Ex Parte GRESSER et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 18, 2018

12638397 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/638,397 12/15/2009
23911 7590 09/20/2018
CROWELL & MORING LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP
P.O. BOX 14300
WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Klaus GRESSER
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.
080437.62071 us 4982
EXAMINER
KIM,KYUNGJ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2018 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
apomeroy@crowell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KLAUS GRES SER, MANFRED GEISCHEDER, and
THORSTEN TRONNIER1
Appeal2017-010382
Application 12/638,397
Technology Center 3600
Before DANIEL S. SONG, LISA M. GUIJT, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Klaus Gresser et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) of the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6-8, and 10-20.
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appeal Brief lists Bayerische Motoren W erke Aktiengesellschaft as
the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-010382
Application 12/638,397
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention is directed to a method for assisting a motor
vehicle driver when driving through a narrow passage and for maintaining a
safe distance from a vehicle in front of the motor vehicle. Spec. ,r 5. Claim
1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below with
emphasis and paragraph numbering added.
1. A method for assisting a driver of a motor vehicle
when driving through a narrow passage, the method comprising
the acts of:
[i] determining a drive path that is anticipated to be
covered next by the motor vehicle;
[ii] projecting the anticipated drive path onto a road on
which the vehicle is driving via a projection device arranged in
the vehicle, wherein the projected anticipated drive path is visible
to the driver and wherein a width of the projected anticipated
drive path corresponds to an actual width of the motor vehicle,
wherein a length of the anticipated drive path increases with an
increasing speed of the motor vehicle; and
[iii] notifying the driver when a distance between a front
vehicle and the projected anticipated drive path is below a
predetermined value, and whether the vehicle can pass through
a narrow passage ahead based on the projected anticipated drive
path.
Appeal Br. 11.
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Koike
Isaji
US 2003/0147247 Al
US 2005/0125121 Al
2
Aug. 7, 2003
June 9, 2005
Appeal2017-010382
Application 12/638,397
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(I) Claims 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite. 2
(II) Claims 1--4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Koike.
(III) Claims 12, 14, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Koike and Isaji.
ANALYSIS
Rejection (I)
The Examiner determined that the recitation of "whether the vehicle
can pass" in the last paragraph of each of claims 1 and 17 is unclear because
these claims recite a "motor vehicle" and a "front vehicle," and the term "the
vehicle" does not specify which of these vehicles being referenced. Final
Act. 2.
Appellants contend, "the entire thrust [ of the] disclosure is about
notifying the driver of hazardous driving conditions (e.g., that an upcoming
narrow passage is too narrow to drive through) based on a projected
anticipated drive path of the motor vehicle that the notified driver is
driving." Appeal Br. 3 (citing Spec. ,r,r 2-5). Appellants also assert that the
language used in claims 1 and 1 7 makes clear that the vehicle that is
referenced by the phrase "whether the vehicle can pass" is the vehicle driven
by the driver, namely, "the motor vehicle." Id.
Appellants have the better position. The preambles of claims 1 and 1 7
recite, "[a] method for assisting a driver of a motor vehicle when driving
2 The Final Office Action indicates that only claims 1 and 17 are indefinite
without referring to the claims depending from these claims. Final Act. 2.
3
Appeal2017-010382
Application 12/638,397
through a narrow passage." Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
Thus, a purpose stated in claims 1 and 17 relates the narrow passage to the
motor vehicle driven by the driver. Appellants' Specification also supports
an interpretation that the step of "notifying ... whether the vehicle can pass"
refers to the "motor vehicle," not the "front vehicle." See Spec. ,r 3 ("It is
sometimes difficult for a driver to assess whether his own vehicle will 'fit'
through a narrow passage without laterally striking against, for example, a
construction site boundary or other vehicles."). In view of the preambles of
claims 1 and 1 7, and Appellants' Specification, we agree that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would understand that the term "the vehicle" in the
step of "notifying ... whether the vehicle can pass" refers to the motor
vehicle driven by the driver, as argued by Appellants. Accordingly, we do
not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 17 as indefinite.
Rejection (II)
The Examiner finds that one of the embodiments of the invention
disclosed by Koike (hereinafter, the "first embodiment") teaches all of the
steps recited in claim 1, except for step iii. Final Act. 3--4 ( citing Koike ,r,r
62---63, Figs. 2, 5A, and 5B). The Examiner further finds that another
embodiment disclosed by Koike (hereinafter, the "fourth embodiment")
teaches step iii. Id. at 4 (citing Koike ,r,r 143, 163-164, and Fig. 18).
