Ex Parte LoomisDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 27, 201914830983 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/830,983 08/20/2015 112877 7590 07/01/2019 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Trimble Inc. Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Peter Van Wyck Loomis 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. 089730-046100US-1026010 9319 EXAMINER NGUYEN, NGA X ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3662 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/01/2019 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): ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PETER VAN WYCK LOOMIS 1 Appeal2018---003274 Application 14/830,983 Technology Center 3600 Before JAMES P. CALVE, JILL D. HILL, and SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. HILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Peter Van Wyck Loomis ("Appellant") appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6-14, and 16-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as TRIMBLE INC. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal2018---003274 Application 14/830,983 BACKGROUND Independent claims 1 and 11 are pending. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed invention. 1. A system for estimating a position of a land vehicle, the system comprising: a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver; a three-axis rate gyroscope; a three-axis accelerometer; an elevation database storing road surface heights as a function of lateral position on a surface of the earth; and a navigation filter communicatively coupled to the GNSS receiver, the three-axis rate gyroscope, the three-axis accelerometer, and the elevation database, the navigation filter configured to: estimate the position of the land vehicle based on GNSS data received at the GNSS receiver when GNSS signals are available; and estimate the position of the land vehicle based on gyroscope data measured by the three-axis rate gyroscope, accelerometer data measured by the three-axis accelerometer, and a road surface height obtained from the elevation database when GNSS signals are not available, wherein the road surface height is returned by the elevation database for an estimated lateral position of the land vehicle on the surface of the earth. REJECTION I. Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Breed (US 2015/0127239 Al, pub. May 7, 2015) and Anderson (US 2014/0297116 Al, pub. Oct. 2, 2014). Final Act. 3. II. Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Breed, Anderson, and Hoshizaki (US 2013/0138264 Al, pub. May 30, 2013). Final Act. 5. 2 Appeal2018---003274 Application 14/830,983 III. Claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hoshizaki and Anderson. Final Act. 6. IV. Claims 7-10 and 17-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hoshizaki, Anderson, and Breed. Final Act. 8. ANALYSIS Rejection I - Breed and Anderson The Examiner finds that Breed discloses the limitations of independent claims 1 and 11, except for "an elevation database storing road surface heights as a function of lateral positon on a surface of the earth," wherein "the road surface height is returned by the elevation database for an estimated lateral position of the land vehicle on the surface of the earth." Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner finds, however, that Anderson discloses a vehicle system including "an elevation database storing road surface heights as a function of lateral position on a surface of the earth," wherein "the road surface height is returned by the elevation database for an estimated lateral position of the land vehicle on the surface of the earth. Id. at 4. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Breed "to store elevation data ... for location and navigation as taught by Anderson for providing more detail and accuracy information for navigation." Id. ( emphasis omitted). Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in concluding that it would have been obvious to combine Breed and Anderson to use road height information for vehicle position determination, because neither Breed nor Anderson uses road height information in determining a position of the vehicle. Appeal Br. 8. Rather, Appellant contends, Breed does not use road 3 Appeal2018---003274 Application 14/830,983 height information in determining a position of its vehicle (id. at 7), and Anderson uses road height information to "adaptively change autonomous driving behavior," rather than to estimate vehicle position. Id. at 8. Appellant further contends that Anderson does not "mention anything about how road height information could be used with the other sensors in determining the position of the vehicle." Id. Thus, Appellant argues, because neither Breed nor Anderson uses road height information to determine vehicle position, it would not have been obvious to combine Breed and Anderson to teach a navigation filter configured to estimate the position of the land vehicle based on a road surface height obtained from an elevation database when GNSS signals are not available. Id. Appellants thus contend that the Examiner's proposed combination can only be based on hindsight. Id. The Examiner responds that "Anderson discloses a self-driving vehicle compris[ing] location sensors such as GPS receiver, IMU, accelerometer, etc., topographical map, and a Kalman Filter which combines the location data and relative data to obtain an accurate [sic] of an absolute position." Ans. 3 (citing Anderson ,r 9). Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, an elevation database storing road surface heights as a function of a lateral position of a vehicle, and a navigation filter communicatively coupled to the elevation database, the navigation filter configured to estimate the position of the vehicle based on a road surface height obtained from the elevation database for an estimated lateral position of the vehicle. