Ex Parte Danz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 22, 2012

10564371 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/564,371 07/19/2006 Christian Danz 10191/4030 7826
26646 7590 10/22/2012
KENYON & KENYON LLP
ONE BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10004
EXAMINER
FAN, HONGMIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2685
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/22/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHRISTIAN DANZ and CYRILLE BOLLENGIER
____________

Appeal 2010-006386
Application 10/564,371
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
TRENTON A. WARD, Administrative Patent Judges.

WARD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 11, 12, and 14-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to determining the position of a vehicle
during a parking operation, an anticipated parking trajectory of the vehicle,
Appeal 2010-006386
Application 10/564,371

2
and the anticipated parking position. See generally Spec. 5:2-27. Claim 11
is illustrative:
11. A method for determining at least one of a position and an
anticipated position of a vehicle during a parking operation in relation to an
oncoming lane of a multi-lane roadway, comprising:
determining a position of the oncoming lane in relation to the vehicle
at a beginning of the parking operation;
determining an anticipated final parking position of the vehicle using
at least one electronic sensor;
determining an anticipated parking trajectory of the vehicle using the
anticipated final parking position of the vehicle determined by the at least
one electronic sensor;
determining at least one potential intersection of the anticipated
parking trajectory with the oncoming lane; and
providing a signal in the presence of at least one actual intersection of
the parking trajectory with the oncoming lane, the signal being processed.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 11, 12, and 14-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Shimizu (US 2002/0041239 A1; published
Apr. 11, 2002) in view of Pawlicki (US 7,038,577 B2; published May 2,
2006; filed Apr. 30, 2003). Ans. 3-6.1

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER SHIMIZU AND PAWLICKI
Based on arguments for claims 11, 12 and 14-20, we select claim 11
as representative. The Examiner finds that Shimizu discloses every recited
feature of representative claim 11 except for determining the potential
intersection with an oncoming lane and proving a warning signal, but cites

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed
Aug. 24, 2009; (2) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed Nov. 24, 2009;
and (3) the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed Jan. 26, 2010.
Appeal 2010-006386
Application 10/564,371

3
Pawlicki as teaching these features in concluding that the claim would have
been obvious. Ans. 5.
Appellants argue that Shimizu and Pawlicki do not suggest anything
about:
“determining a position of the oncoming lane in relation to the
vehicle at a beginning of the parking operation; . . . ;
determining at least one potential intersection of the anticipated
parking trajectory with the oncoming lane; and providing a
signal in the presence of at least one actual intersection of the
parking trajectory with the oncoming lane.”
App. Br. 5 (quoting claim 11 (emphases omitted) (ellipsis in original)).
Specifically, Appellants argue that “the lane-departure warning system of
Pawlicki is fundamentally unrelated to the present claimed invention . . . .”
App. Br. 6.

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 11 by finding
that Shimizu and Pawlicki collectively would have taught or suggested
determining a position of the oncoming lane in relation to the vehicle at a
beginning of the parking operation; determining at least one potential
intersection of the anticipated parking trajectory with the oncoming lane;
and providing a signal in the presence of at least one actual intersection of
the parking trajectory with the oncoming lane?

ANALYSIS
On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of representative claim 11. The Examiner finds that Shimizu
discloses “a display unit to visually display to a driver a target parking
Appeal 2010-006386
Application 10/564,371

4
position, a subject vehicle position, an expected parking position in the case
where the subject vehicle travels with a predetermined steering angle . . . .”
Ans. 4. The Examiner concedes that Shimizu does not disclose determining
a potential intersection with an oncoming lane and providing a warning
signal, but finds that it would have been obvious to combine the lane
departure warning system disclosed in Pawlicki with the parking aid system
disclosed in Shimizu to arrive at the claimed invention of claim 11.
First, Appellants argue that “the lane-departure warning system of
Pawlicki has absolutely nothing to do with a parking-assistance technique,
and there is clearly no suggestion in Pawlicki regarding determination of an
intersection of ‘the anticipated parking trajectory with the oncoming lane.’”
App. Br. 5 (quoting claim 11 (emphases omitted)). Contrary to the
Appellants arguments, the record establishes that Pawlicki is related to a
parking-assistance technique because, as cited by the Examiner, Pawlicki
suggests the use of its lane departure warning system to “assist the driver in
changing lanes or parking the vehicle.” Pawlicki, col. 1, l. 22 (emphasis
added).
Second, Appellants argue that the disclosure of a warning regarding
“oncoming traffic” in Pawlicki does not equate with the “oncoming lane”
recited in claim 11. App. Br. 5-6. Based on the record before us, we see no
error in the Examiner’s findings with respect to the “oncoming lane” in
Pawlicki. Specifically, the Examiner finds that lane departure warning
system in Pawlicki can “monitor the lane markings 113e along the road
surface and monitor the potential presence of oncoming traffic in an adjacent
lane or lanes.” Ans. 5. Figure 13 of Pawlicki, reproduced below, shows the
Appeal 2010-006386
Application 10/564,371

5
lane markings 113e that are monitored by the lane departure warning system
110 in vehicle 12.

