Ex Parte Norris et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 19, 2016

12968887 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/968,887 12/15/2010
78833 7590 07/21/2016
DUKEW, YEE
YEE & ASSOCIATES P.C.
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
William Robert Norris
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.
16612Dl-US 3211
EXAMINER
MUSTAFA, IMRAN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/21/2016 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):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
mgamez@yeeiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM ROBERT NORRIS,
BERNARD EDWIN ROMIG, and JOHN FRANKLIN REID
Appeal2014-007195
Application 12/968,887
Technology Center 3600
Before: MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, BEYERL Y M. BUNTING, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of
claims 1-7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-007195
Application 12/968,887
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a vehicle with a steering control system.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A vehicle, comprising:
a steering system;
a steering control system operatively connected to said
steering system;
a steering angle sensor producing a steering angle signal;
and
a reference system producing a heading signal and a
distance signal, said steering control system applying said
steering angle signal, said heading signal and said distance signal
to fuzzy logic membership functions to produce an output that is
applied to a steering rule base, said steering rule base producing
an output that is defuzzified to produce a steering signal that is
supplied to said steering control system to control said steering
system.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1--4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Qiu (US 6,442,463 B 1, iss. Aug. 27, 2002) and Ishikawa
(US 5,545,960, iss. Aug. 13, 1996).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Qiu, Ishikawa, and Mizutani (US 2001/0023380 Al, pub.
Sept. 20, 2001 ).
OPINION
Claim 1 is independent, and claims 2-7 depend directly or indirectly
from claim 1. Appellants argue separately the patentability of claims 1, 3, 4,
2
Appeal2014-007195
Application 12/968,887
5, 6, and 7. Appellants do not proffer a separate argument for claim 2. We
affirm the rejections of claims 1-7.
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Qiu discloses most of the limitations of claim
1, including a steering control system, a steering angle sensor, a reference
system that produces a heading signal, the steering control system applies
the steering angle signal and heading signal to a fuzzy logic membership
function to produce an output applied to a steering rule base, and the steering
rule base produces an output that is defuzzified to produce a signal used to
operate the steering control system. Final Act. 2-3. Noting that Qui does
not disclose a reference system producing a distance signal, the Examiner
relies on the disclosure in Ishikawa regarding the: "reference system
producing a distance signal (Column 5 lines 4--24 'The input parameters of
the fuzzy control for path tracing are the distance D from the robot to the
path')." Id. at 3 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner further states that "[i]t
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Qui 1 to include
the teachings of Ishikawa of providing a distance error into a fuzzy logic
member ship (sic) function for the purpose of controlling the error and
properly steering the vehicle along a desired path." Id.
Appellants provide three arguments why the rejection of claim 1 is
improper, each of which is addressed in tum.
1 Both Appellants and the Examiner misspell "Qiu" as "Qui" at multiple
locations in their papers. Because of the large number of misspellings and to
increase readability, the use of "(sic)" after "Qui" is omitted herein.
3
Appeal2014-007195
Application 12/968,887
First, Appellants argue the Examiner erred because "Qui does not
describe that either the 'vehicle heading' or 'vehicle orientation' are applied
to the steering controller fuzzy logic" so as to teach a heading signal applied
to the fuzzy logic membership functions as required by claim 1. Appeal Br.
6. Instead, Appellants argue that Qui discloses that 'steering rate 302' and
'steering error 310' are applied to the steering controller fuzzy logic, and
that the steering controller "does not use or process an actual heading
signal." Id.
The Examiner responds: "in Figure 3 of Qui a vehicle heading '306'
and steering angle sensor '28' is applied to a trajectory planner '30' which in
tum is applied to a steering controller '26' .... The steering controller '26'
takes in the inputs ... which includes the heading and vehicle orientation
data ... and applies it into a fuzzy inference engine '410. "' Answer 4.
Thus, the Examiner reasons vehicle heading and steering angle values are
applied to the controller and then "applied to a data that is applied to the
'fuzzy inference engine 410. "' Id. Appellants' argument is not persuasive
because it is not commensurate in scope with claim 1, which does not
require direct application of the heading signal to fuzzy logic membership
functions by the steering control system.
