Ex Parte Crucs

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2015

11778129 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte KEVIN M. CRUCS
____________________

Appeal 2012-012379
Application 11/778,129
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Kevin M. Crucs (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–46, 51–55, and 68.
1
We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a system and method to monitor vehicles on
a roadway and to control driving restrictions of vehicle drivers. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:

1
Claims 47–50 and 56–67 are canceled.
Appeal 2012-012379
Application 11/778,129
2
1. A system for monitoring vehicles on a roadway, said
system comprising:
a plurality of RFID tags affixed at various pre-designated
locations along a roadway, wherein each of said RFID tags is
encoded with RFID tag information that may be used to
determine a physical location of any of said RFID tags on said
roadway;
a first RFID scanner installed on a first vehicle to
wirelessly interrogate said RFID tags as said first vehicle
travels on said roadway and/or to wirelessly receive said RFID
tag information from said RFID tags as said first vehicle
encounters any of said RFID tags on said roadway;
a first transceiver installed in said first vehicle and
operatively connected to said first RFID scanner to receive said
RFID tag information from said first RFID scanner and to re-
encode and transmit at least said RFID tag information
wirelessly as at least a first RF signal;
at least one roadside repeater station to wirelessly receive
at least said first RF signal from said first transceiver and to re-
transmit the information encoded in at least said first RF signal;
and
a remote central tracking station, having at least one
database, wherein the remote central tracking station is
configured to:
receive and process said re-transmitted information
from said roadside repeater station to generate statistical
data corresponding to operation of the first vehicle by a
driver of the first vehicle; and
modify at least one driving restriction of the driver,
stored in the database, based on the statistical data,
wherein the at least one driving restriction includes at
least one of a time of day the driver is allowed to drive,
driving lanes the driver is allowed to drive in, a
maximum speed the driver is allowed to drive, and a type
of vehicle the driver is allowed to drive.

Appeal 2012-012379
Application 11/778,129
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Shankwitz
Ellis
DeWitt
Dahlgren
Plant
Viegers
Estevez
Larschan
US 2005/0174257 A1
US 2007/0005245 A1
US 2008/0068165 A1
US 7,421,334 B2
US 2008/0238690 A1
US 7,554,441 B2
US 7,634,226 B2
US 7,881,838 B2
Aug. 11, 2005
Jan. 4, 2007
Mar. 20, 2008
Sept. 2, 2008
Oct. 2, 2008
June 30, 2009
Dec. 15, 2009
Feb. 1, 2011

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1–6, 8–18, 23–29, 32, 34, 37, 43–46, 53–55, and 68 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Ellis,
Estevez, Plant, and Dahlgren.
II. Claims 19–22, 31, 33, 36, 38, 51, and 52 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Ellis, Estevez, Plant,
Dahlgren, and Larschan.
III. Claims 30 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ellis, Estevez, Plant, Dahlgren, and DeWitt.
IV. Claims 39 and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ellis, Estevez , Plant, Dahlgren, and Viegers.
V. Claims 41 and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ellis, Estevez, Plant, Dahlgren, and Shankwitz.

Appeal 2012-012379
Application 11/778,129
4
OPINION
Rejection I — Claims 1–6, 8–18, 23–29, 32, 34, 37, 43–46, 53–55, and 68
The Examiner determines that the combined teachings of Ellis,
Estevez, Plant, and Dahlgren render independent claim 1 obvious. Ans. 5–7.
In particular, the Examiner finds that Plant discloses, inter alia, modifying
“at least one driving restriction of the driver, stored in [a] database, based on
. . . statistical data.” Id. at 6.
Appellant argues that “Plant does NOT disclose modifying driving
restrictions based on statistical data corresponding to operation of the
vehicle.” App. Br. 14. In response to this argument, the Examiner finds that
“Plant discloses [that] the driver[’]s restrictions are maintained, established
and modified over time.” Ans. 14 (citing Plant ¶ 20). The Examiner
explains that “Plant discloses modifying driving restrictions based on
correlation of the data, which is a form of a statistical analysis,
corresponding to operation of the vehicle. Id. (citing Plant ¶ 27).
Plant states:
Smartcard 14 holds driver information and driver ID.
Driver License Management 16 is an administrative system to
enable drivers to obtain a license and for license conditions to
be established and modified over time. License Data Repository
20, which is held centrally, holds driver identification, license
conditions and policy for handling violations of conditions.
Plant ¶ 20.
Plant further states:
At step 84, vehicle usage rules are communicated to the
vehicle. Vehicle Telematics system 32, as represented at step
86, monitors driver adherence to rules and/or as appropriate
enforces the rules. At step 90, Event Data is fed to the License
and Permission Enforcement system 30; and this License and
Permission Enforcement system, at step 92, correlates events,
Appeal 2012-012379
Application 11/778,129
5
checks rules, generates logs and optionally notifies law
enforcement authorities, represented at 94.
Plant ¶ 27.
While paragraphs 20 and 27 describe the collection of data and
enforcement of preexisting rules, they do not describe modification of the
driving restrictions based on the collected data. Rather, Appellant correctly
notes that “[i]t is not clear [from these paragraphs] in response to what that
Plant would modify license conditions/restrictions [sic].” App. Br. 14
(emphasis omitted). In paragraph 30, Plant also mentions owner
modification of the driving restrictions, but there is no indication that this
modification is based on statistical data stored in a database at a remote
central tracking station as required by claim 1.
Thus, Appellant’s argument is persuasive. For this reason, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting independent claim 1, and claims 2–
6, 8–18, 23–29, 32, 34, 37, 43–46, 53–55, and 68, which depend therefrom.
Rejection II — Claims 19–22, 31, 33, 36, 38, 51, and 52
Claims 19–22, 31, 33, 36, 38, 51, and 52 depend from independent
claim 1. Appellant argues that Larschan does not cure the deficiencies in the
rejection of claim 1. See App. Br. 15.
In response to this argument, the Examiner finds that in Larschan
“[t]he calculating and transceiving of the operation data, log, is continuously
monitored, enforced and modified, where when the driver, according to the
log recorded has become not applicable to the laws or regulations, the status
of the driver is modified, changed and become out-of-compliance.” Ans. 15
(citing Larschan, col. 3, ll. 12–23; col. 4, l. 64–col. 5, l. 28; col. 5, l. 52–col.
6, l. 6).
Appeal 2012-012379
Application 11/778,129
6
The Examiner’s finding is in error. Although, Larschan describes
“periodically, when interrogated by authorities, or continuously, whether or
not a driver is driving within parameters established by at least one of law(s)
or regulation(s); wirelessly notifying, signaling, alerting or informing
authorities that a driver is not in compliance with applicable hours of service
laws or regulations” (Larschan, col. 5, ll. 55–60); Larschan does not describe
“modifying at least one driving restriction of the driver, stored in the
database, based on the statistical data” as required by independent claim 1.
App. Br. 19, Clms. App’x. Thus, Larschan does not cure the deficiencies in
the rejection of claim 1 discussed supra.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 19–22, 31, 33, 36, 38, 51, and 52 which depend from independent
claim 1.
Rejections III, IV, & V — Claims 30, 35, and 39–42
Claims 30, 35, and 39–42 depend from independent claim 1. None of
DeWitt, Wiegers, and Shankwitz cures the deficiencies in the rejection of
claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 30, 35, and 39–42.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–46, 51–55, and 68 are
REVERSED.

REVERSED

mls