3--4.
In addition to agreeing with the Examiner's above findings, we note
Appellant has not directed us to evidence sufficient to show that combining
the prior art was "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill
in the art" or "represented an unobvious step over the prior art." Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citing KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-19 (2007)). Nor has
Appellant directed us to evidence that any of their incorporations of known
limitations yielded more than expected results.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7, 9-13, 15, and 16 as being
anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 14 as being unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) 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
6