Appellants also argue that the steering rate and steering error
calculated by the trajectory planner is not the same as "said steering control
system applying ... said heading signal ... to fuzzy logic membership
functions" because:
the trajectory planner [of Qiu] receives two input signals: (i) a
cylinder position signal [] and (ii) turning change to vehicle
orientation []. Based on these two input signals, the trajectory
planner 30 calculates two different signals that are output to the
4
Appeal2014-007195
Application 12/968,887
fuzzy logic 26: (i) a steering rate 302 [], and (ii) a steering error
310 [] - as clearly shown by elements 302, 310 and 26 of Figure
3. Therefore, the alleged 'steering heading' signal that is applied
to the trajectory planner 30 is not 'in tum applied to a steering
controller."'
Appeal Br. 7 (internal citations omitted).
The Examiner explains reasonably how the generation of different
signals merely amounts to "preprocessing" of the information. Answer 3--4.
Moreover, the Examiner correctly notes that the claims do not require "a
direct application of these values [i.e. signals] into the fuzzier." Id. at 4.
Thus, the Examiner explains persuasively how Qiu teaches preprocessing of
a heading signal and then the steering controller 26 applies the resulting
steering rate and steering error signals, "which includes the heading and
vehicle orientation data" to the fuzzier. Id. The Examiner further explains
that this understanding of preprocessing of signals is consistent with
Appellants' Specification. Id. at 3--4 (citing Appellants' Specification at
Figure 2). Appellants' "own specification does not even apply a vehicle
heading or vehicle orientation to the fuzzifier '116' but rather an error of the
various sensors is applied to the fuzzifier '116'." Id. at 4.
Thus, Appellants have not apprised us of error in the Examiner's
finding that Qiu teaches "said steering control system applying ... said
heading signal ... to fuzzy logic membership functions" as required by claim
1.
Next, Appellants argue that though Ishikawa teaches a distance signal,
it does not describe "how this pre-existing 'distance signal' is actually
produced." Appeal Br. 7. Thus, Ishikawa does not teach "a reference
system producing ... a distance signal." Appellants' argument is not
5
Appeal2014-007195
Application 12/968,887
persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with claim 1, which does
not recite expressly how the distance signal is produced.
The Examiner explains reasonably how Ishikawa "comput[ es] the
distance of the autonomous vehicle from the planned path" which satisfies
this limitation. See Answer 5. We are not apprised of error in the
Examiner's finding that Ishikawa teaches "a reference system producing a
distance signal." Final Act. 3.
As to the combination of Qui and Ishikawa, Appellants argue that the
Examiner has failed to provide "articulated reasoning with rational[]
underpinning" as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the
teachings of Ishikawa with Qiu. Appeal Br. 8. Specifically, Appellants
argue that "Qui already provides an ability of controlling the error and
properly steering a vehicle." Id. Thus, Appellants maintain the resulting
combination would result in "additional system complexities ... with no
additional benefit." Id.
Further Appellants state that the Examiner has not explained why the
benefit of "properly steering the vehicle by controlling the error" would
result from the combination of Qiu and Ishikawa. Id. As the why is not
explained, the reasoning lacks the required "rational[] underpinning." Id. at
9.
The Examiner responds that accounting for the distance from the
desired path, or the distance error, better allows the vehicle to follow the
desired path. Answer 6.
Appellants fail to address why this increased functionality would not
be desirable other than to say the system is more complex. See Appeal Br. 8
and Reply Br. 4. Without persuasive evidence, these statements surrounding
6
Appeal2014-007195
Application 12/968,887
complexity are merely attorney argument. For example, Appellants offer no
evidence, such as from the prior art, concerning why the increased
complexity would be undesirable. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405
(CCPA 1974) ("Attorney's argument in a brief cannot take the place of
evidence.").
Although tradeoffs may be required in balancing the benefits and
drawbacks of vehicle svstems that account for distance error. such tradeoffs
~ '
do not necessarily prevent the proposed combination or negate the
obviousness of the claimed subject matter. See Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo,
S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("a given course of action often
has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not
necessarily obviate motivation to combine"); see also Winner Int'! Royalty
Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("The fact that the
motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should
not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with
the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should
be weighed against one another."). The Examiner has noted an advantage to
modifying a vehicle systern to provide a distance error into a fuzzy logic
membership function-- narnely, better allovving the vehicle to follow the
desired path. The possible disadvantage identified by Appellants-- namely,
increased complexity--does not necessarily outweigh the advantage
identified by the Examiner. Appellants' argument is unpersuasive in that it
fails to point to evidence or provide sound technical reasoning establishing
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the identified
possible disadvantage would outweigh the benefit identified by the
Examiner such that the proposed modification would not have been obvious.
