Ex Parte Kondoh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 2, 2016

11500516 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111500,516 08/08/2006
22919 7590 03/04/2016
GLOBAL IP COUNSELORS, LLP
David Tarnoff
1233 20TH STREET, NW, SUITE 700
Suite 700
WASHINGTON, DC 20036-2680
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Takayuki Kondoh
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.
NS-US065061 4228
EXAMINER
LI, CELI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3661
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/04/2016 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):
mailpto@giplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAKA YUKI KONDOH, TOMOHIRO Y AMAMURA,
NOBUYUKI KUGE, and KENJI KOMORI 1
Appeal2014-000128
Application 11/500,516
Technology Center 3600
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, LEE L. STEPINA, and
AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Takayuki Kondoh et al. ("Appellants") appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-7, 10-19,
and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).2 We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is Nissan Motor Co.,
Ltd. App. Br. 4.
2 Claims 8, 9, and 20 are cancelled. See Dec. 21, 2012, Non-Final Act. 2.
Appeal2014-000128
Application 11/500,516
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention concerns a vehicle driving assist system. Spec., Title.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal, and recites:
1. A vehicle driving assist system comprising:
a traveling situation detecting section configured to
detect a host vehicle traveling speed and a different traveling
condition indicative of the host vehicle approaching a
designated area; and
an imaginary speed bump generating section configured
to selectively generate an imaginary speed bump by artificially
reproducing a vehicle behavior in the host vehicle that
simulates the host vehicle crossing an actual speed bump
arranged on a road surface to alert a driver of the host vehicle
that the host vehicle is approaching the designated area and to
urge the driver to decelerate the host vehicle, based on the
traveling condition being detected by the traveling situation
detecting section that the host vehicle is approaching the
designated area and the host vehicle traveling speed being
detected as higher than a first prescribed speed,
the imaginaf'J speed bump generating section being
configured to selectively generate the imaginary speed bump by
supplying brake fluid pressure to each of right, left, front, and
rear wheels of the host vehicle within a single generation of the
imaginary speed bump to simulate the actual speed bump across
an entire wheel width of the host vehicle,
the imaginary speed bump generating section being
further configured to prevent generation of the imaginary speed
bump when the host vehicle is traveling at a speed that exceeds
a second prescribed speed that is higher than the first
prescribed speed.
App. Br. 21 (emphasis added). Independent claims 5, 18, and 19 contain the
same or similar language as that emphasized above in claim 1. Id. at 23, 26,
27.
2
Appeal2014-000128
Application 11/500,516
REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows:
I. Claims 1--4, 6, 7, 10-12, 15-19, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Takezaki (US 2002/0128774 Al,
pub. Sept. 12, 2002), Matsumoto (US 2004/0252020 Al, pub.
Dec. 16, 2004), and Wakashiro (US 2001/0004029 Al, pub.
June 21, 2001). Non-Final Act. 3-8.
II. Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Takezaki, Matsumoto, Wakashiro, and Tuer (US 2005/0165886
Al, pub. July 28, 2005). Non-Final Act. 8-9.
III. Claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Takezaki, Matsumoto, Wakashiro, and Aono (JP 2005-173909,
pub. June 30, 2005). Non-Final Act. 9-10.
IV. Claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Takezaki, Matsumoto, Wakashiro, Aono, and Sato (JP 2001-
301589, pub. Oct. 31, 2001). Non-Final Act. 10.
V. Claim 21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Takezaki, Matsumoto, Wakashiro, and Hijikata (US
2003/0233902 Al, pub. Dec. 25, 2003). Non-Final Act. 11.
OPINION
With respect to each independent claim, Appellants contend, inter
alia, that the applied prior art fails to teach preventing the generation of an
imaginary speed bump when the vehicle's speed exceeds a prescribed speed.
App. Br. 14--16. Specifically, Appellants contend that at high speeds,
Matsumoto teaches increasing the level of vibration and braking applied to
3
Appeal2014-000128
Application 11/500,516
the vehicle, so as to provide a strong warning to the driver. Id. at 14.
Therefore, Appellants argue that it would not be obvious to "prevent the
warning to Matsumoto at high speeds because this would contradict
Matsumoto's explicit teachings." Id.; see also id. at 15. We are persuaded
by this argument.
Matsumoto discloses a system that detects vehicle lane deviation and,
when such a deviation is detected, causes at least one wheel to vibrate,
thereby simulating the vehicle's travel over a rumble strip, 3 which warns the
driver of the lane deviation. Matsumoto, Abstract. The vibration is
achieved by fluctuating the braking force applied to the wheel. Id. i-f 79.
Matsumoto also discloses that:
When host vehicle speed V is high ... the number of road wheels
where wheel brake cylinder pressures are oscillated may be
increased so that the vibration of the vehicle is increased to call
the driver's attention strongly. In the case the number of road
\'l1heels \'l1here \'l1heel brake cylinder pressures are fluctuated is
increased, it is preferable to oscillate left and right rear wheels so
that the effect of preventing lane deviation is ensured.
Matsumoto i-f 85. In light of this disclosure, and to address the limitation that
the speed bump is simulated across the entire wheel width of the vehicle, as
required by each independent claim, the Examiner concludes that it would
3 The Examiner concludes that a rumble strip is a "speed bump," in
accordance with the definition provided in Appellants' Specification. Non-
Final 2, 4; Ans. 4; Spec. i-f 38 ("[T]he term 'speed bump' should be
interpreted as including speed limiting road protrusions that are intended to
slow down a vehicle including but not limited to 'speed bumps', 'speed
humps', and 'rumble strips'.").
4
Appeal2014-000128
Application 11/500,516
have been obvious to apply vibration caused by fluctuations in braking force
to each wheel of the vehicle. Non-Final Act. 4--5.
The Examiner also finds that W akashiro discloses preventing
generation of a braking force when the vehicle travels at high speed to
prevent the driver from experiencing a jolt. Id. at 3, 5.
We agree with Appellants, however, that Matsumoto's disclosure of
increasing the number of wheels that experience a braking force at high
speed is incompatible with the Examiner's conclusion that it also would
have been obvious to prevent braking at high speed, to avoid a jolt, as taught
by Wakashiro. Non-Final Act. 5. The Examiner has not established why, at
high speeds, it would have been obvious to increase the number of wheels to
which a braking force is applied, so as to simulate a speed bump across the
vehicle's entire width, and to prevent braking altogether, to avoid a high
speed jolt-actions that are seemingly contradictory. The Examiner did not
address this argument in the Examiner's Answer. See Ans. 3--4.
Therefore, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of independent claims
1, 5, 18, and 19, and claims 2--4, 6, 7, 10-17, and 21-23 depending
therefrom.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-7, 10-19, and
21-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
5