Ex Parte Levine

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2015

10986927 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2015)

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.
10/986,927 11/15/2004 Alfred B. Levine 11104 8613
7590 01/29/2015
Alfred B. Levine
9005 Seven Locks Road
Bethesda, MD 20817
EXAMINER
HARRIS, DOROTHY H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/29/2015 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 ALFRED B. LEVINE
____________________

Appeal 2014-009490
Application 10/986,927
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 30-32, 34, 35, and 39. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1-29 have been cancelled, and claims 36-38 have been withdrawn.
We affirm.2

1 The real party in interest is Alfred B. Levine.
2 Our Decision refers to the Appeal Brief filed July 31, 2014 (“App. Br.”),
the Examiner’s Answer mailed Aug. 21, 2014 (“Ans.”), the Appellant’s
Supplemental Answer and Reply Brief filed Sept. 8, 2014 (“Reply Br.”), the
Final Office Action mailed June 25, 2014 (“FOA”), and the Specification
filed on Nov. 15, 2004 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2014-009490
Application 10/986,927

2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to a conditionally activated advisory
display system for a vehicle to avoid collision with other vehicles. The
display system conditionally operates to indicate nearby vehicles in order to
avoid collisions, such as when the driver turns the steering wheel or activates
a turn signal to change lanes on a highway.
Independent claim 30 recites sensor means to detect other vehicles
near a host vehicle, and controller means to conditionally operate display
means to display other vehicles near the host vehicle when the driver turns
the vehicle. Claims 31 and 32 are dependent from claim 30. Independent
claim 34 recites a conditionally activated display system with controller
means responsive to one of the manual operation of the turning mechanism
and the manual operation of the turn signal mechanism, to conditionally
activate display means to display a representation of vehicles detected by
sensing means. Claim 35 depends from claim 34. Independent claim 39
recites similar limitations to claim 34 as pertains to the issues presented in
this appeal.

REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 30-32, 34, 35, and 39 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Pawlicki3 and Schofield4 (FOA 7).

3 US 7,038,577 B2 issued May 2, 2006.
4 US 2002/0003571 A1 published Jan. 2, 2002.
Appeal 2014-009490
Application 10/986,927

3

ANALYSIS
Appellant’s Arguments
Regarding the cited prior art, Appellant states that Pawlicki requires
two concurrent conditions to exist before activation of its display system, the
first being detection of its “location” on the road by detecting the painted
lane markings dividing lanes of travel, and the second concurrent condition
being detection of a vehicle at the location where a collision would result
(App. Br. 3-4). According to Appellant, only if both conditions are detected
concurrently, will the system generate an audible warning to the driver (id.).
Appellant argues Schofield was added to the rejection to teach a visual
display to replace the audible warning of Pawlicki (App. Br. 4).
With respect to claims 30, 34, and 39, Appellant states the claimed
warning display means “directly responds to the sole action of the driver
beginning to turn the vehicle steering wheel, regardless of whether there are
any vehicles next to or around the host vehicle.” (App. Br. 2, 5; Reply Br. 1).
With respect to claims 34 and 39, Appellant states, in addition to activation
by turning, the display may be independently activated by the single action
of the driver operating the turn signaling lever of the vehicle (id.).
Examiner’s Findings
The Examiner states that Pawlicki teaches the following:
“The warning or alert signal may be provided to the driver of the
vehicle 12 in response to another vehicle being detected at the blind
spot area (as shown in FIG. 1) and may only be provided when the
driver of vehicle 12 actuates a turn signal toward that side or begins
turning the subject vehicle 12 toward that side to change lanes into the
lane occupied by the other detected vehicle.”

Appeal 2014-009490
Application 10/986,927

4
(Ans. 6 citing Pawlicki, col. 8, ll. 29-35)(emphasis in original). From this
teaching, the Examiner concludes that Pawlicki provides an alert only when
a driver of a vehicle actuates a turn signal toward an intended adjacent lane
or begins turning the subject vehicle toward an adjacent lane (id.).
With respect to Schofield, the Examiner cites the following:
“For vehicles equipped with side-lane monitoring cameras, selection
of the left or right turn signal indicator can optionally automatically
change camera selection and display view to the respective side to
which the vehicle is signaling an intent to turn. When the turn signal
indicator deactivates, the camera selection and display automatically
reverts to its pre-turn event condition.”

(Ans. 6 citing Schofield ¶ 391).
Claim 30
Regarding claim 30, Appellant argues turning the vehicle is the sole
condition causing operation of the display means (App. Br. 2, 5; Reply Br.
1). Thus, according to Appellant’s reasoning, because Pawlicki uses
multiple conditions, namely, detection of vehicle presence in a lane near the
host vehicle, in addition to turning or activating a turn signal, the claim is
not taught by the cited prior art (id.).
We agree with the Examiner there is no limitation in claim 30
indicating that turning the vehicle is an independent condition for operating
the display (Ans. 5). Moreover, the claim does not preclude detection of a
vehicle in a lane into which the host vehicle is turning as a condition for
operation of its display means. Appellant’s arguments are thus not
commensurate in scope with the limitations recited in the claim.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in this rejection.
Appeal 2014-009490
Application 10/986,927

5
We therefore sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim
30.
Claims 34 and 39
Claims 34 and 39 differ from claim 30 in that they recite as conditions
for operating the display means either manual operation of the turning
mechanism of the vehicle or manual operation of the turn signal mechanism.
Appellant argues these conditions are independent and thus do not require
detection of a vehicle in the lane into which a host vehicle is to turn, as
taught by the combined prior art, and specifically, Pawlicki (see App. Br.
4-6).
Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims
as recited. Specifically, these claims do not recite that the manual operation
of turning a steering wheel or activating a turn signal are independent
conditions for operation of the display. Moreover, the claims do not
preclude detection of a vehicle as a condition for operating the display
means. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in this
rejection and sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim
34 and 39.
Remaining Dependent Claims
No separate arguments are presented for the remaining dependent
claims. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of
these claims for the same reasons stated with respect to their respective
independent claims. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986);
In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

Appeal 2014-009490
Application 10/986,927

6
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 30-32,
34, 35, and 39 is affirmed.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

gvw