Ex Parte Marti et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2018

11831244 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2018)

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.
1576-1534 4090
EXAMINER
HOLLAND, SHERYL L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/831,244 07/31/2007
10800 7590 01/30/2018
Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Lukas Michael Marti
01/30/2018 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 LUKAS MICHAEL MARTI and JORGE SANS SANGORRIN
Appeal 2017-004337
Application 11/831,2441
Technology Center 2100
Before KARL D. EASTHOM, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 21—24. Br. 1, 7—8.2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6. We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Robert Bosch GMBH.
Br. 2.
2 All references to the Brief (“Br.”) refer to the Brief filed on June 29, 2016.
Appeal 2017-004337
Application 11/831,244
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants purportedly invented a method for maintaining a database
for a plurality of vehicles that includes obtaining first sensor data from a
vehicle sensor and comparing that data to data stored in a database.
Abstract. If the first sensor data does not match the data stored in the
database, the disclosed invention determines whether data from a single
vehicle sensor or a plurality of vehicle sensors is required to update the
database. Id. The disclosed invention updates the database if consistent data
from the required number of vehicle sensors is available. Id. If data from a
plurality of vehicle sensors is required to update the database, but is not
available, the disclosed invention identifies a loss of database integrity. Id.
If data from a plurality of vehicle sensors is required to update the database
and is available, and the first sensor data is not confirmed by data from other
vehicle sensors, the disclosed invention identifies an anomalous driving
condition. Id.
Related Appeal
We previously decided an appeal in the present application.
See Ex parte Marti, No. 2011-03326, 2013 WL 4575012 (PTAB Aug. 27,
2013) (non-precedential) (reversing the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claims 1—20).
Illustrative Claim
Claim 21 is the only independent claim at issue. This claim is
directed to a method of maintaining a database for a plurality of vehicles.
Claims 22—24 depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 21.
Independent claim 21 is illustrative of the disclosed invention and is
reproduced below:
2
Appeal 2017-004337
Application 11/831,244
21. A method of maintaining a database for a plurality
of vehicles, said method comprising:
receiving first sensor data from a first vehicle connected
to the database, the first sensor data indicating one or more
parameters pertaining to an environment surrounding the first
vehicle;
comparing the first sensor data to stored data in the
database to identify whether the first sensor data matches the
stored data using a processor connected to the database[;]
when the first sensor data does not match the stored data,
determining whether the first sensor data is sufficient to warrant
an update of the database;
when the first sensor data does not match the stored data
and the first sensor data is determined to be sufficient to
warrant an update of database, updating the stored data in the
database based on the first sensor data;
when the first sensor data does not match the stored data
and the first sensor data is determined to not be sufficient to
warrant an update of database, determining whether other
sensor data from other vehicles is available to confirm the first
sensor data;
when the other sensor data is not available to confirm the
first sensor data, declaring a loss of database integrity of the
database; and
when the other sensor data is available and the other
sensor data confirms the first sensor data, updating the stored
data in the database based on the first sensor data and the other
sensor data.
Br. 7 (Claims Appendix).
Prior Art Relied Upon
Inventor3 Patent/Pnhlication Issuance/Publication Date
Cherveny U.S. Patent No. 6,853,913 B2 Feb. 8, 2005
Chao U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.
2004/0128355 A1
July 1, 2004
3 For clarity and ease of reference, we only list the first named inventor.
3
Appeal 2017-004337
Application 11/831,244
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 21—24 were rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over the combination of Cherveny and Chao. Fin. Act. 3—9.4
Examiner’s Findings
The Examiner finds that Cherveny teaches all the limitations recited in
independent claims 21, except “when the other sensor data is not available to
confirm the first sensor data, declaring a loss of database integrity of the
database.” Fin. Act. 4—7. The Examiner turns to Chao to teach this
limitation because it discloses a voting scheme that requires a number of
votes to exceed a threshold before labeling a message as spam, thereby
triggering an update of a corresponding definition entry in the database. Id.
at 6 (citing Chao 141, Fig. 5). In the Answer, the Examiner reiterates its
position that Chao’s disclosure of a voting scheme teaches this limitation.
