Ex Parte Markyvech

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 25, 2014

11854344 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CRAIG R. MARKYVECH
____________

Appeal 2012-0115111
Application 11/854,344
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1–3, 5–9, 12–14, and 16–21.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
According to the Specification, Appellant invented an “apparatus and
methods for automatically activating a motor vehicle turn signal lamp prior
to the motor vehicle reaching a turn.” Spec. ¶ 4. Claims 1, 9, and 14 are the

1 Appellant identifies GM Global Technology Operations, Inc., as the real
party in interest. See Appeal Br. 2.
2 Our decision references Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.,” filed Sept. 12,
2007), Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Apr. 9, 2012), and Reply Brief
(“Reply Br.,” filed Aug. 6, 2012), as well as the Examiner’s Answer
(“Answer,” mailed June 5, 2012).
Appeal 2012-011511
Application 11/854,344

2

only independent claims under appeal. We reproduce, below, claim 14 as
representative of the claims on appeal.
14. A method for automatically activating a turn signal on a
motor vehicle, the method comprising the steps of:
determining a route to a destination for the motor vehicle,
the route having a turn;
monitoring a present location of the motor vehicle;
automatically activating the turn signal when the motor
vehicle approaches the turn; and
automatically de-activating the turn signal a
predetermined distance after the motor vehicle fails to enter the
turn.

REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
Appellant appeals the following rejections made by the Examiner:
claims 1–3, 5, 9, 14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Landschaft (US 2008/0082259 A1, pub. Apr. 3, 2008) and Jahnke
(US 6,204,759 B1, iss. Mar. 20, 2001); and
claims 6–8, 12, 13, and 17–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Landschaft, Jahnke, and Walker (US 2005/0187710 Al,
pub. Aug. 25, 2005).

ANALYSIS
Although Appellant argues independent claims 1, 9, and 14
separately, the arguments for each claim are substantially the same.
See Appeal Br. 5–13. Further, Appellant does not separately argue
dependent claims 2, 3, 5–8, 12, 13, and 16–21. See id. Inasmuch as we
sustain the rejection of claim 14, for the below reasons, we sustain the
rejections of all the claims.
Appeal 2012-011511
Application 11/854,344

3

Independent claim 14 requires, “automatically de-activating the turn
signal a predetermined distance after the motor vehicle fails to enter the
turn.” Appeal Br., Claims App. Appellant argues that Jahnke does not
disclose this limitation. See Appeal Br. 10–13. In particular, Appellant
argues:
Jahnke merely discloses the automatic deactivation
of the turn signal a predetermined distance after
“the turn signal was activated” (as opposed to a
distance after the vehicle has failed to enter the
turn, as is recited in Appellant’s Claims), without
any differentiation as to whether the vehicle has
actually entered the turn.
. . . .
Appellant respectfully asserts that a distance after
the turn signal was activated (as in Jahnke) is
different from a distance after the vehicle has
failed to enter the turn, as is recited in Appellant’s
Claims.
Id. at 11 (bold and underlining original); see also Reply Br. 3–5.
We note, however, the Examiner does not rely on Jahnke to disclose the
claim limitation “automatically de-activating the turn signal a predetermined
distance after the motor vehicle fails to enter the turn” required by claim 14.
Rather, the Examiner finds that in view of Jahnke’s teaching of “an
automatic turn-signal deactivation, comprising an ABS system that instructs
a turn-control circuitry to turn off the turn signal when a predetermined
distance has passed since the turn signal was activated,” it would have been
obvious to modify Landschaft to “automatically turn[] off [Landschaft’s
automatically-activated] turn signal indicator if [an] upcoming turn is not
performed or not completed by the driver.” Answer 4; see also id. at 7–8.
Appeal 2012-011511
Application 11/854,344

4

In KSR, the Supreme Court emphasized “the need for caution in
granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior
art.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415–16 (2007). The Court
discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to be
obvious without an explicit application of the teaching, suggestion, or
motivation test. In particular, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that “[t]he
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id.
In this case, the Examiner finds that Landschaft discloses
automatically activating a turn signal based on determining the motor
vehicle’s position, as well as whether the vehicle has entered the turn. See
Answer 3–4. The Examiner finds that Jahnke discloses deactivating a turn
signal after a predetermined distance. See id. at 4. Appellant does not
establish that either finding is erroneous. Thus, the Examiner’s conclusion
that it would have been obvious to deactivate Landschaft’s turn signal a
predetermined distance after the motor vehicle does not enter the turn, as
required by claim 14, is reasonable, amounting to using known elements in a
predictable way to provide a predictable result (e.g., preventing the turn
signal from continuing to signal a turn that is not going to be taken by the
motor vehicle).
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 14, as well
as the rejections of the remaining claims.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–3, 5–9, 12–14, and 16–21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are AFFIRMED.
Appeal 2012-011511
Application 11/854,344

5

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

Klh