Ex Parte Kyrtsos

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 29, 2004

09628396 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 29, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 26
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte CHRISTOS KYRTSOS
____________
Appeal No. 2004-2295
Application No. 09/628,396
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before COHEN, STAAB, and BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
COHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 20. These claims constitute all of the claims in the
application.
Appellant's invention pertains to an object detection system
for a vehicle, to a moveable closure assembly, and to a method of
detecting an object in a moveable closure path. A basic
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
Appeal No. 2004-2295
Application No. 09/628,396
2
exemplary claims 1, 10, and 14, respective copies of which appear
in the CLAIM APPENDIX for the main brief (Paper No. 10).
As evidence of anticipation and obviousness, the examiner
has applied the documents listed below:
Trett et al 4,894,952 Jan. 23, 1990
(Trett)
Zhang et al 5,955,854 Sep. 21, 1999
(Zhang)
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1, 2, and 4 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Zhang.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zhang in view of Trett.
The full text of the examiner's rejections and response to
the argument presented by appellant appears in the main and
supplemental answers (Paper No. 11 and 22), while the complete
statement of appellant's argument can be found in the main and
reply briefs (Paper Nos. 10, 12, and 23).
Appeal No. 2004-2295
Application No. 09/628,396
3

OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this
appeal, this panel of the Board has carefully considered
appellant's specification and claims, the applied teachings, and
the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determination which
follows.
We cannot sustain the examiner's rejections on appeal.
Claim 1 is drawn to an object detection system for a vehicle
comprising; inter alia, an emitter, a receiver, and a controller,
with the controller being operable to construct a map signature
of a signal received by the receiver, the map signature having a
first graphical shape representative of known obstructions
normally within a defined field, and with the controller operable
to construct a second graphical shape in response to an unknown
object entering the defined field, variation from the first
graphical shape indicative of the unknown object.
Appeal No. 2004-2295
Application No. 09/628,396
4
Claim 10 sets forth a moveable closure assembly comprising,
inter alia, a moveable closure member, an emitter, a receiver,
and a controller, with the controller operable to construct a map
signature of a signal received by the receiver, and with the map
signature having a first graphical shape representative of known
obstructions normally within a defined field such that insertion
of an unknown object within the defined field produces a
variation from the first graphical shape.
Claim 14 addresses a method of detecting an object in a
moveable closure path comprising the steps of; transmitting a
signal within a defined field, said defined field adjacent a
closure path of a moveable closure member; receiving said signal
as transmitted within said defined field; mapping said signal
received in said step (2) as a first graphical shape
representative of known obstructions normally within said defined
field; and identifying a variation in said graphical shape of
said step (3).
The examiner concluded that the content of each of
independent claims 1, 10, and 14 is anticipated by the Zhang
reference (Paper No. 11). In our remand (Paper No. 21), the
Appeal No. 2004-2295
Application No. 09/628,396
5
examiner was given the opportunity to further support the
anticipation conclusion with findings of fact and technical
reasoning vis-a-vis the applied Zhang patent. As we see it, the
Supplemental Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 22) simply fails to
provide sound evidentiary support for a conclusion of
anticipation. As is evident to us from appellant's independent
claims, supra, they respectively require a map signature of a
signal or mapping a signal. On the other hand, a review of the
Zhang patent (column 13, lines 10 through 38) reveals to this
panel of the Board that one skilled in this art would not
perceive signal mapping for an object detection system, moveable
closure assembly, or method, as now claimed. Instead, we
comprehend Zhang as teaching an obstruction detection apparatus
for a vehicle window that would be understood to provide a
controller that simply compares a value of t (length of a
detection pulse) to a value of T' (an initialization value
related to the length of a detection pulse when a window is free
of obstructions), with T', more particularly, being generated
(column 13, lines 25 through 30) as a function of the value of T,
an average value of t while a window is being closed. Thus, the
signal mapping of appellant's claims does not read on the Zhang
disclosure. As to the Trett reference applied by the examiner in
Appeal No. 2004-2295
Application No. 09/628,396
6
the obviousness rejection of claim 3 for reasons other than
signal mapping, we discern that it does not overcome the
deficiency of the Zhang patent addressed above.
In summary, this panel of the Board has not sustained the
rejections on appeal.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LAWRENCE J. STAAB ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ICC/lbg
Appeal No. 2004-2295
Application No. 09/628,396
7
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
APPEAL NO. 2004-2295 - JUDGE COHEN
APPLICATION NO. 09/628,396
APJ COHEN
APJ BARRETT
APJ STAAB
DECISION: REVERSED
Prepared By: Lesley Brooks
GAU: 3600
OB/HD
DRAFT TYPED: 15 Sep 05
FINAL TYPED: