Ex Parte Kleve et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 24, 2018

13927385 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/927,385 06/26/2013
28395 7590 05/29/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert Bruce Kleve
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.
83352773 3255
EXAMINER
ABAZA, AYMAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2018 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT BRUCE KLEVE, BRIAN WOLSKI, and
ANTHONY GERALD KING 1
Appeal2017-011661
Application 13/927,385
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Ford Global Technologies, LLC, which,
according to the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. See Br. 1.
Appeal2017-011661
Application 13/927,385
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to Appellant, the claims are directed to a vehicle video
recording system that transfers video data from RAM to a storage device
when acceleration thresholds are exceeded. Spec. ,r 23, Abstract. 2 Claim 1,
reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An on-vehicle video recording system, comprising:
an on-vehicle camera generating a video signal indicative
of video data;
a plurality of sensors including an acceleration sensor;
a RAM device; and
a controller communicatively coupled to the camera, the
sensors and the RAM device, and programmed to
store the video data and sensor data received from
the sensors to the RAM device for a recording duration,
increase the recording duration in response to a
signal from the acceleration sensor having a magnitude
exceeding a first threshold that is indicative of a high-risk
condition of the vehicle, and
transfer the video data and the sensor data from the
RAM device to a storage device in response to the signal
having a magnitude exceeding a second threshold that is
greater than the first threshold.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 14, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kirmuss (US 2003/0081935 Al; published May 1,
2 This Decision refers to: (1) Appellant's Specification filed June 26, 2013
(Spec.); (2) the Final Office Action (Final Act.) mailed November 16, 2016;
(3) the Appeal Brief (Br.) filed April 17, 2017; and (4) the Examiner's
Answer (Ans.) mailed May 25, 2017.
2
Appeal2017-011661
Application 13/927,385
2003), Frashure (US 2014/0146152 Al; published May 29, 2014), and
Renaudin (US 2015/0291065 Al; published Oct. 15, 2015). Final Act. 2---6.
Claims 2-6, 8-13, and 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kirmuss, Frashure, Renaudin, and Snow (US
2009/0197584 Al; published Aug. 6, 2009). Final Act. 7-17.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Kirmuss, Frashure, Renaudin, Snow, and Lagassey (US 7,983,835 B2;
issued July 19, 2011). Final Act. 17.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
the issues raised by Appellant. Arguments not made are waived. See MPEP
§ 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. §§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) and 4I.39(a)(l).
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Kirmuss, Frashure, and Renaudin teaches
stor[ing] the video data ... to the RAM device for a recording
duration, increas[ing] the recording duration in response to a
signal from the acceleration sensor having a magnitude
exceeding a first threshold ... and transfer[ ring] the video data
and the sensor data from the RAM device to a storage device in
response to the signal having a magnitude exceeding a second
threshold that is greater than the first threshold,
as recited in claim 1 and similarity recited in claim 15. Br. 4; see also Br. 3-
6. Specifically, Appellant argues "the combination does not result in the
claimed invention" because the combination, by incorporating the teachings
of Renaudin, "would result in an electronic system that is inactive below the
first threshold. That is, video would not be stored in RAM prior to reaching
the first threshold since the controller would be powered off." Br. 5.
3
Appeal2017-011661
Application 13/927,385
We are not persuaded. The Examiner relies on (Final Act. 3--4)
Kirmuss' "video recorder ... utiliz[ing] a ring buffer," e.g., RAM, which
"continuously record[ s ], over a sliding ( or rolling) time interval, multiple
channels of video" (Kirmuss ,r 95), to teach "stor[ing] the video data ... to
the RAM device for a recording duration," as in claim 1. The Examiner
further relies on (Final Act. 4--5) Frashure's "detect[ed] ... trigger event,"
e.g., "a rapid deceleration of the host vehicle," which stores "recent
video ... in addition to video of the trigger event and post-trigger event
video" (Frashure ,r 17), to teach "increas[ing] the recording duration in
response to a signal from the acceleration sensor," as claimed. The
Examiner additionally relies on (Final Act. 5) Renaudin's "first acceleration
threshold, called the waking threshold" and "second threshold, greater than
said first threshold and corresponding to an accident situation" (Renaudin
,r 3 6) to teach "a signal from the acceleration sensor having a magnitude
exceeding a first threshold" and "a magnitude exceeding a second threshold
that is greater than the first threshold," as claimed.
Appellant's argument that the combination would not store video in
RAM below the first acceleration threshold because Renaudin teaches its
"electronic portion is powered down" below a first acceleration threshold
(Br. 5) inappropriately requires the bodily incorporation of features from
Renaudin that are not included in the Examiner's combination, i.e.,
Renaudin's power-saving features (Renaudin ,r 35). In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413,425 (CCPA 1981) ("The test for obviousness is not whether the features
of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference .... "). Rather than assessing obviousness based on the
physical incorporation of a structure from one reference into the structure of
4
Appeal2017-011661
Application 13/927,385
another reference, the prior art should be viewed as a combination of select
teachings from different sources, and the use of those teachings by one of
ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007) (The conclusion of obviousness can be based on "the interrelated
teachings of multiple patents"). The Examiner's combination relies on
Renaudin's accident-detecting acceleration thresholds, not the deactivation
of certain systems based on those acceleration thresholds to save power. See
Ans. 6; see also Final Act. 5. In particular, the Examiner's combination
incorporates Renaudin's thresholds with the video recording features taught
by Kirmuss and Frashure but does not incorporate Renaudin's power-saving
features to "cut[] the power off to the cameras and stop recording." Ans. 5-
6; see Final Act. 5. Because the Examiner's combination does not
incorporate Renaudin's system-deactivating power-saving features, the
combination would not deactivate video recording to save power and,
therefore, would not "render Kirmuss and Frashure unsatisfactory for their
intended purposes" of recording video, as argued by Appellant. Br. 6.
Furthermore, rather than "dissecting the claim and evaluating the
elements in isolation" (Br. 6), the Examiner has provided "articulated
reasoning" having "some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417-18. Specifically, the
Examiner combines the teachings and suggestions of Kirmuss, Frashure, and
Renaudin to "optimiz[ e] the record[ing] space" and to "prevent ...
unnecessary or untimely triggering" of an accident-triggered system. Final
Act. 5. We determine in a computer system with limited memory resources,
an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it rational to determine when
to use more or less of those memory resources. Further, we determine an
5
Appeal2017-011661
Application 13/927,385
ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it rational to prevent false alerts
in an accident-triggered system. And, even if "power consumption" is "an
issue not mentioned as a problem by Kirmuss and Frashure" (Br. 6), that
argument does not address the Examiner's articulated reasoning for the
combination, preventing false accident triggers (Final Act. 5), and does not
persuade us the Examiner failed to articulate reasoning with some rational
underpinning as to why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been
motivated to combine Kirmuss, Frashure, and Renaudin.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in combining
Kirmuss, Frashure, and Renaudin or erred in finding the combination of
Kirmuss, Frashure, and Renaudin teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations as recited in independent claims 1 and 15. We, therefore, sustain
the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claims 1 and 15, as well as the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of dependent claims 2-14 and 16-20, which are
not argued separately. See Br. 6-7.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1-2 0.
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.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
6