7
Appeal2014-007195
Application 12/968,887
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting
independent claim 1. As claim 2 is dependent upon claim 1 and is not
separately argued it falls with claim 1. We summarily affirm the rejection of
claim 2 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) based on Qiu and Ishikawa.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015).
Claim 3
Claim 3 depends indirectly from claim 2. Claim 3 recites in relevant
part that the path "serves as an input to obtain said heading signal." Claim 2
added that the path also "serves as a reference for determining said distance
signal."
The Examiner finds that the limitation of claim 3 is met by Figure 3,
the trajectory planner, and vehicle heading 306 described by Qui. Final Act.
3. Appellants argue that the vehicle heading (i.e. the heading signal) in Qiu
would not be calculated with reference to a reference path. Appeal Br. 9-10.
This argument is not persuasive because as pointed out by the Examiner, the
trajectory controller of Qiu calculates a path that is used to generate heading
information. See Answer 6.
In addition, Appellants argue that the combination of Qiu and
Ishikawa would result in two different trajectory paths that would be used
for two different purposes, instead of the claimed dual-function single path.
Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner finds that Ishikawa determines a distance
signal from the path and Qiu obtains the heading signal from the path, and
concludes that it would have been obvious "to modify Qui to include the
teachings of Ishikawa." Final Act. 3. There is nothing in the rejection that
would suggest creating two different trajectory paths for the same vehicle in
8
Appeal2014-007195
Application 12/968,887
that the rejection is not based upon bodily incorporation of lshikawa's
device into Qiu' s device, but only upon certain teachings of Ishikawa with
respect to a distance signal. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981) (citations omitted) ("[T]he test [for obviousness] is what the combined
teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art."). As a result Appellants do not persuasively address the
combined teachings of Qiu and Ishikawa, but rather argue the references and
their paths separately. This is not enough to overcome the prima facie case
established by the Examiner.
Claim 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and adds "at least one of an orientation,
a location and a velocity of the vehicle is input to said reference system to
obtain said heading signal and said distance signal."
The Examiner finds that Ishikawa uses the absolute position and
direction of the vehicle (i.e. orientation and location) to obtain the speed and
the steering angle (i.e. heading and distance signals). Final Act 3, 6-7
(citing Ishikawa col. 5, 11. 4-32); Answer 7-8.
Appellants argue that Ishikawa does not teach that any of an
orientation, a location or a velocity is input into a reference system to obtain
a heading signal and a distance signal. Appeal Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 5. In
support of Appellants' argument they quote a section of Ishikawa that was
cited by the Examiner in the rejection. A portion of this section is
reproduced below:
The input parameters of the fuzzy control for path tracing are the
distance D from the robot to the path and the displacement
angle A defined by the path direction and the vehicle's
9
Appeal2014-007195
Application 12/968,887
direction of motion, as shown in FIG. 5. It has been taken into
consideration that this information can be obtained practically
and in real time by a sensor mounted on the mobile robot.
Specifically, the absolute position/direction of the vehicle
itself is measured by a method using information on the rotation
of wheels (dead reckoning) . . . . The measurement gives as
parameters the distance D from the robot to the path and the
displacement angle A defined by the path direction and the
robot's direction of motion.
Ishikawa, col. 5, 11. 4--32 (emphasis added). See also Final Act. 3 and
Appeal Br. 10-11.
Our review of the above section of Ishikawa shows that contrary to
Appellants' argument, a heading signal and a distance signal (distance D and
displacement angle A) are obtained from the orientation and the location of
the vehicle (distance, path direction, vehicle's direction of motion). To the
extent Appellants may be arguing that Ishikawa's teachings are with respect
to "fuzzy logic," rather than a "reference system" (Reply Br. 5), we
determine that the Examiner relies on Qiu for teaching a reference system
producing a heading signal (Final Act. 2), and relies on Ishikawa merely for
using at least one of an orientation, a location, and a velocity as an input to
obtain the heading signal (id. at 3). For these reasons, Appellants have not
apprised us of error in the Examiner's findings, and we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 4.
