Ex Parte King et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 28, 2014

11847612 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/847,612 08/30/2007 Steven Morris King 220434-1 (UNIV:0015) 2422
12421 7590 10/29/2014
Universal City Studios LLC c/o Fletcher Yoder, PC
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269-2289
EXAMINER
MUSTAFA, IMRAN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/29/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STEVEN MORRIS KING and HENRY WILLIAM LONG
___________

Appeal 2012-010750
Application 11/847,612
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
THOMAS F. SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.

REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Steven Morris King and Henry William Long (Appellants) appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a): (1) claims 19–21, 25, 28, 34, 35, and 38 as unpatentable
over Fischer (US 2005/0247231 A1; pub. Nov. 10, 2005); (2) claims 22–24,
26, and 27 as unpatentable over Fischer and Fisher (US 2002/0033637 A1;
pub. Mar. 21, 2002); and (3) claims 36 and 37 as unpatentable over Fischer
and Gilbert (US 6,109,568; iss. Aug. 29, 2000). Claims 1–18 have been
canceled. Claims 29–33 have been withdrawn from consideration. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2012-010750
Application 11/847,612

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter “relates generally to devices and methods
for monitoring motion of a vehicle and, more particularly, to monitoring
vehicle motion on a path.” Spec. para. 1, Figs. 1, 3. Claims 19 and 34 are
independent.
Claim 19 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
19. A ride control system for controlling a plurality of
vehicles on a path, comprising:
a track processor configured to determine and
communicate data indicative of a predicted location range for
each of the plurality of vehicles;
a plurality of vehicle control systems, wherein each of
the plurality of vehicles houses a one of the plurality of vehicle
control systems and wherein each of the plurality of vehicle
control systems comprises:
a sensor configured to detect indicators of an actual
location of the one of the plurality of a vehicles in which the
sensor is housed and configured to communicate data indicative
of the actual location;
a processor configured to receive the data indicative of
the actual location from the sensor, to receive the data
indicative of the predicted location range from the track
processor, and to compare the data indicative of the actual
location with the data indicative of the predicted location range;
and
a velocity control system configured to adjust vehicle
velocity based on comparing the data indicative of the actual
location and the data indicative of the predicted location range.

ANALYSIS
Obviousness over Fischer — Claims 19–21, 25, 28, 34, 35, and 38
Independent claims 19 calls for a ride control system including “a
track processor configured to determine and communicate data indicative of
Appeal 2012-010750
Application 11/847,612

3
a predicted location range for each of the plurality of vehicles,” “a plurality
of vehicle control systems . . . wherein each of the plurality of vehicle
control systems” includes “a sensor configured to detect indicators of an
actual location of the one of the plurality of [] vehicles in which the sensor is
housed and configured to communicate data indicative of the actual
location”; and “a processor configured to . . . compare the data indicative of
the actual location [of the one of the plurality of vehicles] with the data
indicative of the predicted location range [of the one of the plurality of
vehicles].” Appeal Br. 20, Clms. App (emphasis added). Independent claim
34 calls for a ride control system including similar limitations. See id. at 22,
Clms. App. The Examiner finds that
Fischer clearly discloses . . . comparing data
indicative of the actual location with the data
indicative of the predicted location range (See at
least Paragraph 11 ‘the successor continually
determines the distance between the two
vehicles from the position of the forerunner and
its own position and, if necessary, takes the
appropriate steps (decelerating or accelerating)
that are required for regulating their mutual
spacing to a given desired value’). Fischer also
discloses . . . determining the speed of the vehicle
in front of it in order to prevent collision (See at
least Paragraph 24 ‘said distance being
determined--in dependence on the speed of the
vehicle concerned--in such a way that the vehicle
can still be brought to a stop in good time before
reaching the node in order to prevent a collision
with another vehicle passing through the node.
[predicted location range of the vehicle in front
which is based on the speed and location]’).

