Ex Parte Garcia Bordes

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

12855238 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/855,238 08/12/2010
34044 7590 09/30/2016
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch)
100 EAST WISCONSIN A VENUE
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Maria Eugenia Garcia Bordes
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.
081276-9458-00 9473
EXAMINER
YU,ARIELJ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2016 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):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARIA EUGENIA GARCIA BORDES
Appeal2014-002307
Application 12/855,2381
Technology Center 3600
Before, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
Final rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-21. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Appellants identify Robert Bosch LLC, as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-002307
Application 12/855,238
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE and enter NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
THE INVENTION
Appellant claims a system and method that relates to safety features
for vehicles. Spec. i-f 1.
Claim 10, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
10. A vehicle, comprising:
an object detection device configured to detect objects
next to the vehicle, approaching the vehicle from a side, and
approaching the vehicle from behind;
a controller receiving an indication of a detected object
from the object detection device, the controller determmmg
a position, a speed, an acceleration, and a direction of travel
of the detected object and performing a blind spot detection
function, a closing vehicle warning function, and a rear,
cross-traffic alert function; and
a human-machine interface (HMI) coupled to the
controller and configured to provide a warning to a driver
when the controller determines a potential threat exists.
2
Appeal2014-002307
Application 12/855,238
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Hibino et al. us 5,631,639 May 20, 1997
("Hibino")
Lemelson et al. US 6,553,130 Bl Apr. 22, 2003
("Lemelson")
Ezoe et al. US 7,983,828 B2 July 19, 2011
("Ezoe")
Perkins US 2011/0199199 Al Aug. 18, 2011
The following rejections are before us for review.
1. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Lemelson. Final Act. 2.
2. Claims 1-3, 9, 11-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lemelson in view of Ezoe. Final
Act. 4.
3. Claims 5-8 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lemelson, Ezoe, and Hibino. Final Act. 15.
4. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Lemelson, Ezoe, and Perkins. Final Act. 20.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. We adopt for purposes of the New Grounds rejection, infra, the
Examiner's findings as set forth on pages 2-22 of the Final Action
3
Appeal2014-002307
Application 12/855,238
excluding any finding(s) directed to Lemelson disclosing a rear, cross-traffic
alert function.
2. The Specification describes a RCTA as prior art stating:
Another safety system is a rear, cross-traffic alert
system (RCTA). The system detects objects
approaching, from the sides, the rear of the
vehicle, and warns the driver. The RCT A helps a
driver by detecting an approaching object when the
driver is backing out of a parking space and the
driver's vision is blocked. Each safety system is
autonomous, using individual detection systems
and driver warning systems.
Specification i-f 2.
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) REJECTION
Independent claim 10 requires:
a controller receiving an indication of a detected object
from the object detection device, the controller determining a
position, a speed, an acceleration, and a direction of travel of
the detected object and performing a blind spot detection
function, a closing vehicle warning function, and a rear, cross-
traffic alert function ....
The Examiner found that this feature is disclosed by Lemelson at "col.
7, lines 15-46, col. 9, lines 1-28, col. 11, lines 18-67, and col. 12." Final
4
Appeal2014-002307
Application 12/855,238
Act. 3.
Appellant, however, argues that "[b ]ecause Lemelson does not include
any disclosure of operating in reverse, Lemelson does not identically
disclose a rear, cross-traffic alert function as recited by claim 10." Appeal
Br. 10.
We agree with Appellant because Lemelson explicitly discloses
"systems that scan the roadway directly ahead of a vehicle using radar/lidar
or television." Lemelson, col. 1, 11. 58---60. "A claim is anticipated only if
each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or
inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v.
Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987), cert.
denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987).
Thus, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 10 as anticipated by
Lemelson.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION
Each of independent claims 1 and 13 contains the limitation set forth
above in one form or another. The Examiner similarly found that Lemelson
discloses this limitation citing to the same section of Lemelson used for the
anticipation rejection supra, namely, "col. 7, lines 15-46, col. 9, lines 1-28,
col. 11, lines 18-67, and col. 12." Final Act. 5. The additional reference to
Ezoe does not remedy the deficiency found in the anticipation rejection, nor
does the Examiner adequately explain why a rear cross traffic alert function
would be obvious in the forward looking system of Lemelson where "a
5
Appeal2014-002307
Application 12/855,238
television camera and/or one or more laser scanners [are] mounted on the
vehicle [to] scan the road in front of the vehicle." Final Act. 6-7. Therefore,
we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Because claims 2, 3, 5-9, 11, 12, 14--21 depend from one of claims 1,
10 and 13, and because in this obvious rejection, Ezoe, Hibino and Perkins
do not remedy the shortcomings we find in Lemelson, supra, we cannot
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 10 and 13, the rejection of the dependent
claims likewise cannot be sustained.
New Grounds of Rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we reject
claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Lemelson in view of
Appellants' admitted prior art (AAPA). (FF.2).
As found by the Examiner, Lemelson discloses all of the claim
features except for the rear, cross-traffic alert function. Final Act. 2--4. The
Specification states that the rear cross traffic feature is prior art. (FF. 2).
We, therefore, find that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of Appellants' invention to incorporate the rear cross
traffic feature into the forward looking systems of Lemelson because this
would cover the reverse mode and the forward mode of travel giving
increased safety to the system.
6
Appeal2014-002307
Application 12/855,238
We also reject claims 1-3, 9, 11-15, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lemelson, AAPA in view of Ezoe. For
the same reasons given, supra, we find it obvious to combine AAP A with
the proposed combination. Also, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art
would use distance and speed of an approaching vehicle to calculate a
collision course.
We also reject claims 5-8 and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lemelson, AAP A, Ezoe and further in view of
Hibino. For the same reasons given, supra, we find it obvious to combine
AAP A with the proposed combination.
We also reject claim 21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lemelson, AAP A, Enzoe, in view of Perkins. For the
same reasons given, supra, we find it obvious to combine AAP A with the
proposed combination.
We adopt the Examiner's findings made in the rejections of claims 1-
3 and 5-21 (FF. 1) in our own rejection which otherwise do not contain
subject matter directed to the rear cross traffic feature.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We conclude the Examiner did err in rejecting claims 1-3, 5-9, and
11-21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
7
Appeal2014-002307
Application 12/855,238
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
reversed.
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION of claims 1-3 and 5-21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) have been entered.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) (effective September 13, 2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 49960
(August 12, 2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September 7, 2004)).
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this
paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review."
37 CPR§ 4 l .50(b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so
rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the
examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the
exammer ....
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under
§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same record ....
8
Appeal2014-002307
Application 12/855,238
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
REVERSED; 37 CPR§ 41.50(b)
9