Ex Parte Schumann et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 31, 2019

13880926 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/880,926 12/16/2013
24972 7590 06/04/2019
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
NEW YORK, NY 10019-6022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Schumann
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
BOSC.P8002US/1000200213 2782
EXAMINER
AFRIFA-KYEI, ANTHONY D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/04/2019 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):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL SCHUMANN and VOLKER NIEMZ
Appeal2018-002444
Application 13/880,9261
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 11-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Robert Bosch GmbH as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal2018-002444
Application 13/880,926
BACKGROUND
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates generally to driver assistance systems.
Spec. 1: 10-11. The Specification discloses "vehicle-supported object
detection" where "[a] pulse is emitted into the surroundings using a
transducer situated in a vehicle, and the pulse, which is reflected back by an
object in the surroundings, is recorded using the transducer." Abstract. The
transducer has at least two directional lobes. Id. The reflected pulse is
separated into components on the basis of frequency shifts of components of
the pulse, produced by the Doppler Effect caused by the relative speed
between the transducer and the reflecting object. See Abstract; Spec. 1 :5-9.
The separated components are assigned to the respective directional lobes of
the transducer and object detection is carried out for the different signal
components and the assigned directional lobes. Abstract.
Exemplary independent claim 11 is reproduced below.
11. A method for vehicle-supported object detection,
compnsmg:
emitting a pulse into a surroundings using a transducer
situated on a vehicle; and
recording, using the transducer, a pulse that is reflected
back by an object in the surroundings, the transducer and the
object moving relative to each other, at least one of the emitting
and the detecting being carried out according to a directional
characteristic of the transducer, which has at least two directional
lobes;
separating signal components of the reflected pulse, which
have different frequency shifts, from one another based on the
frequency shifts;
assigning the signal components of the reflected pulse,
respectively, to one of the directional lobes; and
2
Appeal2018-002444
Application 13/880,926
detecting an object based on the different signal
components and the assigned directional lobes.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
1. Claims 11-13, 15, 16, and 18-21 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Rannells, Jr. et al. (US 6,264,337 Bl, issued July 24,
2001) ("Rannells Jr."), Toennesen et al. (US 2007/0222662 Al, published
Sept. 27, 2007) "Toennesen"), and James et al. (US 5,473,332, issued Dec.
5, 1995) ("James"). Final Act. 2-5.
2. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Rannells, Jr., Toennesen, James, and Schraga (US 2009/0040037 Al,
published Feb. 12, 2009). Final Act. 5-6.
3. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Rannells, Jr., Toennesen, James, and Horsky (US 2011/0267924 Al,
published Nov. 3, 2011). Final Act. 6.
DISCUSSION
Claim 1 recites "assigning the signal components of the reflected
pulse, respectively, to one of the directional lobes." App. Br. 3. The
Examiner finds that T oennesen, "[b ]y comparing the phases of the radar
echoes which are received by various patches 3 8 and which belong to the
same object, i.e., have the same propagation times and Doppler shifts, ... is
able to at least approximately determine the direction from which the echo
was received." Ans. 4 ( quoting Toennesen ,i 25). Additionally, Toennesen
states "it is feasible at least to distinguish whether the echo originates from
main lobe 26 or from secondary lobe 28." Ans. 4 (quoting Toennesen ,i 25).
3
Appeal2018-002444
Application 13/880,926
Id.
The Examiner concludes:
This would be an obvious indication to one of ordinary
skill in the art that the main lobe and the secondary lobe are
assigned signal components of which are transmitted and
reflected back to the respective lobes in order to indicate the
position of a vehicle in another lane relative to the original
vehicle that transmits the signals for the main lobe and secondary
lobe.
Appellants argue that although Toennesen's,
Paragraph 0025 states that " ... it is feasible at least to
distinguish whether the echo originates from main lobe 26 or
from secondary lobe 28." Nowhere, does it state that signal
components of the reflected pulse are assigned, respectively, to
one of the directional lobes; and detecting an object based on the
different signal components and the assigned directional lobes.
Reply Br. 2 ( emphasis omitted).
We agree with Appellants. Toennesen analyzes the propagation
times, frequencies, and phases of the radar echo. Toennesen ,-J 25. The
phases of the radar echo received by various patches of the radar sensor are
compared to determine the direction from which the echo was received. Id.
Toennesen then states "[i]n this way, it is feasible at least to distinguish
whether the echo originates from the main lobe 26 or from secondary lobe
28." Id. Although Toennesen discusses analyzing the frequencies and
phases of the radar echo and distinguishing whether the echo originates from
the main lobe or from secondary lobe, it does not disclose that the
components of the echo signal are distinguished to determine whether they
originate from the main and secondary lobes. The Examiner does not
provide any further explanation as to how Toennesen or the other cited
references would teach or suggest the disputed limitation.
4
Appeal2018-002444
Application 13/880,926
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 11, and independent claim 18, which was rejected on the
same basis (see Final Act. 4-5). We also do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of the pending dependent claims, for the same reasons.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 11-21 are reversed.
REVERSED
5