Ex Parte Phillips et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 15, 201411748363 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte EMILIE PHILLIPS, PAVLO E. RUDAKEVYCH, ORJETA TAKA, JAMES GORDON WOLFE JR, and TOM FROST ____________ Appeal 2012-004762 Application 11/748,363 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-004762 Application 11/748,363 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Emilie Phillips, Pavlo E. Rudakevych, Orjeta Taka, James Gordon Wolfe Jr., and Tom Frost (“Appellants”) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 6-9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claimed Subject Matter Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal, is representative of the claimed subject matter, and is reproduced below. 1. A system for managing control of two or more remote vehicle autonomous behaviors, the system comprising: an operator control system receiving input from the operator including instructions for the remote vehicle to execute a requested autonomous behavior; a control system on the remote vehicle for receiving the instructions to execute the requested autonomous behavior from the operator control system and comprising an arbiter, wherein the requested autonomous behavior sends a vote to the arbiter requesting control of one or more actuators on the remote vehicle configured to perform the requested autonomous behavior and, if the requested autonomous behavior has a higher priority than any executing behavior currently in control of one or more of the actuators, the requested autonomous behavior can execute, and wherein the requested autonomous behavior is not permitted to execute if actions to be performed by the requested autonomous behavior are incompatible with any executing behavior. Br. 12, Claims App’x. References The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references: Cohausz US 5,179,843 Jan. 19, 1993 Kemner US 5,448,479 Sep. 5, 1995 Allard US 2001/0037163 A1 Nov. 1, 2001 Appeal 2012-004762 Application 11/748,363 3 Takeuchi US 2003/0020342 A1 Jan. 30, 2003 Kawasaki US 6,675,068 B1 Jan. 6, 2004 Won US 2004/0216931 A1 Nov. 4, 2004 Jones US 2005/0067994 A1 Mar. 31, 2005 Rejections Appellants seek review of the following rejections: I. Claims 1, 2, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Won, Jones, and Kemner;1 II. Claims 7 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Won, Jones, Kemner, Kawasaki, Cohausz, and Allard; and III. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Won, Jones, Kemner, and Takeuchi. SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. OPINION Rejection I The Examiner concludes that the combination of Won, Jones, and Kemner would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1, 2, and 6 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Ans. 4-6. The Examiner finds that Won discloses, inter alia, a “control system on the remote vehicle for receiving the instructions to execute the requested 1 Although claim 6 is not listed in the rejection heading, it is included in the claims addressed in the rejection. Ans. 5-6. Appellants point out the apparent oversight by the Examiner and thus understand that claim 6 is also subject to this rejection. Br. 5-6. Appeal 2012-004762 Application 11/748,363 4 autonomous behavior from the operator control system and comprising an arbiter.” Id. at 4 (citing Won, para [0046]). Appellants raise several arguments in response to this rejection, including that “Won is silent regarding the control system comprising an arbiter.” Br. 7. The Examiner’s response to Appellants’ argument does not further explain how or where Won discloses a control system comprising an arbiter. See Ans. 7-9. Won is directed to a “robotically controlled mobility platform.” Won, para. [0003]. A review of paragraph [0046], however, does not reveal any discussion or disclosure of a control system comprising an arbiter. Accordingly, because the Examiner’s finding—that Won discloses a controller with an arbiter—is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, we do not sustain Rejection I. Rejections II and III The Examiner relied upon Won for the disclosure of a control system comprising an arbiter for each of Rejections II and III as well. Ans. 6-7. Accordingly, because these rejections suffer from the same deficiency noted above, we do not sustain Rejections II and III. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 6-9. REVERSED Klh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation