Ex Parte MacNeille et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 16, 2016

13207566 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/207,566 08/11/2011
28395 7590 06/20/2016
BROOKS KUSHMAN P,CJFG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Perry Robinson MacNeille
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.
83195174 6254
EXAMINER
KAN, YURI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/20/2016 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PERRY ROBINSON MACNEILLE,
EDWARD ANDREW PLEET, MARK JOHN JENNINGS,
OLEG YURIEVITCH GUSIKHIN, and BRIAN PETERSEN
Appeal2014-005272
Application 13/207 ,566
Technology Center 3600
Before: JAMES P. CALVE, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1-19 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Kores (US 2009/0138188 Al, pub. May 28, 2009) and Calkins (US
2012/0232783 Al, pub. Sept. 13, 2012). We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-005272
Application 13/207,566
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to estimating the power usage of motor
vehicles. Spec. i-fi-f l-5. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
establishing, on a computer, a road network model on
which a plurality of simulated vehicles may be run;
setting up road network model scenarios under which
vehicle driving conditions vary;
receiving energy usage related data for a plurality of
simulated vehicles run in a road network model scenario on the
computer; and
calculating a total energy consumption for each of the
vehicles.
OPINION
Unpatentability of Claims 1-19
over Kores and Calkins
Claims 1-13 and 18-19
Appellants argue claims 1-13 and 18-19 as a group. Appeal Br. 5-7.
We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015).
The Examiner finds that Kores discloses all of the elements of claim 1
except for receiving energy usage related data for a plurality of simulated
vehicles, calculating a total energy consumption for each vehicle, and
determining how various elements effect vehicle energy consumption. Final
Action 2-3. The Examiner relies on Calkins for the elements of claim 1
missing from Kores. Id. at 3. The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to modify Kores by applying and using calculated energy
consumption, receiving energy consumption data, and by applying factors
2
Appeal2014-005272
Application 13/207,566
that determine a vehicle's fuel or energy consumption, as taught by Calkins,
to achieve the claimed invention. According to the Examiner, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have done this to determine an energy
efficient route. Id.
Appellants traverse the Examiner's rejection by arguing that Kores
fails to disclose a model on which a plurality of simulated vehicles may be
run. Appeal Br. 5. Appellants argue that Kores is concerned with actual
vehicles rather than simulated vehicles. Id. Appellants argue that Kores
fails to teach "running simulated vehicles" on a "road network model."
Appeal Br. 6.
The Examiner responds that Kores teaches a method, device, and
system for modeling a road network graph including generating a single
topographic structure of roads, streets, and traffic connections. Ans. 3
(citing Kores i-f 1 ). The Examiner further states that Kores generates abstract
representations of roads and junctions, which can be transformed into other,
more abstract, graph representations. Id. at 3--4 (citing Kores i-f 10). The
Examiner further finds that Kores uses statistical information corresponding
to traffic information such as vehicle speed and type of vehicle. Id. at 4
(citing Kores i-f 20). The Examiner finds that such is equivalent to teaching
steps for modeling a road network on which simulated vehicles may be run
giving the claim limitations their broadest reasonable interpretation. Id. In
support of such claim interpretation, the Examiner relies on a general
dictionary definition of "simulation." Id. at 5.
Kores is directed to modeling a road network graph. Kores, Abstract.
Kores uses statistical information like vehicle speed to calculate the time
needed to get from location A to B. Kores i-f 20. Kores expands upon the
3
Appeal2014-005272
Application 13/207,566
disclosure in paragraph 20, relied on by the Examiner, in the detailed section
of the Specification.
[A] method for finding a fastest route within a road network
graph is provided. Said finding is based on timing details
which are part of the elements of said road network graph.
However, a user of a suitable equipped vehicle may use the
information provided by the network graph according to the
present invention to determine (find) the temporally fastest
route. For instance if a user wants to reach a certain address at
a given time the methodology in accordance with the present
invention will determine and calculate the fastest route. Said
determination is based on the information included within said
road network graph, which was profiled also by using timing
details.
