Ex Parte Galley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

11916885 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111916,885 07/16/2008
23911 7590 10/03/2016
CROWELL & MORING LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP
P.O. BOX 14300
WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Lars Galley
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.
095309.59602US 1268
EXAMINER
KHATIB, RAM!
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 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):
edocket@crowell.com
tche@crowell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LARS GALLEY, ELISABETH HENDRIKA
HENTSCHEL, KLAUS-PETER KUHN,
and WOLFGANG STOLZMANN
Appeal2014-008155
Application 11/916,885
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and GORDON D.
KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
16, 28, and 29. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Daimler AG, of
Mercedesstrasse 137, 70327 Stuttgart, Germany.
Appeal2014-008155
Application 11/916,885
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to method and control device recognizing,
specific to a driver, inattentiveness of a driver of a vehicle. Specification
,-i 1. 2 Claim 29 is the only independent claim on appeal and is reproduced
below:
29. A method for recognizing when a driver of a vehicle
becomes inattentive, wherein inattentiveness is determined as a
function of a steering inactivity phase and a subsequent steering
action, comprising:
determining a steering wheel angle or a variation in
steering wheel angle over time with a sensor that provides sensor
signals;
receiving the sensor signals at a control device on which a
computer program runs;
recognizing, with said control device, a steering inactivity
phase when the steering wheel angle or the variation in steering
wheel angle over time during a predetermined time threshold
value duration does not exceed a first threshold value;
recognizing, with said control device, a steering action
when the steering wheel angle or the variation in steering wheel
angle over time exceeds a second threshold value, the first
threshold value being between zero and the second threshold
value, and both threshold values being variable in a manner that
is specific to the driver;
recognizing inattentiveness with said control device only
when the steering action immediately follows the steering
inactivity phase; and
actuating, with said control device, a warning device to
warn the driver when inattentiveness is recognized.
2 Appellants submitted an amended specification December 7, 2007, to
which reference is made.
2
Appeal2014-008155
Application 11/916,885
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims
on appeal is: Obara et al., EP 0,147,539 A2, published July 10, 1985
(hereinafter "Obara").
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 16, 28, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Obara.
OPINION
Appellants argue that three limitations of claim 29 are not found in
Obara. Br. 4-5. Specifically, Appellants argue that Obara does not disclose
"(l) a first threshold value of steering wheel angle or variation in steering
wheel angle over time, (2) a second threshold value of steering wheel angle
or the variation in steering wheel angle over time, and (3) how such a first
threshold value is between zero and the second threshold value as claim 29
specifies." Br. 4. We address these arguments in tum.
The Examiner finds that Obara discloses "recognizing, with said
control device, a steering inactivity phase when the steering wheel angle or a
variation in steering wheel angle over time during a predetermined time
threshold value duration does not exceed a first threshold value," citing
Obara, page 7, lines 1-10, Figure 6, NO STEERING OP. and Figure 1, block 27,
"NO STEERING OPERATION DETECTING MEANS". Final Act. 3 (emphasis in
original). The Examiner finds that the NO STEERING OP. in Figure 6 reads on
the first threshold value. Final Act. 4-5. The Examiner explained that the
first threshold value is between zero (no change in measured steering angle)
and the amount or speed of steering movement that triggers a pulse from
3
Appeal2014-008155
Application 11/916,885
sensor 1, because while the NO STEERING OP. (Obara Fig. 6) is ongoing, no
pulses are generated from the sensor 1. Final Act. 4-5. Accordingly, we
agree with the Examiner's finding, and especially in view of block 27
(Obara Fig. 1) disclosing a NO STEERING OPERATION DETECTING MEANS.
Based on our review, in operation, the Obara system measures the time
between pulses generated by sensor 1 (Fig. 2) and reacts when the number of
pulses in a given time period is below a first threshold as shown in Figure 6.
Obara 7:1-10.
Appellants also challenge whether Obara discloses "a second
threshold value of steering wheel angle or the variation in steering wheel
angle over time." Br. 4. The Examiner finds Obara teaches recognizing "a
steering action when the steering wheel angle or the variation in steering
wheel angle over time exceeds a second threshold value," citing Obara 8: 16-
9: 10, "steering pulse", and Figure 1, items 21, 23, and 25. Final Act. 3. The
Examiner explained in the Answer:
[W]hen a pulse [from sensor 1, Fig. 2] is detected, irrespective
of the absolute value of the pulse whether positive or negative,
a steering operation is detected (Fig.6, FIRST STEERING OP.,
SECOND STEERING OP., Ltl(N), Lt2(N)) and that reads on the
claim limitation "a steering action when the variation in
steering wheel angle over time exceeds a second threshold
value".
Ans. 3 (emphasis in original). We note that, in operation, the Obara
system counts pulses generated by sensor 1 (Fig. 2) in a given time
period, and when the number of pulses-after a period of steering
inactivity-exceeds a threshold value, the system determines that a
drowsy driving event has occurred and signals the operator. Obara
8:8-9:10.
4
Appeal2014-008155
Application 11/916,885
Finally the Examiner explained that Obara teaches the third
challenged limitation: "[N]o steering pulse can range between zero and the
steering pulse based on the tolerance of the mechanical parts of the steering
wheel and accuracy of measurement." Final Act. 5. This is clearly
illustrated in Obara Figure 6, in the middle graph, where steering position
detection pulses are shown for a drowsy period followed by a sudden
correction. Obara 5:20-26. The sensor 1 in Obara generates a pulse when
steering wheel movement causes one of the slits 14' in disk 18 to pass a
photo-interrupter module 19. Obara 4:26-36. Accordingly, in Obara, the
generation of pulses requires more than a threshold minimum of movement,
and some steering can occur without generating a pulse, whether because of
play in the steering mechanism or the spacing of the slits in the disk 18.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the third element Appellants
alleged was not disclosed is, instead, disclosed by Obara.
In view of the foregoing, we determine the Examiner established that
Obara discloses the three limitations Appellants alleged to be absent.
Appellants have not demonstrated error in the Examiner's findings.
Appellants' argument amounts to a simple denial-without explanation-
that Obara teaches what the Examiner found. Br. 4-5. Appellants repeat the
Examiner's findings and then argue, "[ n ]othing in this portion of the Obara
et al. disclosure, or elsewhere in the Obara et al. disclosure suggests ... [the
three challenged limitations]." Id. at 4. Appellants also argue "it is not at all
clear how the Examiner's steering pulse discussion in the sentence spanning
pages 4-5 of the Office Action in any way relates to the specified [three
challenged limitations]." Id. at 4-5. These arguments are not persuasive
5
Appeal2014-008155
Application 11/916,885
because they amount to a general denial that the claim limitations are met,
without explaining how or why. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim
29. Claims 16 and 28 depend on claim 29, and were argued patentable for
the same reasons as claim 29. Br. 5. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 16
and 28 is likewise affirmed.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 16, 28, and
29 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ l.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6