Ex Parte Rudenko et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2017

14510277 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2017)

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.
14/510,277 10/09/2014 Alexey Rudenko 14-0221-US-NP
800-0055US
7683
107112 7590 09/27/2017
The Small Patent Law Group LLC
225 S. Meramec, Suite 725
St. Louis, MO 63105
EXAMINER
ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE, GERTRUDE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3661
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2017 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):
docket@ splglaw.com
patentadmin @ boeing. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXEY RUDENKO, TSAI-CHING LU,
CRAIG A. LEE, and FRANZ DAVID BETZ
Appeal 2017-003216
Application 14/510,277
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN A. EVANS, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 1—20, all claims in the application.
App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.1
1 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed August 24, 2016), the Reply Brief (filed
December 12, 2016), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed October 13, 2016), the
Final Action (mailed April 19, 2016), and the Specification (filed October 9,
2014).
Appeal 2017-003216
Application 14/510,277
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
The claim relates to a monitoring system for vehicle sub-systems. See
Abstract.
Claims 1,12, and 17 are independent. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of illustrative Claim 1, which is
reproduced below with some formatting and emphasis added:
1. A vehicle comprising:
at least one operative sub-system on or within the
vehicle, wherein the at least one operative sub-system includes
at least one sensor configured to output one or more sensor
signals related to the at least one operative sub-system; and
a monitoring system in communication with the at least
one operative sub-system, wherein the monitoring system is
configured to:
(a) correlate the one or more sensor signals with respect
to time,
(b) compile initial statistics of the one or more sensor
signals with respect to a plurality of variables of the at least
one operative sub-system; and
(c) correlate the plurality of variables of the at least one
operative sub-system.
Rejection
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Brillhart (Brillhart, el al., US 2010/0057290 Al, March 4,
2010). Final Act. 2—5.
2
Appeal 2017-003216
Application 14/510,277
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-20: Obviousness over Brillhart
Compile initial statistics of the one or more sensor signals with respect to a
plurality of variables of the at least one operative sub-system.
Appellants contend Brillhart teaches a vehicle diagnostic system that
detects a fault indicator associated with a vehicle sub-system, but the fault
indicator is not compared to indications relating to that particular vehicle,
rather a comparison is made to other vehicles within a geographical region.
App. Br. 10-11.
The Examiner finds “each vehicle has the capability of monitoring
itself and with other vehicle[s].” Ans. 6 (citing Brillhart, 115,11. 15—19).
Appellants maintain the vehicle diagnostic system of Brillhart does
not compare a fault indicator to anything related to that vehicle. Reply Br. 3.
Appellants argue rather, Brillhart teaches the “corroborative diagnostic
controller compares the fault indicator with the conditions of the additional
vehicle.” Id. (quoting Brillhart, 111). We agree with Appellants.
Brillhart teaches the instant vehicle compares itself to other vehicles
in a geographic area:
The corroborative vehicle diagnostic system allows the vehicle
to compare the fault indicator with similar and/or dissimilar
conditions experienced by one or more additional vehicle
located within a geographic region.
Brillhart, Abstr.
Embodiments described herein comprise a system and method
for corroborative vehicle diagnostic. The corroborative vehicle
diagnostic system allows a vehicle to detect a fault indicator
experienced by a vehicle subsystem. The corroborative vehicle
diagnostic system allows the vehicle to compare the fault
3
Appeal 2017-003216
Application 14/510,277
indicator with similar and/or dissimilar conditions experienced
by one or more additional vehicles located within a geographic
region. A corroborative diagnostic controller compares the
fault indicator with the conditions of the additional vehicle.
Brillhart, 111,11. 3-7.
The corroborative vehicle diagnostic system 100 includes one
or more corroborative diagnostic controllers 102 capable of
comparing one or more conditions and one or more fault
indicators experienced by multiple vehicles within a geographic
location.
Brillhart, 115,11. 1—10 (citied by the Examiner).
Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in
finding Brillhart teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Independent
Claims 1, 12, and 17 recite commensurate limitations.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
4