Kores i-f 242 (emphasis added). Kores's use of velocity data to predict a time
of arrival for two or more alternate routes to determine the "temporally
fastest route" necessarily entails a computer generated "simulated vehicle,"
as the actual vehicle that receives Kores' s prediction has not yet traveled to
the proposed destination. The Examiner's finding that Kores discloses a
road network model on which simulated vehicles may run is supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Appellants next argue that Calkins fails to satisfy the limitation in
claim 1 directed to receiving energy usage related data for a plurality of
simulated vehicles in a road network model scenario. Appeal Br. 7.
Appellants argue that Calkins deals with "real world data," which Appellants
distinguish from data for "simulated" vehicles. Id.
In response, the Examiner states Calkins teaches that transceiver 308
transmits data to and receives data from a device remote from vehicle
system 300. Ans. 6. The Examiner states that such data may include energy
consumption data. Id. The Examiner considers this as equivalent to
4
Appeal2014-005272
Application 13/207,566
teaching steps for receiving energy usage data for a plurality of simulated
vehicles run in a road network model scenario on a computer as claimed. Id.
The Examiner construes "energy usage related data" as sufficiently broad to
encompass the "energy consumption data" of Calkins. Id.
We think that the Examiner has stated the better position. Calkins
includes map data 314 that represents road segments of a road network.
Calkins i-f 39. Such map data for road segments includes, without limitation:
(1) altitude; (2) speed limit; (3) number of stops; and ( 4) slope. Id. i-f 40.
One road segment may be associated with another road segment based on
having similar physical characteristics. Id. i-f 41. A road segment for which
energy consumption data has not yet been determined may be associated
with a road segment for which energy consumption data has been
determined. Id. Calkins stores energy consumption data 316 in computer
readable memory. Id. i-f 43. Such consumption data is used to estimate how
much energy a vehicle may consume when that vehicle travels on the road
segment in the future. Id. If energy consumption data has not been obtained
for a given road segment, energy consumption data 316 may include data
that associates the given road segment with energy consumption data that
has been obtained for one or more other road segments with substantially
similar physical attributes. Id. i-f 44.
In our opinion, the fact that Calkins can estimate how much energy a
vehicle may consume in a future trip supports the Examiner's finding that
Calkins satisfies the limitation in claim 1 directed to receiving energy usage
related data for a plurality of simulated vehicles run in a road network model
scenario. Appellants do not otherwise challenge the Examiner's finding and
conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to
5
Appeal2014-005272
Application 13/207,566
combine the teachings of Kores and Calkins to produce a system that
generates a road network model, calculates an estimated vehicle arrival time,
and calculates an estimated energy consumption for a vehicle.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we determine the Examiner's
findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and that
the Examiner's legal conclusion of unpatentability is well-founded.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's unpatentability rejection of
claims 1-13 and 18-19.
Claims 14-17
Claim 14 is an independent claim and claims 15-17 depend directly
therefrom. Claims App. Appellants do not argue for the separate
patentability of claims 15-17 apart from the arguments asserted with respect
to claim 14. Appeal Br. 7-8.
The Examiner finds that Kores teaches a computer-implemented
method that breaks a route into a plurality of segments. Final Action 4--5.
The Examiner relies on Calkins as disclosing road segments associated with
energy consumption data for road segments. Id. at 5. The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to modify the teaching of Kores by using
energy consumption data for a plurality of road segments as taught Calkins.
Id. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to do this to determine an energy efficient route. Id.
(citing Calkins i-f 9).
Appellants traverse the rejection by arguing that the cited references
fail to disclose breaking a route into a plurality of segments having the same
or a similar energy usage characteristic. Appeal Br. 8.
6
Appeal2014-005272
Application 13/207,566
In response, the Examiner states that Kores discloses breaking a route
into a plurality of segments. Ans. 8. The Examiner states that Calkins
teaches a plan view of an example road network 100 that includes road
segments 10 to 21and80 to 93. Id. (citing Calkins i-f 20, Fig. 1). The
Examiner directs our attention to Figure 5 of Calkins as a table containing
example energy consumption data. Id. The Examiner considers the
disclosure in Calkins to be the equivalent of the limitation in claim 14
directed to breaking a route into a plurality of segments having the same or a
similar energy use affecting characteristic via a computer. Id.