Ans. 16 (citing Chao 141, Fig. 5).5
Appellants ’ Contentions
Appellants contend that Chao’s voting scheme does not result in
declaring “a loss of database integrity,” as recited in independent claim 21.
Br. 4. Appellants argue that Chao discloses labeling a message as spam only
when it receives the required number of votes. Id. Appellants further argue
that, when a single user votes that a message is spam, the corresponding
definition entry in the database either is updated to reflect that the voting
threshold has been reached or nothing is done because the voting threshold
4 All references to the Final Action (“Fin. Act.”) refer to the Final Action
entered on December 29, 2015.
5 All references to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) refer to the
Supplemental Examiner’s Answer mailed on November 23, 2016.
4
Appeal 2017-004337
Application 11/831,244
has not been reached (i.e., the database is not updated). Id. In either case,
Appellants assert that Chao does not declare a loss of database integrity. Id.
II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner properly
relies upon Chao to teach or suggest, “when the other sensor data is not
available to confirm the first sensor data, declaring a loss of database
integrity of the database,” as recited in independent claim 21.
III. ANALYSIS
Claim 21
Based on the record before us, we discern error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claim 21, which recites, amongst other
things, the disputed limitation identified above.
We begin our analysis by determining the scope and breadth of the
disputed limitation. The claimed “declaring a loss of database integrity” is
predicated upon one condition—namely, “when the other sensor data is not
available to confirm the first sensor data.” This condition must be satisfied
in order to declare “a loss of database integrity.” With this claim
construction in mind, we turn to the merits of the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection.
The Examiner takes the position that Chao teaches the disputed
limitation because it discloses a voting scheme that requires a number of
votes to exceed a threshold before labeling a message as spam, thereby
triggering an update of a corresponding definition entry in the database.
Fin. Act. 6 (citing Chao 141, Fig. 5); Ans. 16 (citing the same). In
5
Appeal 2017-004337
Application 11/831,244
particular, the Examiner finds that, if only one user votes that the message is
spam, the corresponding definition entry is not activated and the user is
prevented from causing the message to be blocked for all users. Fin. Act. 6;
Ans. 16. In other words, the Examiner finds that, even if a sufficient number
of users are available, but not all of the users are in agreement that the
message is spam, the database is not updated. Fin. Act. 6; Ans. 16.
The Examiner, however, does not explain adequately how Chao’s
voting scheme applies to sensor data gathered from multiple vehicles, much
less how this voting scheme applies to the requirement in independent claim
21 of being unable to confirm sensor data gathered from one vehicle with
sensor data from other vehicles prior to declaring a loss of database integrity.
Instead, we agree with Appellants that, when a single user votes that a
message is spam, Chao teaches that one of two things happens: (1) the
corresponding definition entry in the database either is updated to reflect that
the voting threshold has been reached and the message is blocked to all
users; or (2) the database is not updated because the voting threshold has not
been reached and the message is not blocked to all users. Chao 141. Either
way, Chao does not declare a loss of database integrity, but rather it prevents
a single user from causing a message to be blocked to all users. Id.
We need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments because
the Examiner has not presented sufficient evidence to support a finding that
Chao teaches the disputed limitation. As applied by the Examiner, Cherveny
does not remedy the deficiency in Chao identified above. It follows that the
Examiner has erred in determining that the combined teachings of Cherveny
and Chao renders the subject matter of independent claim 21 unpatentable.
6
Appeal 2017-004337
Application 11/831,244
Claims 22—24
The Examiner has erred in rejecting dependent claims 22—24 for the
same reason set forth above in our discussion of independent claim 21,
because each of these dependent claims include the same disputed limitation
as its underlying base claim.
IV. CONCLUSION OF LAW
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims
21—24 as unpatentable under § 103(a).
V. DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21—24.
REVERSED
7