Pawlicki’s Figure 13 shows a view of vehicle lane departure
warning system 110 in vehicle 12 monitoring lane marking
113e.
The embodiment illustrated in Figure 13 of Pawlicki illustrates the use of the
lane departure warning system 110 “to monitor the lane markings and the
potential presence of adjacent traffic . . . .” Pawlicki, col. 25, ll. 31-32
(emphasis added). In another embodiment disclosed in Pawlicki, and cited
by the Examiner, the lane departure warning system 110 is used to “monitor
the lane markings 113e along the road surface and monitor the potential
presence of oncoming traffic in an adjacent lane or lanes.” Pawlicki, col. 25,
ll. 11-13 (emphasis added). As found by the Examiner, the “lane marking
113e clearly defines ‘oncoming lane,’ regardless if there is oncoming traffic
or no oncoming traffic.” Ans. 8.
Appellants further contend that “the lane-departure warning system of
Pawlicki is fundamentally unrelated to the present claimed invention . . . .”
App. Br. 6. Contrary to this argument, Appellants’ own Specification
Appeal 2010-006386
Application 10/564,371

6
expressly states that “[i]mage data of a video-based lane departure warning
(LDW) system may be additionally used,” which can allow for an “accurate
determination of the position of vehicle 10 within lane 18 . . . .” Spec. 5:12-
16. Accordingly, the parking aid system disclosed in Shimizu and a lane
departure warning system, such as the one disclosed in Pawlicki, are related
as is, in fact, admitted by Appellants’ Specification.
Appellants also contend that “the overall teachings of Shimizu and
Pawlicki contradict the modification asserted by the Examiner” because the
“Shimizu reference clearly indicates that an object of the invention is to
simplify and reduce the cost of its system.” App. Br. 7. Specifically,
Appellants cite Shimizu’s statement that the system “‘can be realized with
very low cost’” because “‘there is no need for an image processing device.’”
Id. (quoting Shimizu, ¶ 0009 (emphasis omitted)). Although Shimizu
discloses a “first embodiment” capable of “achieving a cost efficient parking
aid system,” it further discloses a “second embodiment” that incorporates a
“vehicle speed sensor” and other sensor devices. Shimizu, ¶¶ 0136-37,
0142. Accordingly, the disclosure in Shimizu teaches both a low-cost
embodiment and a more complex embodiment, incorporating sensors similar
to those used in Pawlicki’s lane departure warning system. Thus, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s combination of Shimizu and Pawlicki.
In their Reply Brief, Appellants contend that the Examiner’s finding
that one of skill in the art would expect a vehicle to veer across the median
line and often across into the oncoming lane during parking in a congested
area is a “‘mere conclusory statement[]’ which the Supreme Court explicitly
noted in KSR as being inadequate for sustaining an obviousness rejection.”
Reply Br. 3. In addition to noting in KSR that a “mere conclusory
Appeal 2010-006386
Application 10/564,371

7
statement” is inadequate for an obviousness finding, the Supreme Court
further stated that “the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed
to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take
account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007). The Examiner’s findings with respect to a vehicle veering across the
median line when parking in a congested area take into account the creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill the art would employ. Ans. 7-8. In fact,
the general knowledge of one of skill in the art regarding the expected
crossing into an oncoming lane is expressly recognized in Appellants’
Specification. Appellants’ Specification states that “[i]t is often unavoidable
that vehicle 10 crosses lane boundary 20 of its own lane 18 during the
backward parking operation, thereby protruding into oncoming lane 16.”
Spec. 4:21-23 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Examiner’s findings with
respect to it being generally known that a parking operation may result in
veering across a median line is not a “mere conclusory statement,” but
supported by the disclosure in a cited reference and Appellants’ own
Specification.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 11, 12, and 14-20 under
§ 103.

Appeal 2010-006386
Application 10/564,371

8
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 11, 12, and 14-20 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

babc