Ex Parte Grieco et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2016

13416167 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/416,167 03/09/2012 GIOVANNI GRIECO
73109 7590 09/21/2016
Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC
20283 State Road 7
Ste. 300
Boca Raton, FL 33498
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.
FR920100055US2
8152-0173
CONFIRMATION NO.
7772
EXAMINER
KING, CURTIS J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2684
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2016 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):
ibmptomail@iplawpro.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GIOVANNI GRIECO, BENEDETTA GUIDI,
MICHAELANGELO LAPLACA, and RICCARDO PIZZUTILO
Appeal2015-001777
Application 13/416,167
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-7 and 21. Claims 8-20 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention relates to a method of
managing traffic lights at an intersection when an emergency vehicle is
approaching the intersection (Spec. i-f 2; Figs. 1, 3; claim 1).
Appeal2015-001777
Application 13/416,167
RELATED APPEALS
The instant case on appeal (Application No. 13/416,167 and Appeal
No. 2015-001777 drawn to a method of managing traffic lights) is related to
Application No. 13/289,456 and Appeal No. 2015-001929 (drawn to an
apparatus and computer program product for managing traffic lights) filed
by the same assignee (IBM Corporation) and inventive entity (see Inventors
listed supra). Application No. 13/289,456 matured into U. S. Patent
Application Publication No. 2012/0112927 on May 10, 2012, and is the
basis for the Examiner's provisional obviousness-type double patenting
rejection discussed infra.
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 under appeal is exemplary and reads as follows,
with emphasis added to the key disputed portion of the claim:
1. A method of managing traffic lights, comprising:
receiving a route to be taken by a vehicle equipped to
emit a first signal having a predefined characteristic;
identifying an intersection on the route, the intersection
including a sampling device configured to sample the first
signal emitted by the vehicle;
identifYing a first traffic light controlling, at the
intersection, traffic going in a direction to be followed by the
vehicle upon arriving at the intersection, according to the
route;
identifying a second traffic light controlling, at the
intersection, traffic going in another direction;
receiving a first signal sample of the first signal received
by the sampling device;
2
Appeal2015-001777
Application 13/416,167
determining, from an analysis of the first signal sample,
whether the vehicle is approaching;
upon the vehicle approaching,
instructing the second traffic light to change its
state to block traffic and
instructing the first traffic light to change its state
to authorize traffic to facilitate passage of the vehicle at
the intersection.
Examiner's Rejections
(1) The Examiner provisionally rejected claims 1-7 under the
judicially created doctrine of non-statutory, obviousness-type double
patenting over claims 14--20 of Application 13/289,456. 1 Final Act. 7-10.
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 1-5 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Cornett (US 8,094,040 Bl;
issued Jan. 10, 2012) and Klosinski (US 5,889,475; issued Mar. 30, 1999).2
Final Act. 2-5.
(3) The Examiner rejected claim 6 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Cornett, Klosinski, Cleland (US 2009/0001893 Al;
1 Application 13/289,456 has now matured into U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0112927
Al; published May 10, 2012 (including claims 14--20 therein). Because
Appellants fail to present any arguments as to the provisional obviousness-
type double patenting rejection (see App. Br. 3, fn. 1 ), we sustain this
rejection proforma.
2 Appellants argue claims 1-5 together as a group, and presents arguments
only with regard to claim 1 and the disclosure of Cornett (App. Br. 9-13;
Reply Br. 2-5). Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative for the
group of claims 1-5 rejected over the combination of Cornett and Klosinski,
and our analysis will only address claim 1.
3
Appeal2015-001777
Application 13/416,167
published Jan. 1, 2009), and Eggers (US 2005/0023465 Al; published Feb.
3, 2005). Final Act. 5---6.
( 4) The Examiner rejected claim 21 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Cornett, Klosinski, and Obeck (US 4,573,049; Feb.
25, 1996). Final Act. 7-8.
(5) The Examiner rejected dependent claim 7 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Cornett, Klosinski, and Gross (US 6,326,903
B 1; issued Dec. 4, 2001 ). Final Act. 6-7.
Issues on Appeal
Based on Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 4--17)
and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-8), the following four issues are presented
on appeal:
(1) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-5 as being obvious
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the combination of Cornett and Klosinski
fails to teach or suggest "identifying a first traffic light controlling, at the
intersection, traffic going in a direction to be followed by the vehicle upon
arriving at the intersection, according to the route," as recited in
representative claim 1?
(2) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 6 as being obvious under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Cleland is non-analogous to Appellants'
invention as recited in claim 6, and is therefore not properly combinable
with Cornett, Klosinski, and Eggers?
(3) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 21 as being obvious over
the combination of Cornett, Klosinski, and Obeck because Obeck and the
resultant combination fails to teach identifying a direction of a vehicle upon
arriving at an intersection, as recited in claim 21?
4
Appeal2015-001777
Application 13/416,167
( 4) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 7 as being obvious over
the combination of Cornett, Klosinski, and Gross because Gross and the
resultant combination fails to teach or suggest "broadcasting, using a
broadcasting device positioned at the intersection ... GPS coordinates of the
vehicle," as recited in claim 7?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Final Act. 2-10;
Ans. 2-7) in light of Appellants' contentions in the Appeal Brief (App.
Br. 4--17) and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-8) that the Examiner has erred in
light of the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments in the Appeal
Brief (Ans. 3-11). We disagree with Appellants' contentions.
Claims 1-5
With regard to representative claim 1, we adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this
appeal is taken (Final Act. 2--4), and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief
(see Ans. 3-8). We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner as
to representative claim 1, and highlight and address specific findings and
arguments for emphasis as follows.