Ans. 13; see also id. at 4–5, 7.
Appeal 2012-010750
Application 11/847,612

4
Appellants contend that “Fischer appears to calculate a distance
between two vehicles based on the current positions of the two vehicles[,]”
“which is not the same as comparing ‘data indicative of the actual location
with the data indicative of the predicted location range,’ as recited by claims
19 and 34.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellants further contend that
the [E]xaminer has interpreted the pending claims
in a way that is inconsistent with the
[S]pecification. Although [Appellants] do not
intend or suggest that the [S]pecification should be
read into the claims, [Appellants] submit that the
[S]pecification provides some context for the
claims. Turning to the [S]pecification, for
example, “[t]he processor 110 is configured [to]
calculate an actual location for the vehicle . . . .
The processor 110 is further configured to look up
a predicted range of locations for the vehicle 10
along the track 20 . . . and compare that with the
actual location.” Specification, paragraph [0024]
(emphasis added). In other words, the predicted
location range may correspond to a range of
locations of where the vehicle is predicted to be
located along the track. As another example, the
[S]pecification indicates that “[w]here the actual
location falls outside of that range of predicted
locations, the processor 110 sends a signal . . . to
stop the vehicle 10 from any further progress along
the track 20.” Id. (emphasis added). In other
words, if the vehicle is not located where it is
predicted to be along the track based on the
comparison of the actual location of the vehicle
and the predicted location range, then the vehicle
is stopped. . . . In this embodiment, the vehicle
may be stopped if its actual location does not fall
within the vehicle location range, i.e., the vehicle
is not located where it is supposed to be located.
Reply Br. 2–3; see also Appeal Br. 6–8.
Appeal 2012-010750
Application 11/847,612

5
Appellants’ arguments are persuasive. At the outset, we agree with
Appellants that “it is clear from the [S]pecification that the actual location of
the vehicle may correspond to the current location of the vehicle along the
track and the predicted location range may correspond to a range of
locations where the processor predicts the same vehicle should be located
along the track.” Reply Br. 3; Spec. para. 24. Fischer discloses that
the regulation of the mutual spacing between
vehicles travelling along a section of track one
behind the other can be accomplished without the
intermediary of a central control unit, for example,
in that each vehicle continually passes its current
position on to its successor, the successor
continually determines the distance between the
two vehicles from the position of the forerunner
and its own position and, if necessary, takes the
appropriate steps (decelerating or accelerating) that
are required for regulating their mutual spacing to
a given desired value.
Fischer, para. 11 (emphasis added); see also id. at paras. 24, 70–73, 77, 78,
80; Ans. 5, 7, 13; Appeal Br. 6–8; Reply Br. 3. We agree with Appellants
that “at most, Fischer may be characterized as comparing a current distance
between two vehicles with a desired distance. However, the comparison of
distances [between two vehicles] is not the same as comparing an actual
location of [a] vehicle and the predicted location range [of that same
vehicle].” Reply Br. 3 (underline emphasis added); see also Appeal Br. 6–8;
id. at 20, 22, Clms. App. As such, we further agree with Appellants that
“Fischer fails to disclose comparing an actual location [of a vehicle] with a
[predicted] location range [of the vehicle],” as required by the claims. Reply
Br. 3. Consequently, the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case
Appeal 2012-010750
Application 11/847,612

6
that the teachings of Fischer renders obvious the ride control systems called
for in respective independent claims 19 and 34.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 19 and 34 and their respective dependent claims 20, 21,
25, 28, 35, and 38 as unpatentable over Fischer cannot be sustained.
Obviousness over Fischer and either Fisher or Gilbert — Claims 22–24, 26,
27, 36, and 37
Claims 22–24, 26, and 27 depend either directly or indirectly from
independent claim 19. Appeal Br. 21, Clms. App. Claims 36 and 37 depend
directly from independent claim 34. Id. at 22–23, Clms. App. The
Examiner’s rejection of (1) claims 22–24, 26, and 27 as unpatentable over
Fischer and Fisher (see Ans. 9–11); and (2) claims 36 and 37 as unpatentable
over Fischer and Gilbert (see id. at 11–12) is based on the same unsupported
findings discussed above with respect to independent claims 19 and 34. The
addition of Fisher or Gilbert does not remedy the deficiencies of Fischer
discussed above. Accordingly, for similar reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of (1) claims 22–24, 26, and 27 as unpatentable over
Fischer and Fisher; and (2) claims 36 and 37 as unpatentable over Fischer
and Gilbert.

DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 19–28
and 34–38.

REVERSED
Appeal 2012-010750
Application 11/847,612

7
hh