Ex Parte Offerle et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 25, 2011

10708677 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 25, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte TIMOTHY G. OFFERLE, CRAIG H. STEPHAN, and
GREGORY P. BROWN
____________________

Appeal 2009-009939
Application 10/708,677
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: WILLIAM F. PATE III, JENNIFER D. BAHR, and
LINDA E. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PATE III, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-009939
Application 10/708,677
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The claims are directed to a method and apparatus for predicting the
position of a trailer relative to a vehicle. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for use in a vehicle comprising:
sensing a current position of a trailer relative to the
vehicle;
determining a vehicle steering wheel angle;
determining a predicted position of the trailer relative to
the vehicle based on the current position and the steering wheel
angle; and
displaying within the vehicle the current position and the
predicted position of the trailer relative to the vehicle.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Yoshioka
Okamoto
Fischer
US 5,461,357
US 6,587,760 B2
WO 2004/007232 A1
Oct. 24, 1995
Jul. 1, 2003
Jan. 22, 20042

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-27, 29 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Okamoto and Fischer. Ans. 3.
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Okamoto, Fischer, and Yoshioka. Ans. 5.
Appeal 2009-009939
Application 10/708,677
3
Claim 1-27, 29, and 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fischer, and Okamoto. Ans. 5.
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fischer, Okamoto, and Yoshioka. Ans. 6.

OPINION
Appellants argue claims 1-27, 29 and 30 as a group. App. Br. 5-7.
We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 2-27, 29 and 30
will stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We do not
consider the order in which prior art is applied in this rejection to be
significant. Cf. Ans. 3-5 with Ans. 5-6; see, e.g., In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491,
496 (CCPA 1961). Appellants’ argument regarding claim 28 is premised
solely upon the alleged deficiency of the Examiner’s rejection of the parent
claim. Appellants do not present different arguments based upon the order
the Examiner applied the references. Cf. App. Br. 5-7 with App. Br. 7-8.
The subject matter described by claim 1 amounts to nothing more than
the use of a known technique, as described by Fischer, in order to improve
upon Okamoto’s known device in order to yield the predictable result of
providing an in-vehicle display that depicts the current position and the
predicted position of a trailer attached to the vehicle. Thus, we are in
agreement with the Examiner that the subject matter of claim 1 would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Okamoto discloses a method for assisting a driver in maneuvering a
vehicle, specifically parking it. Abst. Okamoto employs sensors for
determining the position of the vehicle and the steering wheel. Col. 4, ll. 3-

2 Reference to Fischer will refer to U.S. Patent 7,089,101 (Aug. 8, 2006) as a
Appeal 2009-009939
Application 10/708,677
4
17. Okamoto also discloses determining and displaying within the vehicle
the current and predicted position of the vehicle based on the sensed current
position and steering wheel angle. Col. 1, ll. 36-67; Figs. 5A-C. Okamoto
does not disclose practicing the method with a trailer.
Fischer also discloses a method for assisting a driver in maneuvering a
vehicle 10. Abst. Fischer’s method may be used when a trailer 70 is attached
to the vehicle. Col. 3, ll. 1-16; col. 9, l. 43 – col. 10, l. 39; fig. 7. Fischer uses
sensors to determine the actual trailer angle βact between the vehicle and
trailer. Col. 10, ll. 1-3; fig. 7; contra Reply Br. 2. Fischer teaches
determining a desired trailer angle βdes’ that will maintain the trailer along a
reference or desired trajectory. Col. 9, ll. 43-55; col. 10, ll. 22-31. Fischer
conveys to the driver the steering angle that should be set in order to make
the actual trailer angle equal to the desired trailer angle. Col. 10, ll. 4-7.
Various methods are disclosed by Fischer for conveying the desired steering
angle to the driver. See Figs. 3-5 and corresponding descriptions.
Appellants correctly point out that “Okamoto deals only with the
positioning of the vehicle with respect to the outside world; Okamoto
teaches nothing regarding intra-vehicle issues.” App. Br. 6; see also Reply
Br. 2. Appellants also correctly point out that “Fischer does NOT display the
vehicle and trailer to the driver.” App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 2.
Arguments that point out the deficiencies of each reference individually do
not establish error in the Examiner’s position when the rejection is
predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Okamoto already discloses the
claimed step of displaying, albeit for the vehicle not its trailer. Fischer need

U.S. equivalent to WO 2004/007232 A1.
Appeal 2009-009939
Application 10/708,677
5
not also disclose the same displaying step in order to render the claimed
subject matter obvious based upon the combined teachings of the references.
Similarly, Okamoto need not also disclose a trailer to render the references
combinable. Contra App. Br. 7. The test for obviousness is not whether the
claimed invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of the references,
but whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of
ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those
references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Appellants allege that “Fischer neither teaches nor suggests anything
regarding predicting the path of a trailer or, for that matter, predicting the
angle of the trailer with respect to the motor vehicle.” App. Br. 6-7, see also
Reply Br. 2. First, this argument is not commensurate with the scope of
claim 1, and thus, for that reason, does not demonstrate error in the
Examiner’s position. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
Second, Fischer recognizes that the trailer angle is a function of the steering
angle. See col. 10, ll. 4-7, 32-39. When Fischer determines that the actual
trailer angle differs from the desired angle and concludes the steering wheel
position needs adjustment, Fischer is using the current position of the trailer
and the steering wheel angle to determine a predicted position of the trailer
relative to the vehicle, that is, a position wherein βact would be closer to βdes.
Third, Okamoto already discloses position prediction of a vehicle based
upon steering angle and current position. One of ordinary skill in the art
would know how to use Okamoto’s method to make the same prediction for
a trailer of the type described by Fischer in order to arrive at a working
method.

Appeal 2009-009939
Application 10/708,677
6
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-30 are
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

nlk

Jerome R. Drouillard
10213 Tims Lake Blvd.
Grass Lake MI 49240