Ex Parte Sanma et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 13, 201311821883 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 11/821,883 06/26/2007 Norio Sanma 4041P-000074 7617 27572 7590 09/13/2013 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. P.O. BOX 828 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303 EXAMINER MAWARI, REDHWAN K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3665 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/13/2013 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 NORIO SANMA, MASANORI KAWAURA, MASAKAZU KAGAWA, and YASUO YOSHIKAWA ____________ Appeal 2011-005084 Application 11/821,883 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and GAY ANN SPAHN, Administrative Patent Judges. STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-005084 Application 11/821,883 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Norio Sanma et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) claims 1, 2, 13, and 20 as unpatentable over Jocoy (US 2002/0036584 A1, published Mar. 28, 2002) and Schober (US 2007/0159311 A1, published Jul. 12, 2007); claims 3-6 as unpatentable over Jocoy, Schober, and Altan (US 6,871,145 B2, issued Mar. 22, 2005); and claim 12 as unpatentable over Jocoy, Schober, Altan, Wolterman (US 7,317,406 B2, issued Jan. 8, 2008), and Hatae (US 7,133,661 B2, issued Nov. 7, 2006). Claims 16-19 have been canceled and claims 7-11, 14, and 15 have been withdrawn. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). INVENTION Appellants’ invention relates to “a drive-assist information providing system.” Spec. 1, ll. 11-12. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is representative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 1. A drive-assist information providing system installed in a vehicle and designed to provide drive-assist information to a driver of the vehicle when the vehicle is running, or temporarily halting, on one lane of a road within a predetermined assist zone, the system comprising: a first obtaining unit configured to obtain a current position and behavior of the vehicle; a second obtaining unit configured to obtain a current position and behavior of at least one object around the vehicle; an identifying unit configured to identify current circumstances of the vehicle and therearound based on the current position and behavior of the vehicle and on the current position and behavior of the at least one object around the vehicle; Appeal 2011-005084 Application 11/821,883 3 a control unit configured to control how to provide the drive-assist information to the driver of the vehicle depending on the identified current circumstances of the vehicle and therearound a first output unit configured to output information to be visibly recognizable by the driver of the vehicle; and a second output unit configured to output information to be non-visibly recognizable by the driver of the vehicle, wherein the control unit is configured to: determine whether to select one of the first and second output units based on the identified current circumstances of the vehicle and therearound; and when it is determined to select one of the first and second output units, cause the selected one of the first and second output units to output the drive-assist information. SUMMARY OF DECISION We AFFIRM. ANALYSIS Appellants have not presented arguments for the patentability of claims 2, 13, and 20 apart from claim 1. Therefore, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011), we select claim 1 as the representative claim to decide the appeal of the rejection of these claims, with claims 2, 13, and 20 standing or falling with claim 1. The Examiner found that Jocoy discloses all the limitations of independent claim 1with the exception of a first output unit, a second output unit, and a controller unit, as called for by independent claim 1. Ans. 3-4; see also App. Br., Claims App’x. The Examiner further found that Schober discloses a first output unit configured to output information visually, a second output unit configured to output information non-visually, and a controller configured to determine whether to select one of the first or Appeal 2011-005084 Application 11/821,883 4 second output units based on the separation distance between two vehicles. Ans. 4-5 (citing to Schober, para. [0033]). Appellants argue that the controller unit of Schober fails to determine whether to select one of the first and second output units based on the identified circumstances of the vehicle and therearound, as called for by independent claim 1. App. Br. 9. According to Appellants, “Schober teaches always providing visual notice (green, yellow and red lights) and if the optional audible device is installed, provide audio notice. There is no decision making or determination taught by Schober.” Reply Br. 2. We disagree. Schober specifically discloses a first output unit having green, yellow, and red lights that are activated in accordance with the separation distance between vehicles. Schober, para. [0033]. Schober also discloses a second output unit, i.e., an audible device, that provides a warning tone when imminent collision is predicted. Id. Thus, depending on the separation distance between vehicles, we agree with the Examiner that the controller of Schober determines whether to activate the green, yellow, or red lights or, if imminent collision is predicted, the controller then determines to activate a warning tone. See Ans. 12-13. We also do not agree with Appellants’ position that the controller of Schober cannot carry out the determining function (see App. Br. 9) because attorney argument cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Finally, although we appreciate Appellants’ noted advantages obtained by the system of independent claim 1, nonetheless, Appellants’ argument is not commensurate with the scope of the capability called for in claim 1, which does not require that selection of one of a visual output and a Appeal 2011-005084 Application 11/821,883 5 non-visual output be determined based upon “circumstances where the visible warning information may become bothersome for the driver and/or cause distraction” or “circumstances where the visible warning information is required.” See App. Br. 10-11 and Reply Br. 4. As stated by our reviewing court in In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998), “the name of the game is the claim.” It is well established that limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). In this case, independent claim 1 merely requires that selection of one of a visual output and a non-visual output is determined based upon “identified current circumstances of the vehicle and therearound,” which the Examiner correctly interpreted as the separation distance between the vehicles of Schober. Appellants have not set forth any evidence or technical reasoning to show error in the Examiner’s interpretation. In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2, 13, and 20, standing or falling with claim 1, as unpatentable over Jocoy and Schober. Appellants do not make any other substantive arguments. See App. Br. 11 and Reply Br. 5. Accordingly, for the same reasons, we likewise sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 3-6 as unpatentable over Jocoy, Schober, and Altan and of claim 12 as unpatentable over Jocoy, Schober, Altan, Wolterman, and Hatae. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-6, 12, 13, and 20 is affirmed. Appeal 2011-005084 Application 11/821,883 6 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 mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation