Ex Parte Moore

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2013

10607291 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STEVEN CLAY MOORE
____________

Appeal 2010-001097
Application 10/607,291
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-40. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2010-001097
Application 10/607,291

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to detecting when a vehicle
is turning and altering the frequency or intensity of a turn signal to
communicate the vehicle is turning (Spec. 2:22-23).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A system to sense when a tum signal for a vehicle is active
and the vehicle is turning and indicate that the vehicle is turning
by varying a frequency and/or intensity with which the tum
signal blinks, signaling to other motorists that the vehicle is
turning, wherein the frequency and/or intensity with which the
tum signal blinks is varied based upon an amount of time
during which the vehicle is turning.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4-7, 14, 16, 17, 20, 22, 24, and 28
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based upon the teachings of Middlebrook (US
4,638,295, January 20, 1987).
The Examiner rejected claims 11-13, 18, 36, 37, and 39 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) based upon the teachings of Dantoni (US 5,673,019,
September 30, 1997).
The Examiner rejected claims 8, 9, 19, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30, 32, 33, and
35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Middlebrook and
Dantoni.
The Examiner rejected claims 27, 31, 34, 38, and 40 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Middlebrook, Dantoni, and Goertler
(US 4,348,655, September 7, 1982).
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 10, 15, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
Appeal 2010-001097
Application 10/607,291

3
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Middlebrook and Goertler.
ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Appellant contends Middlebrook does not teach a time period
between movement and sensing a movement of a vehicle because the two
are coincident (App. Br. 11).1 Further, Appellant contends Middlebrook
does not directly measure movement of the vehicle (App. Br. 11-12).
The Examiner finds Middlebrook teaches a window during which
vehicle movement or motion occurs from a first position to a second position
of the vehicle (Ans. 11-12). That is, the vehicle in Middlebrook is at a time
zero when it is waiting to move into a turn and at time greater than zero
when movement and actual turning of the vehicle occurs, thus there is a time
period between movement and sensing movement of the vehicle (Ans. 12).
Additionally, we find the term “coincident” in Middlebrook refers to the
frequency (increased flashing) of turn signals lamps at the time of vehicular
movement (see Middlebrook, col. 1, ll. 13-15), and not the time period
between the movement and sensing the movement as Appellant contends.
The Examiner finds Middlebrook also teaches the turning of the vehicle
causes signal lamps to flash at a frequency greater than when the vehicle is
stopped and waiting to turn (Ans. 12; Middlebrook, col 2, ll. 25-42).
Appellant has not rebutted these findings.
Further, Appellant’s argument that Middlebrook does not directly
measure movement of the vehicle has no bearing as this argument is not
commensurate in scope with Appellant’s claim language. Lastly, the argued

1 The Replacement Appeal Brief filed September 27, 2007, is referenced
throughout this opinion.
Appeal 2010-001097
Application 10/607,291

4
feature of varying the signals based upon the amount of time the vehicle is
turning is merely mentioned in Appellant’s Specification, which states the
frequency or intensity of the turn signal can be varied by the “amount of
time the car has been turning” (Spec. 4:6-8), and illustrated by Figure 4.
There is nothing in either Appellant’s Specification or Drawings that
discusses how the amount of time is related to varying the frequency and/or
intensity as claimed. We therefore find there is no error in the Examiner’s
broad but reasonable interpretation of the claim language of representative
claim 1. Thus, claims 1, 2, 7, 14, 16, 17, 20, and 28 are anticipated by
Middlebrook.
Appellant contends claims 4 and 6 are not taught by Middlebrook.
Rather, Appellant asserts, Middlebrook teaches a steering wheel position
indicator switch that indicates an intention to turn and not a wheel position
sensor that determines an amount to alter the frequency of intensity of the
turn signal (App. Br. 12). We agree with the Examiner that Middlebrook
discloses a shaft position sensor (Ans. 5). Further, Middlebrook’s wheel
position sensor indicates (senses) an intention to turn and then alters the
frequency of the turn signal (from 80 flashes to 200 flashes).
Appellant contends Middlebrook does not recite “the output signal
varies in proportion to the position of the shaft,” as claimed in claims 5, 6,
and 14 (App. Br. 13-14 and 15-16). With respect to these claims, the
Examiner finds Middlebrook teaches “the turn signal lamp blinks in
proportion to the position of the shaft” as the steering wheel position
switch 52 determines a degree of turn of a steering wheel (Ans. 12). Thus,
once the angle of the turn is determined the frequency of the output signal is
Appeal 2010-001097
Application 10/607,291

5
increased (Ans. 12; Middlebrook col. 5, ll. 19-26). Appellant has not
rebutted these findings.
In light of the above, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection
of claims 1, 2, 4-7, 14, 16, 17, 20, 22, 24, and 28 over Middlebrook.
Appellant did not provide arguments for the anticipation rejection of
claims 11-13, 18, 36, 37, and 39 over Dantoni. Thus, we pro forma sustain
the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 11-13, 18, 36, 37, and 39
over Dantoni.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Appellant did not provide arguments for the obviousness rejection of
claims 3, 8-10, 15, 19, 21, 23, 29, 30, 31, 38, and 40 over Middlebrook and
Dantoni and/or Goertler. Thus, we group these claims as falling with their
parent claims and also pro forma sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of these claims since Appellant has not identified how the claims
distinguish over Middlebrook and Dantoni and/or Goertler.
Appellant provides substantially the same arguments for claims 25-27
and 32-35 (App. Br. 19-21). That is, Appellant contends neither
Middlebrook nor Dantoni teaches or suggests “applying the output signal to
a turn signal lamp to vary a frequency (vary an intensity-claim 32) with
which the turn signal flashes based upon an angle of a wheel of the vehicle
while the vehicle is turning” (App. Br. 19-20). Additionally, Appellant
contends the combination uses impermissible hindsight.
The Examiner finds Middlebrook discloses varying the frequency (see
arguments with respect to claims 1, 11, and 21) and Dantoni discloses
varying the intensity (Dantoni, col. 3, l. 64- col. 4, l. 4). We adopt the
Examiner’s findings as our own. Particularly, Dantoni does vary the
Appeal 2010-001097
Application 10/607,291

6
intensity if the light by adding an additional light based on the angle of the
wheel determined by a tube attached to the steering column (Dantoni, col. 3,
ll. 32-40; l. 64-col. 4, l. 4; Ans. 13). Appellant has not rebutted these
findings. Further, Appellant has not provided reasons as to why the
combination of Middlebrook and Dantoni constitutes impermissible
hindsight. We therefore conclude, in light of the Examiner’s findings, claims
25-27 and 32-35 are obvious over the combination of Middlebrook and
Dantoni.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-40 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

peb