Calkins discloses breaking a route into segments and using energy use
data for such segments. See Calkins, Fig 5, and i-fi-1 17, 46. Whether Calkins
discloses breaking a route into a plurality segments having the same or a
similar "energy use affecting characteristic" is largely a matter of claim
construction. During examination of a patent application, pending claims
are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). "[C]laims should always be read in light of the specification and
teachings in the underlying patent." In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d
1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A claim construction "must be consistent with
the one that those skilled in the art would reach." In re Cortright, 165 F.3d
1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, under the broadest reasonable
interpretation standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary
meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the
context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
7
Appeal2014-005272
Application 13/207,566
Appellants' Specification does not define explicitly "energy use
affecting characteristic," Spec. i-f 8. Nevertheless, even when guidance is
not provided in explicit definitional format, the specification may define
claim terms by implication such that the meaning may be found in or
ascertained by a reading of the patent documents. Vitronics Corp. v.
Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996), Irdeto Access, Inc.
v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2004). This
comports with case authorities that maintain that the specification is the
single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term. See Phillips v. A WH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
The Specification states that the "ability of the simulator to depict real
life traffic scenarios and driving behavior is extremely useful in
understanding the different road or traffic or driver characteristics that affect
the energy consumption of a battery electric vehicle." Spec. i-f 34. Similarly,
it states that "road characteristics may be input 403 if desired. For example,
without limitation, gradient 405 and/or number of lanes 407 may be
adjusted." Id. i-f 44. Next, it states that "traffic characteristics 409 may be
input for the scenario. This may include, but are not limited to, a vehicle
flow rate 411 and a vehicle mix 413." Id. i-f 45. It further states that "driver
characteristics may be input 415 to represent certain driving behaviors.
These characteristics may include, but are not limited to, driver speeds 417
and cruise control usage data 419. Id. i-f 46. Finally, it explains:
The results can be used to develop cost functions that can
evaluate the total energy consumed along various possible
routes between an origin and destination and finally give the
customer the minimum energy route. One way of using the
results in the cost function is through the use of energy look-up
tables and polynomial curve fitting. For example, any route can
8
Appeal2014-005272
Application 13/207,566
be broken up into segments which have the same characteristic,
(either road type or gradient or speed limits etc.) and each
segment can be assigned a cost which is equal to the energy
consumed by the vehicle to travel that segment. Adding up the
costs across all the segments will give the overall cost to travel
that particular route. This can be done for all possible routes
between two locations and the final output could be the route
which uses the lowest amount of energy. Energies on different
segments can be calculated by fitting a polynomial curve to
available data.
Spec. ,-r 64.
In view of the Specification, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that an "energy use affecting characteristic" would encompass at
least any of the following factors or characteristics that may have an impact
on energy consumption of a vehicle: (1) road characteristics such as slope;
(2) traffic characteristics such as vehicle flow rate; and (3) driver
characteristics such as driver speeds. Spec. i-f 8.
Turning now to the recited art, Calkins discloses road segments that
are associated with statistical data for speed limit, average number of stops,
and slope. Calkins, i-f 40, Fig. 4. 1 A person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand such characteristics as "energy use affecting characteristics" as
such term is used in claim 14. Although Appellants argue that Calkins does
not disclose energy use affecting characteristics as claimed, such argument is
not accompanied by any persuasive evidence or a proposed claim
1 "As illustrated in FIG. 4, the map data 314 includes the following data
types: (i) entrance node latitude and longitude of a road segment, (ii) exit
node latitude and longitude of the road segment, (iii) a distance of the road
segment, (iv) an altitude of the road segment, (v) a speed limit on the road
segment, (vi) an average number of stops on the road segment, (vii) a slope
of the road segment, and (viii) associated road segment." Calkins i-f 40.
9
Appeal2014-005272
Application 13/207,566
construction that distinguishes the claim language from the teachings of
Calkins. With respect to Appellants' argument that the prior art fails to
disclose breaking the route into a plurality of segments "having the same or
a similar" energy usage characteristic (Appeal Br. 7-8), such argument is
refuted by at least the following disclosure in Calkins.
Energy consumption data associated with the first road segment
can be used to predict the expected energy consumption when
traveling on a second road segment that has similar physical
attributes to those of the first road segment. The predicted
energy consumption data may be used to determine whether the
second road segment is part of a most energy efficient route.
Calkins, Abstract (emphasis added).
In view of the foregoing discussion, we determine that the Examiner's
findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and that
the Examiner's legal conclusion of unpatentability is well-founded.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's unpatentability rejection of
claims 14--17.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-19 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10