The Examiner relies upon Cornett as disclosing managing traffic
lights as recited in claim 1, except for "receiving a route to be taken by a
vehicle equipped to emit a first signal having a predefined characteristic, and
identifying an intersection on the route" (Final Act. 3). We agree with the
Examiner that:
5
Appeal2015-001777
Application 13/416,167
By allowing the system to change the traffic light to
green in the direction of travel of the vehicle shows the system
changes a traffic light controlling traffic going in a direction to
be followed by the vehicle upon arriving at the intersection,
since all lights are turned red except the direction of travel of
the vehicle
(Ans. 4). We also agree with the Examiner that Klosinski discloses (i):
[T]hat it has been specifically known to use vehicle route
information to determine the vehicle direction at the
intersection (i.e.[,] whether the vehicle will go straight, tum left,
or tum right at the intersection) to change a corresponding
traffic light based on the direction of travel of the vehicle, as a
known and specific way to accurately determine the direction
the vehicle will be traveling at the intersection
(Ans. 5---6); and (ii) "a traffic light system may receive route information of
the emergency vehicle and change the lights based on the received route
information" (Ans. 7), thereby disclosing "the missing element of Cornett of
not receiving route information by the traffic light" (ii .. ns. 7). Lastly, \Ve
agree with the Examiner's determinations that adding Klosinski' s route-
based determination feature to Cornett' s traffic light management method
"would increase the efficiency of the system by decreasing false
determination[ s] of the intended vehicle travel direction" (Ans. 7); and (ii)
"improve efficiency of the emergency responsiveness of the emergency
response vehicle personnel by eliminating time otherwise wasted" (Ans. 8).
In view of the foregoing, Appellants' arguments as to Comett's
disclosure are not persuasive because the Examiner relies upon the
combination of Cornett and Klosinski in reaching the conclusion of
obviousness.
6
Appeal2015-001777
Application 13/416,167
Claim 6
With regard to claim 6, Appellants argue (App. Br. 14--15; Reply Br.
5---6) that Cleland is a non-analogous reference because it concerns adjusting
light output, not managing traffic lights and emergency vehicles.
A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination
under § 103 only when it is analogous to the claimed invention. In re Klein,
647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA
Entm 't, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Bigio, 381 F.3d
1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
A reference is considered analogous prior art: ( 1) if the reference is from the
same field of endeavor as the claimed subjected matter, regardless of the
problem addressed, or (2) if "the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which the inventor is involved," even though the
reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor. Bigio, 381 F.3d
at 1325. The "field of endeavor" test asks if the structure and function of the
prior art is such that it would be considered by a person of ordinary skill in
the art, because of the similarity to the structure and function of the claimed
invention as disclosed in the application. Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325-27.
Cleland discloses "[ o ]ther embodiments can receive a lumen level
trigger from signals transmitted from an emergency vehicle. For example,
the signal on an emergency vehicle that turns intersection lights green for
ambulances and fire trucks" (i-f 68). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner
that Cleland is analogous art because paragraph 68 of Cleland describes both
traffic lights and emergency vehicles, and therefore the combination of
references relied upon teaches or suggests the invention recited in claim 6
(Final Act. 5-6; Ans. 8).
7
Appeal2015-001777
Application 13/416,167
In this light, we cannot agree with Appellants' contentions (App. Br.
14--15; Reply Br. 5---6) that Cleland is non-analogous art because it pertains
to adjusting light output of a light fixture and is not related to traffic light
management. Instead, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 8) that Cleland is
analogous to the subject matter of claim 6, and thus, is properly combinable.
Claim 21
With regard to the obviousness rejection of claim 21, Appellants
argue that Obeck fails to teach identifying a direction of a vehicle upon
arriving at an intersection (App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 6). This is unpersuasive
because (i) we agree with the Examiner's response as to Cornett and
Klosinski (see Ans. 8-10); (ii) we agree with the Examiner that "Obeck
discloses it is known for a processing system to identify the direction to be
followed by the vehicle upon arriving at the inter[se]ction is identified using
the received route (col. 2, lines 13-35)" (Final Act. 8); and (iii) we agree
with the Examiner's findings and reasoning supporting the conclusion of
obviousness (Final Act. 7-8).
Claim 7
With regard to the obviousness rejection of claim 7, Appellants argue
that Gross fails to broadcast Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates
at an intersection by using a broadcasting device located at the intersection,
and instead Gross broadcasts from vehicle to vehicle (App. Br. 16-17; Reply
Br. 6-7). Appellants' argument is not persuasive, because we agree with the
Examiner (Final Act. 7; Ans. 10-11) that Gross does indeed teach
broadcasting GPS coordinates (see col. 12, 1. 1) from a device at an
intersection, because Figures 1 and 7 show a traffic light/intersection
environment and associated method of operating traffic lights 4 using a
8
Appeal2015-001777
Application 13/416,167
signal transceiver 5 for just such a purpose (see col. 9, 11. 16-26 discussing
traffic signal transceiver 5; see also col. 11, 11. 6 to col. 12, 1. 1 ).
Summary
In view of all of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of representative and sole independent claim 1, as well as claims 2-
5 grouped therewith. For similar reasons as provided for claim 1 supra, and
based on the Examiner's findings and reasoning and the amplifications
provided supra, we also sustain the Examiner's remaining three obviousness
rejections of claims 6, 7, and 21.
DECISION
(1) The Examiner's decision provisionally rejecting claims 1-7 for
obviousness-type double patenting is affirmed proforma.
(2) The Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-7 and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are 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)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§§ 41.50(f), 41.52(b) (2013).
AFFIRMED
9