Appellants first contend that the Examiner erred in finding that the
first embodiment teaches the processes of determining a drive path that is
anticipated to be covered next by the motor vehicle and projecting this drive
path onto a road (steps i and ii) because the light pattern that Koike projects
onto the road "is only ever described as an object detection light pattern-
not as an anticipated drive path." Appeal Br. 6 (citing Koike ,r,r 140-143).
4
Appeal2017-010382
Application 12/638,397
We disagree with Appellants. Describing the first embodiment, Koike
teaches that "visible light patterns that are projected onto a road surface
conform to a vehicle behavior," and "the visible light patterns are vehicle-
body circumscribed lines of a traveling locus along which the vehicle 22 is
estimated to run." Koike ,r 62. Koike further states, "[p ]edestrians, drivers
of other vehicles, and the like can be informed that the vehicle exists
nearby[, and] not only they but also the driver of the self-owned vehicle can
grasp an area in which the vehicle is estimated to run." Id. Thus, a
preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's finding that the first
embodiment discloses the determining and projecting steps recited in claim
1.
Next, regarding step iii, Appellants argue that notification, in the
fourth embodiment of Koike, occurs only when an object breaks the
invisible lattice pattern, not when an object breaks the visible light pattern.
Appeal Br. 6-7. Therefore, according to Appellants, "[ t ]he notification is ..
. based on the lattice pattern - and is not based on the linear pattern (i.e., the
projected anticipated drive path)." Id. at 7.
We disagree with Appellants because paragraphs 142-143 ofKoike
describe the fourth embodiment as using visible as well as the invisible light
beams to determine whether an obstacle is in front of the vehicle. See Koike
,r 143 ("If it is determined as a result that both the patterns [ visible and
invisible] do not coincide with each other, it is determined that there is an
obstacle at a position corresponding to a non-coincident portion of the
patterns.").
Appellants also argue, with respect to step iii, that Koike fails to teach
notifying a driver when a distance between a front vehicle and the projected
anticipated drive path is below a predetermined value based on the projected
5
Appeal2017-010382
Application 12/638,397
anticipated drive path. Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 3. The Examiner takes the
position that
[Koike] teaches that if there is an object that is captured within
the range of the radiated beams, the driver is notified (para.
[O 143]). This discloses the claim limitation since the distance
between the lines and the object is below the predetermined
value, in this case, zero at the limit of the lines, and if the front
vehicle is less than that, there is a danger of collision.
Final Act. 9 ( emphasis added).
The fourth embodiment . . . teaches that the lights are used to
determine if another vehicle is too close (para. [0143]). The
combination of the teachings teaches a light that corresponds to
the speed of the vehicle and the breaking of the light can be used
to determine proximity of another vehicle.
Ans. 3.
Although we appreciate the Examiner's position that, in the fourth
embodiment, Koike teaches notifying that "breaking of the light" can be
used to determine the proximity of another vehicle, the Examiner does not
explain sufficiently how this disclosure satisfies the requirement in claim 1
that this notification be given when the distance between the "front vehicle"
and the ''projected anticipated drive path" is below a predetermined value.
In other words, we do not agree with the Examiner that there is any distance
between the front vehicle and the projected anticipated drive path when the
front vehicle and projected anticipated drive path have zero distance
between them so as to coincide with each other. The plain language of step
iii in claim 1 requires some amount of distance (a non-zero distance)
between these two elements and that notification of the driver occurs when
this distance drops below a predetermined value. The Examiner does not
identify any such predetermined value in Koike. Accordingly, Appellants
have demonstrated Examiner error in the rejection of claim 1. Thus, we do
6
Appeal2017-010382
Application 12/638,397
not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or claims 2--4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 18
depending therefrom as unpatentable over Koike.
Independent claim 17 recites the same limitation discussed above (in
step iii) regarding the distance between the front vehicle and the projected
anticipated drive path. Consequently, for the reason discussed regarding the
rejection of claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 17 or claim 19
depending therefrom as unpatentable over Koike.
Rejection (III)
The Examiner's reliance on the teachings of Isaji does not remedy the
deficiency discussed above regarding Rejection (II). See Final Act. 7-9.
Accordingly, we do not sustain Rejection (III), which addresses dependent
claims 12, 14, 16, and 20.
DECISION
We reverse Rejections (!}-(III)
REVERSED
7