Ex Parte Poltorak

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 11, 2014

10328767 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 2014)

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.
10/328,767 12/24/2002 Alexander I. Poltorak MI/AP/03 9405
7590 06/12/2014
General Patent Corporation
Montebello Park
75 Montebello Road
Suffern, NY 10901
EXAMINER
SWARTHOUT, BRENT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/12/2014 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
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ALEXANDER I. POLTORAK
____________________

Appeal 2011-013612
Application 10/328,767
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG,
and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-013612
Application 10/328,767

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 45, 55, 98, 101, 104, 145, 155, 196, and 199 (App. Br. 5). Claims
2-44, 46-54, 56-97, 99, l00, 102, 103, 105-144, 146-154, 156-195, 197, 198,
200, and 201 have been withdrawn from consideration (id.). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to an apparatus and method for
remotely controlling a traffic control device, including an input device,
processor, and a transmitter; wherein, the input device is enabled to input at
least one of a control code and a command code corresponding to a control
operation to be performed on a traffic control device (Abstract).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. An apparatus for remotely controlling traffic
control device, the apparatus comprising:
an input device for inputting at least one of a
control code and a command code corresponding to a control
operation to be performed on a traffic control device;
a processor for processing the at least one of a
control code and a command code, wherein the processor
generates a first control signal for performing a control
operation on the traffic control device; and
a transmitter for transmitting the first control
signal to the traffic control device, wherein the traffic
control device receives the first control signal and
generates a second control signal, wherein the second
control signal effectuates the control operation; and
Appeal 2011-013612
Application 10/328,767

3
a positioning system;
wherein:
the apparatus is a vehicle computer located in a vehicle;
the vehicle computer is configured to detect if the vehicle
is approaching the traffic control device in the path of the
vehicle, detect state of the traffic control device, and, in
response to the state prohibiting travel in a direction of
travel of the vehicle, generate the first control signal to
effectuate the control operation in response to the state of the
traffic control device being such that effectuating the control
operation decreases travel delay of the vehicle.

C. REJECTION1
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Brown US 5,083,125 Jan. 21, 1992
Matta US 6,064,319 May 16, 2000
Morrison US 6,118,388 Sept. 12, 2000
Yee US 6,133,854 Oct. 17, 2000
Claims 1, 45, 55, 98, 101, 104, 145, 155, 196, and 199 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yee in view of
Morrison, Matta, and Brown.

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that the combination of Yee, Morrison, Matta, and Brown
teaches or would have suggested
the vehicle computer is configured to detect if the vehicle is
approaching the traffic control device in the path of the vehicle,

1 The Examiner has withdrawn his rejection to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Appeal 2011-013612
Application 10/328,767

4
detect state of the traffic control device, and, in response to the
state prohibiting travel in a direction of travel of the vehicle,
generate the first control signal to effectuate the control
operation in response to the state of the traffic control device
being such that effectuating the control operation decreases
travel delay of the vehicle

(claim 1, emphasis added).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Matta
1. Matta discloses a method and system for regulating switching
of a traffic light having a vehicle tracking unit 20 which determines whether
a vehicle 12 has entered a virtual detection loop 22 and whether control of
the traffic light 10 should be preempted (Figs. 2 and 3; col. 3, ll. 1-4). When
traffic light 10 is to be preempted, vehicle tracking unit 20 sends an
information signal 30 to a control system 32, which determines whether the
traffic light 10 should be switched based on the content of the information
signal 30 and the current status of the traffic light 10 (col. 3, ll. 4-10). If
control system 32 determines that traffic light 10 should be switched, control
system 32 sends a control signal 34 to the traffic light 10 to switch the light
from one color to another (Figs. 2 and 3; col. 3, ll. 1-15).
Brown
2. Brown discloses a true radar and telemetry-based emergency
vehicle traffic signal control system having an intersection
transmitter/receiver 10 that continuously monitors an intersection by sending
Appeal 2011-013612
Application 10/328,767

5
an Access code (ACODE) and a Direction code (DCODE) signal to an
approaching emergency vehicle 20 having a transponder which receives the
A/DCODE, verifies the accuracy of the codes, and re-transmits the DCODE,
along with a vehicle identification code (VID) to the intersection
transmitter/receiver 10 for verification (Fig. 1; col. 2, ll. 10-32 and col. 3, ll.
30-38). If the vehicle is authorized, the control of the intersection is handed
over to the vehicle by engaging a valid pre-empt signal which is output to
the traffic light controller (col. 2, ll. 32-35). The ACODE is a fixed code
used for system security and the DCODE is a variable preselected code used
to identify a particular intersection direction (col. 2, ll. 20-23 and col. 3,
ll. 35-38).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 45, 55, 98, 101, 104,
145, 155, 196, and 199
Appellant contends
the references taken separately or in any combination, do not
disclose or suggest a vehicle computer configured (1) to detect
the state of a traffic control device in the path of the vehicle,
and, (2) in response to the state prohibiting travel in a direction
of travel of the vehicle, generate a control signal to effectuate a
control operation in response to the state of the traffic control
device being such that effectuating the control operation
decreases travel delay of the vehicle

(App. Br. 24-25). In particular, Appellant contends
Brown makes no mention of the DCODE changing with the
state (e.g., red /green) of the traffic control signal; [and] Brown
does not disclose or suggest that the DCODE carries any
information relating to the state of the traffic control signal,
Appeal 2011-013612
Application 10/328,767

6
such as red, green, or other states that change from time to time
and allow or prohibit travel in a specific direction.

(App. Br. 21). Appellant asserts “Brown describes that it is the intersection
unit (intersection receiver 40) that determines when the vehicle is
approaching the intersection” (App. Br. 23).
However, the Examiner finds
it is agreed that the transmitted codes of Brown do not include a
red light status of a traffic signal, but rather provides the basic
concept of transmitting a general traffic light status from a
traffic control device to a vehicle in order that a vehicle can
generate a reply signal to control operation of the traffic signal
device

(Ans. 9, FF 2). However, “the exact same function [claimed is] suggested
by the Matta reference (except for location at a vehicle) whereby computing
means 32 detects [the] state of traffic signal device 10 and if it detects a red
light in vehicle direction, generates a signal to control the traffic signal light
to change to a green light” (id.).
We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). As an initial matter, we note claim 1 merely recites a vehicle
computer “configured to” detect the state of the traffic control device and
generate a control signal (claim 1). We conclude such “configured to”
language merely represents a statement of intended use of the vehicle
computer comprised in the apparatus for remotely controlling traffic control
devices, which does not limit the claim. Particularly, an intended use will
not limit the scope of the claim because it merely defines a context in which
the invention operates. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-
Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Thus, giving claim 1
Appeal 2011-013612
Application 10/328,767

7
its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim merely requires a vehicle
computer capable of detecting the state of the traffic control device and
generating a control signal in response to the state prohibiting travel which
decreases travel delay of the vehicle.
Nevertheless, we find no error with the Examiner’s underlying factual
findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness.
Matta is directed to a system for regulating switching of a traffic light
having a vehicle tracking unit which determines whether a vehicle has
entered a virtual detection loop and whether control of the traffic light
should be preempted (FF 1). When traffic light is to be preempted, the
vehicle tracking unit sends an information signal to a control system, which
determines whether the traffic light should be switched based on the content
of the information signal and the current status of the traffic light (id.).
When the control system determines that the traffic light should be switched,
the control system sends a control signal to the traffic light to switch the
light from one color to another (id.).
We agree with the Examiner’s finding Matta teaches “computing
means 32 detects [the] state of traffic signal device 10 and if it detects a red
light in vehicle direction, generates a signal to control the traffic signal light
to change to a green light” (Ans. 9). That is, we find that Matta’s control
system comprises a vehicle computer capable of detecting the state of the
traffic control device and generating a control signal in response to the state
prohibiting travel which decreases travel delay of the vehicle.
Although Appellant contends Brown does not teach the claimed
invention (App. Br. 21-23), since the Examiner rejects the claims as obvious
over the combined teachings of Yee, Morrison and Brown in view of Matta,
Appeal 2011-013612
Application 10/328,767

8
the test for obviousness is not what Brown shows individually but what the
combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined teachings of Yee, Morrison,
Matta, and Brown. Further, independent claims 45, 55, 98, 104, 145, 155,
and 196, having similar claim language and claims 101 and 199 (depending
from claims 98 and 196) which have not been argued separately, fall with
claim 1.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 45, 55, 98, 101, 104, 145, 155,
196, and 199 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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

kme