Ex Parte Paolini et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 22, 2011

11381457 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 22, 2011)

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.
11/381,457 05/03/2006 Michael A. Paolini AUS920060086US1 4367
7590 07/22/2011
J. B. Kraft
710 Colorado Street #5C
Austin, TX 78701
EXAMINER
PECHE, JORGE O
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3664
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/22/2011 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 1
___________ 2
3
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 4
AND INTERFERENCES 5
___________ 6
7
Ex parte MICHAEL A. PAOLINI, YVENNE PATRICE STOETZEL and 8
CRISTI NESBITT ULLMANN 9
___________ 10
11
Appeal 2010-002698 12
Application 11/381,457 13
Technology Center 3600 14
___________ 15
16
17
Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, MICHAEL W. O’NEILL and 18
ROBERT A. CLARKE, Administrative Patent Judges. 19
20
CLARKE, Administrative Patent Judge. 21
22
23
DECISION ON APPEAL 24
Appeal 2010-002698
Application 11/381,457

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s 2
decision rejecting claims 8-10 and 14. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction over 3
the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 4
We REVERSE. 5
THE INVENTION 6
The claims are directed to a computer controlled method of managing 7
traffic signals at an intersection of at least two traffic lanes to avoid 8
collisions between motor vehicles in intersecting lanes. The method 9
includes detecting the presence of a vehicle in the intersection beyond a 10
permitted time period, and responsive to a detection of the presence of the 11
vehicle, controlling the traffic signals to stop other vehicles from passing 12
through the intersection. (Spec. 2: 9-27). Claim 8, reproduced below, is 13
representative of the subject matter on appeal. 14
8. A computer controlled method for managing traffic signals at 15
the intersection of at least two traffic lanes to avoid collisions between 16
motor vehicles in intersecting lanes comprising: 17
controlling traffic signals at the intersection to permit vehicles 18
in each of the intersecting traffic lanes a predetermined time period to 19
pass through the intersection; 20
detecting, with sensors external to vehicles, the presence of a 21
vehicle in intersection beyond the predetermined time period by 22
detecting the presence of said vehicle for such an additional 23
predetermined time beyond said predetermined time period so as to 24
indicate a stalled vehicle; 25
controlling said traffic signals to indicate stop wherein other 26
vehicles are stopped from passing through said intersection in 27
response to a detection of the presence of said vehicle in said 28
intersection; 29
dynamically predicting, based upon data sensed by sensors 30
external to the vehicle, the potential presence of an approaching 31
Appeal 2010-002698
Application 11/381,457

3
vehicle in said intersection beyond said predetermined time period 1
including the step of determining the speed of the vehicle and 2
correlating the speed with the distance from the intersection; and 3
responsive to said prediction of the presence of said vehicle, 4
controlling said traffic signals to indicate stop wherein other vehicles 5
are stopped from passing through said intersection. 6
7
REFERENCES 8
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 9
Jones US 6,243,026 B1 Jun. 5, 2001
Du Vivier US 3,241,108 Mar. 15, 1966
10
REJECTION 11
Claims 8-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being 12
unpatentable over Jones in view of Du Vivier1. (Ans. 5). 13
The issue before us is whether the Examiner has provided a reason 14
with rational underpinning for modifying Jones to control traffic signals in 15
response to the detection of a vehicle in an intersection for a period of time 16
indicative of a stalled vehicle to avoid collisions. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 17
977,988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)(cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex 18
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). 19

1 The Examiner has withdrawn the remaining rejection in the Examiner’s
Answer. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2010-002698
Application 11/381,457

4
1
2
OPINION 3
The Appellants persuasively argue that the Examiner erred in 4
rejecting claims 8-10 and 14 as being obvious over Jones in view of Du 5
Vivier. The Appellants argue that they could not find any situation 6
described in Jones wherein: 7
there is detection of the presence of a vehicle for an 8
predetermined additional time beyond the basic predetermined time 9
resulting in the indication of a stalled vehicle, and 10
in response to the detection of such a stalled vehicle, the traffic 11
signals in both directions are in the Stop state. 12
(See App. Br. 7). The Examiner responds to Appellants’ arguments, supra, 13
with finding that Jones teaches determining when an emergency vehicle has 14
stopped en route and that Du Vivier teaches two time periods for a traffic 15
light to remain on (green) at an intersection, as related to vehicle stoppage, 16
based on an external detector (citing col. 1, ll. 32-45). The Examiner also 17
finds that Du Vivier provides an additional prescribed time period for a 18
traffic light to remain on for a stalled vehicle. (See Ans. 5, 6). The Examiner 19
interprets the claims as not being limited to having both directions of traffic 20
be in the stopped state. (See Ans. 8). 21
The Appellants argue that Jones teaches turning off the signal control 22
if the emergency vehicle stops. (See App. Br. 8). The Appellants also argue 23
that Du Vivier’s extended green light is responsive to vehicles approaching 24
the intersection in the green lane with the desire that during the extended 25
Appeal 2010-002698
Application 11/381,457

5
period more cars in the green lane will advance. (See App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 1
3). 2
The issue before us is whether the Examiner has provided a reason 3
with rational underpinning for modifying Jones to control traffic signals in 4
response to the detection of a vehicle in an intersection for a period of time 5
indicative of a stalled vehicle to avoid collisions. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 6
977,988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)(cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex 7
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). 8
We understand that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is 9
based on a reading of Du Vivier that the extension of a traffic signal’s green 10
phase as related to traffic stoppage or stalling of a vehicle was known. 11
However, we agree with the Appellants that Du Vivier does not teach 12
controlling traffic signals to prevent collision while a vehicle is stalled in an 13
intersection. Our review of the portion Du Vivier relied on by the Examiner 14
to support the Examiner’s conclusion teaches that prior art devices measured 15
the relative traffic flow demands of the green and red phases of a controlled 16
intersection based on the number of cars that approach the intersection 17
during the green phase and extending the green phase when relatively heavy 18
traffic approaches the intersection during the green phase compared to the 19
other controlled lanes of traffic. As more vehicles approach the green traffic 20
light in the green phase, the cars actuate a detector which then extends the 21
length of the green period for that cycle. (Du Vivier col. 1, ll. 32-45). 22
In short, on the basis of the record before us, the Examiner’s 23
articulated reason for controlling the traffic signals of Jones in response to 24
the detection of a vehicle in an intersection for a period of time indicative of 25
Appeal 2010-002698
Application 11/381,457

6
a stalled vehicle to avoid collisions is not supported by rational 1
underpinning. 2
3
DECISION 4
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 8-10 and 14 is reversed. 5
6
REVERSED 7
8
9
mls 10