Ex parte SCHUESSLER

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 18, 1998

08197594 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 18, 1998)

Application for patent filed February 17, 1994.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte ROBERT SCHUESSLER

_____________
Appeal No. 96-3286
Application 08/197,5941
______________
HEARD: June 8, 1998
_______________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON and BARRETT, Administrative Patent
Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant has appealed to the Board from the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2 and 5 to 11, the examiner having
Appeal No. 96-3286
Application 08/197,594
Our understanding of this reference is based upon a2
translation provided by the Scientific and Technical Information
Center of the Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the
translation is enclosed with this decision.
2
objected to claims 3 and 4 as being allowable if written in
independent form.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. Device for determining a toll for a vehicle travelling
over a road section, comprising:
vehicle-carried means for determining the position of the
vehicle, and
a vehicle-carried road storage device in which data of at
least one toll-chargeable road network are electronically stored,
said road storage device also having stored therein road toll
parameters associated with said toll chargeable road network, an
individual road toll parameter being associated with a particular
road section of the road network and representing a proportional
road toll due for the use of this section, and
a vehicle-carried computer unit connected to the road
storage device and the means for determining the position, the
computer unit determining the toll due for the use of the route
sections travelled by the vehicle, based at least on data from
the means for determining the position, and road network and toll
parameter data from the road storage device.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Cardullo et al. (Cardullo) 3,713,148 Jan. 23, 1973
Tanaka et al. (Tanaka) DE 4033527 Apr. 25, 19912
(German Offenlegungsschrift)
Hirata DE 4130367 Mar. 19, 19922
Appeal No. 96-3286
Application 08/197,594
3
(German Offenlegungsschrift)
Siegle et al. (Siegle) DE 4039887 Jun. 17, 19922
(German Offenlegungsschrift)
Claims 1, 2 and 5 to 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has relied upon
appellant’s admitted prior art as set forth between page 1, line
26 and page 2, line 7, as well as between page 2, line 27 and
page 3, line 8 of the specification as filed, further in view of
Cardullo. Although the examiner does not specifically make
mention in the statement of the rejection of each of the three
German Patent Documents, each of them is specifically discussed
in the aforementioned portions of the specification the examiner
relies upon as admitted prior art by appellant. However, each is
listed at page 2 of the Answer.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the Brief and the Answer for the
respective details thereof.
Opinion
Generally, for one of the two reasons set forth by appellant
in the Brief as to independent claim 1 on appeal, we will reverse
Appeal No. 96-3286
Application 08/197,594
4
the rejection of all claims on appeal. As to independent claim
1, at oral hearing and at pages 8 through 11 of the Brief,
appellant argues two features of claim 1 are not taught or
suggested in the references relied upon. The first feature is
that portion of the vehicle-carried road storage device that
indicates this device stores road toll parameters associated with
said toll chargeable road network and individual toll parameters
being associated with a particular road section of the road
network and representing a proportional road toll due for the use
of this section. The second feature of claim 1 argued is that
the references do not individually or collectively teach the use
of such road toll parameter data in order to calculate the amount
of the toll that is due in the vehicle-carried computer unit
clause of claim 1 on appeal. With this second general assessment
of appellant, we fully agree.
Neither Tanaka nor Hirata relates to tolls in any manner.
Both in some manner relate to vehicle position detection.
Cardullo’s transponder is taught to be useable in an automatic
automotive vehicle highway toll system as expressed at column 3,
lines 40 through 59 and more specifically at column 7 of his
patent. No data other than toll dollar amounts may be entered
Appeal No. 96-3286
Application 08/197,594
5
into Cardullo’s memory, the data of which may be updated by the
normal usage and teachings of that system.
On the other hand, Siegle is the most comprehensive of any
of the references relied upon as relating to the subject matter
of independent claim 1. Its teachings and suggestions are also
much more comprehensive than the general correct assessment made
at the bottom of page 1 through the top of page 2 of the
specification as filed as relied upon by the examiner in the
statement of the rejection. Map and trip information may be
transferred from the beacon to the vehicle unit. Note generally
translation page 6 and the bottom of page 9. In addition, other
information such as traffic conditions, traffic jams, detours,
etc. may be transferred. Furthermore, the beacon may also send
data including hotel, railroad station, bank, service station,
and other data even data to colorize various roads including the
travelled routes as noted at the bottom of translation page 12
and the top of translation page 16. The discussion that follows
through page 17 indicates the normal operation of the toll system
portion of Siegle’s disclosure. Based on the expansive types of
data that may be transferred to the memory in the vehicle unit
from the beacon, we find it would have been obvious to have
transferred toll information for a route to be travelled of the
Appeal No. 96-3286
Application 08/197,594
6
type set forth in the vehicle-carried road storage device clause
of claim 1 on appeal.
Notwithstanding these considerations, we recognize there is
no explicit teaching of transferring this toll data in the
disclosure of Siegle. More significantly, however, we find no
teaching or suggestion in Siegle and/or any of the other
references relied upon for an on board vehicle-carried computer
unit to compute a road toll based upon sectionalized and
corresponding toll information as set forth in the vehicle-
carried computer unit clause of independent claim 1 on appeal.
In both Cardullo and Siegle, the only two references relating to
tolls relied upon by the examiner, both references receive from a
fixed station a toll amount demanded, which may be withdrawn from
the toll card storing a fixed amount of toll charges as in Siegle
and the toll dollar amount that may be withdrawn from the memory
in Cardullo. Siegle’s vehicle unit’s control is a microcomputer,
but specific road tolls are computed in Cardullo and Siegle only
externally of the on board vehicle unit. Cardullo has no means
for determining vehicle position although Siegle’s vehicle unit
does. In any event, there is no teaching or suggestion that on
Appeal No. 96-3286
Application 08/197,594
7
board sensed vehicle position also would be utilized by any on
board vehicle-carried computer unit to determine the toll based
upon the route section travelled from internally stored data as
required by the last clause of independent claim 1 on appeal.
In view of the foregoing, we reverse the rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103 of independent claim 1 on appeal. As such, we must
also reverse the outstanding rejection of dependent claims 2 and
5 to 11 on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 1, 2 and 5 to 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
REVERSED
Appeal No. 96-3286
Application 08/197,594
8
)
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EVENSON, McKEOWN, EDWARDS & LENAHAN
1200 G Street, N.W.
Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005