Ex Parte Ehlers

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 24, 2014

11674838 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GREGORY A. EHLERS
____________

Appeal 2011-011199
Application 11/674,838
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-011199
Application 11/674,838

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner
finally rejecting claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-23, 25, 27, 28, and 30-44, all the claims
pending in the application. Claims 2, 4, 7, 24, 26, and 29 are cancelled. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to establishing planned routes
as a function of required and/or desired parameters. Spec. ¶ [0002].
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An information system for a vehicle, comprising:
an input system for establishing a destination location of
the vehicle;
a positioning system for establishing at least one of a
current position and a designated starting location of the vehicle;
a memory device for storing at least one required
parameter of the vehicle, the required parameter related to a physical
parameter of the vehicle, wherein the physical parameter of the
vehicle is an actual dimension of the vehicle; and,
a routing system coupled to the input system, the
positioning system and the memory device, the routing system
including data related to at least one landmark, including a schedule
related to a change of state of the landmark, the schedule having an
opening time and a closing time, the routing system for establishing a
route as a function of the destination location and the stored schedule
of the landmark, the current position or the designated starting
location, and the at least one required parameter of the vehicle, the
routing system, in establishing the route, avoids any landmark which
the physical parameter and/or stored schedule would prevent the
vehicle from navigating.

Appeal 2011-011199
Application 11/674,838

3

Appellant appeals the following rejections:

R1. Claims 1 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gieseke (US Patent Pub. 2006/0015249 A1, Jan. 19,
2006) and Nishiyama (JP 2001-304887, Oct. 31, 2001); and
R2. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-23, 25, 27, 28, and 30-44 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sroub (US Patent Pub.
2003/0135304 A1, July 17, 2003), Gieseke, and Nishiyama.

Claim Groupings
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claim 1, as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined teachings of
the cited art teaches and/or suggest establishing a route as a function of the
destination location and the stored schedule of the landmark, and in
establishing the route, avoids any landmarks which the physical parameter
and/or stored schedule would prevent the vehicle from navigating?

Appellant contends that “the Examiner has not articulated how the
combination of Gieseke and Nishiyama teaches or suggests a routing system,
which ‘in establishing the route, avoids any landmark which the physical
parameter and/or stored schedule would prevent the vehicle from
navigating” (App. Br. 8). Appellant further contends that “the only
Appeal 2011-011199
Application 11/674,838

4
information known by Nishiyama is the ‘opening and closing durations’ for
a given time period . . . Nishiyama does not store the opening time and the
closing time in a schedule for a particular landmark . . . Nor does Nishiyama
. . . avoids a landmark based on the opening time and the closing time”
(App. Br. 10).
In response, the Examiner found that “Gieseke teaches avoiding
landmarks that a physical parameter would prevent the vehicle from
navigating [paragraphs 0034, 0044]” (Ans. 13) and Nishiyama’s Abstract
(including Appellant’s translation) teaches “the routing system estimates
what time the driver would approach the railway crossing and then takes into
account the crossing data (whether it will be opened or closed and for how
long)” (id.). We agree with the Examiner.
We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions set forth in the Answer (see Ans. 10-14). Our discussions here
will be limited to the following points of emphasis.
We start by noting that claim 1 (and claim 23) includes alternative
language, i.e., avoids any landmark which the physical parameter AND/OR
stored schedule would prevent the vehicle from navigating (see claims 1 and
23) (emphasis added). In other words, the avoidance could be based on
either the physical parameter or the stored scheduled or both, but not
necessarily the stored schedule. As such, Appellant’s argument that
Nishiyama does not avoid a landmark based on the opening time and the
closing time, is not commensurate with the scope of the claims, as this
limitation is not necessarily required. The Examiner has shown, and
Appellant does not dispute, that “Gieseke teaches avoiding landmarks that a
Appeal 2011-011199
Application 11/674,838

5
physical parameter would prevent the vehicle from navigating” (see Ans. 13
citing Gieseke ¶¶ [0034],[0044]).
Appellant further argues that Nishiyama fails to disclose a routing
system including a schedule related to a change of state of the landmark, the
schedule having an opening time and a closing time (see App. Br. 10). The
Examiner provided an English Abstract for Nishiyama which discloses
“railroad crossing data is previously stored that is made up of coefficient
data set according to the opening/closing time of the railroad crossings
classified by time zone” (see Nishiyama, Abstract). However, Appellant
contends that the aforementioned Abstract is not a true and accurate
translation and provides a DERWENT version “which readily shows the true
meaning of ‘crossing data’ in the context of its teachings” (see App. Br. 9).
Specifically, Appellant contends that Nishiyama does not disclose
opening/closing times but merely discloses the “crossing data” as “opening
and closing durations” for a given time period (id. at 10). However, the
Examiner notes that “Appellant’s translation teaches the routing system
estimates what time the driver would approach the railway crossing and then
takes into account the crossing data (whether it will be opened or closed and
for how long)” (Ans. 13). In other words, even if “duration” as opposed to
“opening/closing times” is more accurately disclosed in Nishiyama, the fact
that Nishiyama calculates the time of arrival at the crossing and knows a
duration, suggests that opening/closing times are inherently known and
considered in the crossing data.
In view of the above discussion, since Appellant has not demonstrated
that the Examiner erred in finding the argued limitations in the combined
disclosure of Gieseke and Nishiyama, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appeal 2011-011199
Application 11/674,838

6
rejection of representative independent claim 1, as well as claims 3, 5, 6, 8-
23, 25, 27, 28, and 30-44 not separately argued by Appellant, is sustained.
Appellant also has not demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding the
argued limitations in the combined disclosure of Sroub, Gieseke and
Nishiyama, for similar reasons.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections.
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

msc