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). Independent method claim 11 similarly recites estimating, using the navigation filter, the position of a vehicle based, in part, on a surface height obtained from an 4 Appeal2018---003274 Application 14/830,983 elevation database, wherein the surface height is returned by the elevation database for an estimated lateral position of the vehicle. Id. at 12 (Claims App.). Anderson discloses a self-driving vehicle with improved ride comfort achieved via integrated active suspension, having suspension actuators and a forward-looking sensor to detect upcoming road conditions. Anderson ,r,r 7, 9. Vehicle location is determined by "[a] sensor fusion system such as a Kalman Filter [ combining] location data and relative data to obtain an accurate estimate of absolute position." Id. ,r 9. A topographical map is stored in a memory system, and correlates height data to vehicle coordinates. Id. An active suspension controller, separate from the sensor fusion system, "may receive information from the sensor fusion system and the memory system containing the topological map" to control the suspension actuators "in response to the topographical map." Id. In Anderson, data from the topographical map is used to adapt driving behavior (slowing on a rough road), and/or adapt active suspension (proactively adjust suspension for upcoming road perturbations). Id. ,r 24. The topographical map can also be employed to select a smooth path of vehicle travel. Id. ,r 24, 33. The topographical map is indexed by the vehicle's current position, which position is determined by the sensor fusion system using multiple sensors. Id. ,r 29. Nowhere does Anderson disclose, teach, or suggest that its topographical map could be input to its sensor fusion system to determine vehicle position. Indeed, Anderson instead uses vehicle location as topographical map input to derive an upcoming road height/roughness. The Examiner, therefore, errs in finding that Anderson discloses a self-driving vehicle with location sensors including a GPS receiver, IMU, 5 Appeal2018---003274 Application 14/830,983 accelerometer, and topographical map, and a Kalman Filter that "combines the location data and relative data to obtain an accurate [sic] of an absolute position" (Ans. 3). The Examiner further does not allege that a skilled artisan would have understood how to use data from Anderson's topographical map in Breed's or Anderson's Kalman filter to provide more detailed and accurate information for navigation. For this reason, we do not sustain Rejection I. Rejection II - Breed, Anderson, and Hoshizaki Claims 21 and 22 depend from claims 1 and 11. For the reason set forth above, we do not sustain Rejection II. Rejection III - Hoshizaki and Anderson The Examiner finds that Hoshizaki discloses the limitations of independent claims 1 and 11, except for "an elevation database storing road surface heights as a function of lateral positon on a surface of the earth," wherein "the road surface height is returned by the elevation database for an estimated lateral position of the land vehicle on the surface of the earth." Final Act. 7. The Examiner finds, however, that Anderson discloses a vehicle system including "an elevation database storing road surface heights as a function of lateral position on a surface of the earth," wherein "the road surface height is returned by the elevation database for an estimated lateral position of the land vehicle on the surface of the earth. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Hoshizaki "to store elevation data ... for location and navigation as taught by Anderson for providing more detail and accuracy information for navigation." Id. at 8. ( emphasis omitted). 6 Appeal2018---003274 Application 14/830,983 Appellant argues, again, that Anderson fails to disclose estimating vehicle position based on a road surface height obtained from an elevation database. Appeal Br. 4. Appellant also argues that "Hoshizaki uses a different approach to achieve accurate navigation when GPS signals are not available, namely utilizing the internal geometry of the sensor position with respect to the vehicle's rear-wheel axis." Id. at 9-10. Thus, Appellant argues, "there is no motivation to combine gyroscope data and accelerometer data with road surface height obtained from the elevation database to estimate the position of the land vehicle when GNSS signals are not available." Id. at 5. The Examiner responds that Anderson's system uses relative position data and a topographical map having height information "to estimate an accurate position," making it obvious to combine Hoshizaki's disclosure of estimating the position of the land vehicle based on gyroscope data, accelerometer data, "by including a road surface height obtained from the elevation database as taught by Anderson." Ans. 4--5. As explained above in our analysis of Rejection I, the Examiner erred in finding that Anderson's system uses relative position data and a topographical map having height information "to estimate an accurate position." This erroneous finding formed the basis for the Examiner's determination that it would have been obvious to combine Hoshizaki' s disclosure of estimating the position of the land vehicle based on gyroscope data, accelerometer data, "by including a road surface height obtained from the elevation database as taught by Anderson" (Ans. 4--5). The Examiner further does not allege that a skilled artisan would have understood how to use data from Anderson's topographical map is Hoshizaki's or Anderson's 7 Appeal2018---003274 Application 14/830,983 Kalman filter to provide more detailed and accurate information for navigation. For this reason, we do not sustain Rejection III. Rejection IV - Hoshizaki, Anderson, and Breed Claims 7-10 and 17-22 depend from claims 1 and 11. For the reason set forth above, we do not sustain Rejection IV. DECISION We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-20 as unpatentable over Breed and Anderson. We REVERSE the rejection of claims 21 and 22 as unpatentable over Breed, Anderson, and Hoshizaki. We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-22 as unpatentable over Hoshizaki and Anderson. We REVERSE the rejection of claims 7-10 and 17-22 as unpatentable over Hoshizaki, Anderson, and Breed. REVERSED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation