Ex Parte Ridenour

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2016

12535208 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2016)

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.
12/535,208 08/04/2009 Richard D. Ridenour 050847.00322 1004
23619 7590 12/02/2016
Snnire Patton Rnaas (HSR T T P
EXAMINER
1 E. Washington Street
Suite 2700
MUSTAFA, IMRAN K
Phoenix, AZ 85004 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2016 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):
phxip @ squirepb .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD D. RIDENOUR
Appeal 2015-002555
Application 12/535,208
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Richard D. Ridenour (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 22—43.1,2 We have
jurisdiction in this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 On June 17, 2014, Appellant submitted a Response to Notification of Non-
Compliant Appeal Brief to provide a corrected Claims Appendix. In
deciding this appeal, we consider the claims set forth in the corrected Claims
Appendix. In this decision, any references to the “Appeal Brief’ or “Appeal
Br.” are to the Appeal Brief filed on April 9, 2014, and any references to the
“Claims Appendix” or “Claims App.” are to the corrected Claims Appendix.
2 Claims 1—21 are withdrawn from consideration. Br. 1—4 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2015-002555
Application 12/535,208
INVENTION
Appellant’s disclosure “relates to systems and methods for conflict
detection using position uncertainty, and, in particular, to safety alerting for
vehicles, such as aircraft, using position uncertainty.” Spec. 2. Claim 22,
reproduced below, is the only independent claim on appeal.
22. A system comprising:
(a) a processor; and
(b) a memory in communication with the processor and
storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause
the processor to:
(i) calculate, based on a reported position of a
vehicle, a probability that an actual position of the vehicle
is within a region of interest;
(ii) determine whether a threat of a collision exists
between the vehicle and an object based on:
(1) the probability that the actual position of
the vehicle is within the region of interest; and
(2) a reported position of the object; and
(iii) generate an alert if it is determined a threat of a
collision exists between the vehicle and the object.
Appeal Br. 5 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
Claims 22—39 and 41—43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Simon (US 2006/0041381 Al, pub. Feb. 23, 2006).3
3 Although the heading of the rejection in the Final Office Action indicates
claims “22—39, 42—23” are subject to this ground (Final Act. 2), the
Examiner addresses claims 22—39 and 41—43 in the explanation of the
rejection (id. at 2—6). In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner indicates that
the rejection pertains to claims 22—39 and 41—43. Ans. 2. Accordingly, we
will treat the rejection as applying to claims 22—39 and 41—43. This is
consistent with Appellant’s understanding. See Appeal Br. 2, n. 1.
2
Appeal 2015-002555
Application 12/535,208
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Simon and Frazier (US 2002/0154061 Al, pub. Oct. 24, 2002).
ANALYSIS
Anticipation of claims 22—39 and 41—43 by Simon
As to claim 22, the Examiner finds that Simon discloses, inter alia, a
memory that causes a processor to “calculate, based on a reported position of
a vehicle, a probability that an actual position of the vehicle is within a
region of interest.” Final Act 2, citing Simon ^ 3, 22. The Examiner
references the description in paragraph 3 of Simon that “[an] accident risk is
then derived therefrom. The ‘hazard probability’ is understood here as a
probability of at least a near miss; this means that a region is drawn around
the own object, and the probability that other objects might enter that region
around the own object is calculated.” Id. (bolding omitted).
Appellant contends that paragraph 3 of Simon does not disclose the
claim limitation of “calculating], based on a reported position of a vehicle, a
probability that an actual position of the vehicle is within a region of
interest.” Appeal Br. 4—5. Appellant contends that this paragraph does not
further disclose how the “hazard probability” region is determined, but
paragraph 4 of Simon makes clear that this region does not disclose the
claimed “calculating” limitation. Id. at 5. Rather, Appellant contends,
Simon uses object types and a predefined dynamic vehicle model to
determine the “hazard probability” and its related region encompassing the
own object. Id.
We agree with Appellant that paragraph 3 of Simon does not disclose
the claimed “calculating” limitation. The Examiner responds that Simon’s
system takes into account the position of the own object (vehicle) and other
3
Appeal 2015-002555
Application 12/535,208
objects in the area to determine a collision probability and hazard probability
and determine a threat of a collision. Ans. 3. Accordingly, the Examiner’s
position is that the “own object” described in Simon corresponds to the
claimed “vehicle.” The Examiner references Figure 5 of Simon, and finds
that Simon determines if own object 48 (vehicle) and other object 49 are
within a “close proximity defining region of interest” by convolution of own
object 48 with other object 49 to get region of interest 50. Id. The Examiner
determines that Figure 5 shows that own object 48 is within region of
interest 50. Id.
Figure 5 of Simon shows a model for determining hazard probability
and appears to provide an example of the method described generally in
paragraph 3. See Simon 118. Paragraph 48 of Simon describes Figure 5 as
follows:
FIG. 5 shows schematically, from a bird’s-eye
perspective, how the collision probability can be determined.
Own object 48 is here convoluted with second object 49, so that
region 50 is created in the coordinate system of the own object.
This involves placing the own object with its reference point “+”
at the origin, and disposing second object 49 in multiple fashion
around own object 48 in such a way that contact just occurs
between objects 48 and 49. In multiple assemblage 51, reference
point “x” of the second object describes a contour that represents
the outline (edge) of region 50. This is the region that is taken
into consideration for the collision probability. This region must
be checked as to whether, at a future point in time, reference
point “x ” of the second object will be located within it. If so, this
corresponds to a collision. If such is not the case, then a collision
does not exist.
(Emphases added.)
Paragraph 48 does not disclose “calculate[ing], based on a reported
position of a vehicle [own object 48], a probability that an actual position of
4
Appeal 2015-002555
Application 12/535,208
the vehicle [own object 48] is within a region of interest,” as called for by
claim 22. Region 50 is created by placing own object 48 with its reference
point “+” at the origin, and disposing second object 49 at different positions
around own object 48. Id. Reference point “x” appears to be based on the
“current status of the own object.” See Simon || 3, 4. Even assuming
region 50 corresponds to the claimed “region of interest,” Simon does not
disclose calculating, based on a reported position of own object 48, a
probability that an actual position of own object 48 is within region 50.
Rather, the probability that Simon discloses calculating is of second object
49 entering region 50, based on whether reference point “x” of second object
49 will be located within region 50. See Simon || 3, 48.
The Examiner finds that paragraph 3 of Simon also discloses the
claim limitations of “determin[ing] whether a threat of a collision exists
between the vehicle and an object based on: (1) the probability that the
actual position of the vehicle is within the region of interest.” Final Act. 2—
3. However, because paragraph 3 of Simon does not disclose the
“calculating” limitation, it, accordingly, also does not disclose the
“determining” limitation. The Examiner also finds that Figure 5 of Simon
shows there is a threat of collision between the own object and the other
object. Ans. 4. We understand, however, that the own object is always
within region 50 because this region is created, based on the own object
position, to surround the own object. The Examiner has also not
demonstrated that Figure 5 of Simon and the related description discloses the
calculating limitation (i). Consequently, the Examiner has not established
by a preponderance of the evidence that Simon discloses all limitations of
claim 22.
5
Appeal 2015-002555
Application 12/535,208
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 22, and
claims 23—39, and 41—43 depending therefrom, as anticipated by Simon.
Obviousness of claim 40 over Simon and Frazier
The Examiner’s application of Frazier to the rejection of dependent
claim 40 does not cure the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 22, and we
do not sustain the rejection of claim 40 as unpatentable over Simon and
Frazier.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 22 43.
REVERSED
6