Ex parte Labuhn et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 27, 2000

08863228 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 27, 2000)

See the Supplemental Examiner’s Answer, p. 3 (Paper 1
No. 16, Feb. 2, 2000).
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written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte PAMELA IRENE LABUHN, WILLIAM JOSEPH GHUNDRLIK, JR.,
and SCOTT ANTHONY RUSH
____________
Appeal No. 1999-2764
Application No. 08/863,228
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before CALVERT, FRANKFORT, and GONZALES, Administrative Patent
Judges.
CALVERT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1 to
4 and 9 to 11. The other claims remaining in the application,
6 to 8 and 12 to 14, have been indicated as allowable.1
The claims on appeal are drawn to a method of managing
deceleration of a succeeding vehicle having an adaptive cruise
Appeal No. 1999-2764
Application No. 08/863,228
2
control system, and are reproduced in the Corrected Appendix
filed on January 6, 2000.
Appeal No. 1999-2764
Application No. 08/863,228
3
The references applied in the final rejection are:
Deering 5,173,859 Dec. 22,
1992
Hibino et al. (Hibino ‘426) 5,396,426 Mar.
7, 1995
Labuhn et al. (Labuhn) 5,454,442 Oct. 3,
1995
Chakraborty 5,659,304 Aug. 19,
1997
(filing date Mar. 1,
1995)
Hibino et al. (Hibino ‘473) 5,684,473 Nov. 4,
1997
(filing date Mar. 24,
1995)
Claims 1 to 4 and 9 to 11 stand finally rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the following
combination of references:
(1) Labuhn or Deering, in view of Chakraborty;
(2) Hibino ‘426 or ‘473, in view of Chakraborty.
The Deering patent discloses an adaptive speed control
system carried by a succeeding vehicle 10, traveling at the
speed V and acceleration A . Preceding vehicle 10 is vehicleO O
12, traveling at speed V , at a range (distance from vehicleT
10) of RNG . The system has two modes: mode 1, in which theA
actual range RNG between the two vehicle is greater than aA
desired range RNG , and mode 2, in which RNG is less thanD A
Appeal No. 1999-2764
Application No. 08/863,228
4
RNG . The operation of the system is summarized in col. 2,D
lines 54 to 66, as:
In general, mode 1 control basically
controls vehicle speed in a conventional manner,
such that the vehicle 10 approaches the desired
range, but does not violate it, i.e. does not
allow range to be less than the desired range.
Mode 2 basically establishes, based on the
driver’s spacing input, an absolute minimum
distance, shown in FIG. 1 as D , and controlsMIN
vehicle deceleration A such that as rangeD
approaches D , V approaches V . When A , whichMIN O T D
decreases in magnitude as V approaches V ,O T
Reaches a predetermined minimum deceleration
value, it is held at that value until RNG isA
approximately equal to RNG . Mode 1 controlD
then operates to control the vehicle speed.
Chakraborty discloses a warning system usable in a
vehicle having a cruise control system which may automatically
decelerate the vehicle (col. 5, lines 45 to 52). Upon
detection of a forward (preceding) vehicle, the system
determines the deceleration capability of the vehicle on it is
mounted, and then determines the potential for a collision,
i.e., if the vehicle’s deceleration capability is insufficient
to avoid a collision without operator intervention (col. 2,
lines 35 to 40; col. 7, line 29, to col. 8, line 10). If the
system determines that a collision is possible, the operator
Appeal No. 1999-2764
Application No. 08/863,228
5
is warned via a buzzer, light, or the like (col. 8, lines 8 to
10).
At pages 3 to 4 of the answer, the examiner acknowledges
that Deering does not specifically teach controlling
deceleration when a vehicle enters the path of hte controlled
vehicle and will require at least a sudden deceleration of the
controlled vehicle. Although the examiner subsequently states
on page 7 of the answer that "the primary reference [Deering]
is sufficient to provide support for the claimed limitations,"
he also takes the position that the claimed subject matter
would have been obvious in view of Chakraborty’s disclosed
collision prediction warning system.
We will not sustain this rejection. First considering
claim 1, the last step of that claim recites:
attenuating the inverse responsiveness of the
deceleration function when the new inter-vehicle
spacing does not exceed a predetermined inter-
vehicle spacing.
The examiner has not pointed out specifically, nor do we find,
where in Deering there is any disclosure of alternating the
inverse responsiveness of the Deceleration function,
particularly when the spacing between Deering’s vehicles 10
Appeal No. 1999-2764
Application No. 08/863,228
Moreover, it appears that Deering already discloses such2
a warning signal; See, e.g., col. 9, lines 38 to 50.
6
and 12 does not exceed a predetermined spacing, as claimed.
Chakraborty does not cure this deficiency, for even if one of
ordinary skill were to modify the Deering system in view of
Chakraborty, the result would be the addition of a special
warning the vehicle operator if a collision with the preceding
vehicle were predicted. We fail to see how the method as2
recited in claim would read on the operation of such a system.
The combination of Labuhn and Chakraborty is considered
deficient for the same reasons.
Accordingly, rejection (1) will not be sustained with
respect to claim 1, nor, likewise, as to claims 4 and 10, the
other independent claims on appeal, or as to dependent claims
2, 3, 9 and 11.
Appeal No. 1999-2764
Application No. 08/863,228
7
Turning to the Hibino reference, we note that Hibino
‘426, like appellants is concerned with preventing abrupt
deceleration of a controlled vehicle even when another vehicle
unexpectedly breaks in ahead of it (col. 3, lines 11 to 14).
Here again however, as with the Deering reference discussed
above, we do not find that all the limitations of the appealed
claims are met even when either Hibino patent is combined with
Chakraborty in the manner, proposed by the examiner. While
the examiner states on page 5 of the answer that Hibino ‘426
alternates the deceleration so as to decrease deceleration "as
the inter-vehicle distance is larger that [sic: than] a
predetermined value," this is contrary to the requirement of
claim 1, supra (and the other appealed claims) that the
increase responsiveness of the deceleration function is
alternated when the new inter-vehicle spacing does not exceed
a predetermined spacing.
We therefore will not sustain rejection (2).
Appeal No. 1999-2764
Application No. 08/863,228
8
Conclusion
The examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 to 4 and 9 to
11 is reversed.
REVERSED
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOHN F. GONZALES )
Administrative Patent Judge )
SLD
Appeal No. 1999-2764
Application No. 08/863,228
9
JEFFREY A. SEDLAR
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
LEGAL STAFF
P.O. BOX 33114
DETROIT, MI 48232
Shereece
Appeal No. 1999-2764
Application No. 08/863,228
APJ CALVERT
APJ
APJ KEYBOARD()
REVERSED
Prepared: June 7, 2001