Ex Parte Litkouhi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 5, 2013

11335248 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 5, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BRIAN LITKOUHI BAKHTIAR and SADEKAR VARSHA
____________

Appeal 2011-009607
Application 11/335,248
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, NEIL T. POWELL, and JILL D. HILL,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-009607
Application 11/335,248

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Brian Litkouhi Bakhtiar and Sadekar Varsha (Appellants) appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1-21. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to “utilizing map software to assist
in vision-based lane sensing.” Spec., para. [0001]. Claim 1 illustrates the
subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with the key disputed
limitation emphasized.
1. A method for lane sensing, the method
comprising:
receiving map information corresponding to
a current geographic position of a vehicle on a
roadway, the map information including a number
of lanes on the roadway; and
determining which of the lanes on the
roadway is currently occupied by the vehicle in
response to the map information and to a number
of lanes crossed by the vehicle on the roadway,
where the number of lanes crossed by the vehicle
is based on detecting lane markers on the roadway
and determining a number of lane markers crossed
by the vehicle.

EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies on the following evidence:

Donath US 2002/0184236 A1 Dec. 5, 2002
Regensburger US 2004/0143381 A1 Jul. 22, 2004
Unwin US 2005/0129279 A1 Jun. 16, 2005
Appeal 2011-009607
Application 11/335,248

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 8, 9, 14, 16, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Regensburger. Ans. 5-6.
Claims 2-5, 7, 10-13, 15, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Regensburger and Donath. Ans. 6-9.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Regensburger, Donath, and Unwin. Ans. 9.
ANALYSIS
Regarding independent claims 1, 16, and 21, the Examiner finds that
Regensburger discloses a lane sensing system receiving map information
corresponding to a current geographic position of a vehicle on a roadway,
the map information including a number of lanes on the roadway,
determining which of the lanes on the roadway is currently occupied by the
vehicle in response to the map information, and detecting lane crossing
based on detecting lane markers on the roadway. Ans. 5-6 (citing
Regensburger, paras. [0030], [0031], [0034], and [0037]).
The Examiner finds that Regensburger does not explicitly disclose “a
number of lanes crossed by the vehicle on the roadway, where the number of
lanes crossed by the vehicle is based on detecting lane markers on the
roadway and determining a number of lane markers crossed by the vehicle.”
The Examiner finds, however, that Regensburger discloses lane recognition
and determining lane position of the vehicle by recognizing whether the
vehicle is driven over lane markers. Ans. 6 (citing Regensburger, paras.
[0036], [0037], [0039], [0042]-[0044], and [0047]).
Appeal 2011-009607
Application 11/335,248

4
The Examiner concludes that
It would have been obvious Regensburger the recognition of
crossing lanes on the roadway to determine the current lane
position of the vehicle and also keep track of the position of the
vehicle and roadway information using the map information,
the number of lanes crossed by the vehicle to determine the lane
position of the vehicle.
Ans. 6.
To the extent that the Examiner is concluding that it would have been
obvious to use Regensburger’s detection of lane crossing, in combination
with map information including the number of lanes in the roadway, to
determine which of the lanes on the roadway is currently occupied by the
vehicle based on how many lanes have been crossed, the Examiner has
admitted that Regensburger does not explicitly teach using lane crossing
detection to determine which of the lanes on the roadway is currently
occupied by the vehicle, yet has not provided any articulated reasoning to
support the conclusion that one skilled in the art at the time of the invention
would have had a reason to employ Regensburger’s determination of lane
crossing technology with map information to determine which of the lanes
on the roadway is currently occupied by the vehicle.
Appellants argue that Regensburger fails to disclose, teach, or suggest
“determining which of the lanes on the roadway is currently occupied by the
vehicle in response to the map information and to a number of lanes crossed
by the vehicle on the roadway,” and that it would not have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the
teachings of Regensburger to perform the claimed determination. App. Br.
12.
Appeal 2011-009607
Application 11/335,248

5
The Examiner responds that Regensburger’s recognition of lane
markers and when the vehicle has completely crossed a lane “and
recognition of driving lane and adjacent lane teaches determining the
number of lanes crossed by the vehicle based on detecting lane markers on
the roadway and the lane position on the roadway together with the map
information” (Ans. 5), and that no modification of Regensburger was made
in the Examiner’s legal conclusion of obviousness. Ans. 4-5.
We disagree with the Examiner. The Examiner’s rejection of claims
1, 8, 9, 14, 16, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) included the Examiner’s
admission that Regensburger does not explicitly teach using lane crossing
detection with map information to determine which of the lanes on the
roadway is currently occupied by the vehicle as claimed. The Examiner thus
chose to “modify” Regensburger by using its teaching of recognition of
crossing lanes to perform an undisclosed function – determining the number
of lanes crossed and combining that determination with map information to
identify which of the lanes on the roadway is currently occupied by the
vehicle. However, the Examiner has not provided any reason why a skilled
artisan would have modified Regensburger in this manner. In this regard,
Regensburger already determines the location of a vehicle in a lane of a road
with high-precision navigation systems and digital maps and uses its lane
change technology to automatically switch the turn indicator of the vehicle
on and off.
The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is the
clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have
been obvious. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2142 (8th ed.,
rev.9, Aug. 2012). The Supreme Court has stated that “[r]ejections on
Appeal 2011-009607
Application 11/335,248

6
obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements;
instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted)
(quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Because the Examiner failed to provide an articulated reasoning with
a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness, we
do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 8, 9, 14, 16, and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Regensburger. The Examiner has not
found that either Donath or Unwin cures the deficiency of Regensburger.
Claims 2-7, 10-13, and 15 depend from claim 1, and we therefore do not
sustain the rejection of claims 2-7, 10-13, and 15 for at least the same
reason. Claims 17-20 depend from claim 16, and we therefore do not sustain
the rejection of claims 17-20 for at least the same reason.

DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1, 8, 9, 14, 16, and 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Regensburger.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 2-5, 7, 10-13, 15, and 17-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Regensburger and
Donath.
We REVERSE the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Regensburger, Donath, and Unwin.

REVERSED

Appeal 2011-009607
Application 11/335,248

7

msc