Claim 5
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and instead of requiring "at least one,"
requires all three of "said orientation, said location and said velocity of the
vehicle [to be] input to said reference system to obtain said heading signal
and said distance signal."
10
Appeal2014-007195
Application 12/968,887
As discussed above, the Examiner states that Ishikawa teaches a
heading signal and a distance signal are obtained from at least an orientation
and a location of the vehicle. The Examiner relies on Mizutani for the use of
"velocity" in determining heading and distance signals. Final Act. 4.
Appellants off er no arguments concerning the teachings of Mizutani in this
regard. See Appeal Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 5---6.
Appellants refer to its arguments provided with respect to claim 4 and
maintain that Ishikawa "describes outputs of (i) steering angle and (ii)
velocity/speed. In contrast, per the features of Claim 5, the outputs are (1) a
'heading signal' and (2) a 'distance signal' - and 'velocity/speed' is very
different from "distance'." Appeal Br. 13. Appellants' argument is not
persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with claim 5. The inputs
and outputs taught by Ishikawa and Mizutani and identified by the Examiner
contain information that can be characterized as the inputs and signal outputs
required by claim 5.
Appellants also repeat similar arguments as proffered with respect to
claim 1 that the Examiner does not adequately explain why a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Qiu with the
teachings of Mizutani "for the purpose of properly steering the vehicle along
a desired path" when Qiu already provides similar functionality and benefits.
Appeal Br. 13. But again, Appellants fail to address why the increased
functionality (i.e. the use of additional data points based on basic
information of the vehicle to better control the vehicle) would not be
desirable. For all of these reasons we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 5.
11
Appeal2014-007195
Application 12/968,887
Claim 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and further recites "said steering
control system also applies a velocity signal to said fuzzy logic membership
functions to produce said output."
The Examiner relies on Mizutani to teach the features of claim 6.
Final Act. 4. Appellants challenge the Examiner's finding, arguing that:
"the cited Mizutani passage at paragraph [0028] describes that the fuzzy
logic generates/outputs a velocity control signal. This fuzzy-logic generated
velocity signal is not 'applied to' the fuzzy control logic, as claimed, but
instead is 'generated by' the fuzzy control logic." Appeal Br. 13-14; Reply
Br. 6.
Mizutani states that fuzzy reasoning is used to track the velocity
pattern, but Mizutani also states that the velocity pattern is "computed on the
basis of the path information." Mizutani i-fi-126, 28. Path information is
defined as including "position, orientation, and velocity data." Id. i-f 15.
Thus, it can be seen that velocity data is applied to fuzzy logic to generate an
output.
For these reasons, Appellants have not apprised us of error in the
Examiner's findings, and we sustain the rejection of claim 6.
Claim 7
Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and adds "a velocity control rule base,
and wherein said fuzzy logic membership functions produce another output
that is applied to the velocity control rule base that produces a velocity
control signal that is interpreted and applied to at least one drive motor of
the vehicle to control velocity of the vehicle."
12
Appeal2014-007195
Application 12/968,887
The Examiner finds that Mizutani teaches the features of claim 7.
Final Act. 4. Appellants argue that the fuzzy logic of Mizutani paragraph 28
"generates a velocity control signal without regards to a 'velocity rule base'
that both (1) produces a velocity control signal, and (2) has a control input
provided thereto by fuzzy logic." Appeal Br. 14.
The Examiner responds persuasively that the velocity control rule
base limitation is satisfied by the disclosure in Figure 10 of Mizutani
regarding a velocity control that produces a velocity control signal, and the
teachings in paragraphs 26 and 28 of how a feedback computation is used to
track the velocity pattern using fuzzy logic. Answer 10. Indeed, our review
of the Mizutani reveals that a velocity control 54 is shown which receives
the inputs of a velocity command V* and a vehicle velocity V and outputs a
command to the drive unit 102. Mizutani i-f 126-128 and Fig. 10. Moreover,
Mizutani describes how velocity control of the drive unit is "made to track
[the] ... velocity pattern" which "velocity pattern" can be considered a "rule
base" used by the fuzzy logic to determine the output command for the drive
unit. Id. i-f 28.
For these reasons, Appellants have not apprised us of error in the
Examiner's findings, and we sustain the rejection of claim 7.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
13
Appeal2014-007195
Application 12/968,887
AFFIRMED
14