Ex Parte Seiter et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 18, 2017

13177277 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 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.
13/177,277 07/06/2011 Michael Seiter BOSC.P7031US/11602996 6150
24972 7590 05/22/2017
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
NEW YORK, NY 10019-6022
EXAMINER
RAMESH, KRISHNAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/22/2017 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):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL SEITER and FLORIAN RAISCH
Appeal 2015-006606
Application 13/177,277
Technology Center 3600
Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
4—16 and 18—22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2015-006606
Application 13/177,277
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method and device for assisting a driver
of a motor vehicle. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1 A method for assisting a driver of a motor vehicle in a driving
maneuver, comprising:
recording, by at least one sensor, surroundings of the
vehicle;
identifying, by a hardware control unit and based on the
recorded surroundings, an object located in the surroundings of
the vehicle;
ascertaining, by the control unit, whether the vehicle is
approaching the object;
calculating, by the control unit, a distance based on a first
path estimated to be covered during a driver reaction time and a
second path in which the vehicle can be manually braked after
the reaction time;
outputting a warning to the driver when the vehicle
approaches the distance from the object, the warning including a
warning jerk; and
after the warning jerk has taken place, automatically
reducing the speed of the vehicle;
wherein the warning jerk includes one of:
(i) a deceleration of the vehicle in which the speed of the
vehicle is reduced, and subsequent positive acceleration of the
vehicle in which the speed of the vehicle is increased; and
(ii) positive acceleration of the vehicle in which the speed
of the vehicle is increased and subsequent deceleration of the
vehicle in which the speed of the vehicle is reduced.
2
Appeal 2015-006606
Application 13/177,277
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Koike et al. US 6,583,403B1 June 24, 2003
(“Koike”)
Yamadaji et al. US 2004/0049343 Al Mar. 11,2004
(“Yamadaji”)
Albero et al. US 2004/0155811 Al Aug. 12, 2004
(“Albero”)
Doerr et al. US 2006/0097570 Al May 11,2006
(“Doerr”)
Haberer et al. US 2006/0100783 Al May 11,2006
(“Haberer”)
Von Holt et al. US 2006/0163943 July 27, 2006
(“Von Holt”)
Ewerhart et al. US 2007/0299610 Al Dec. 27, 2007
(“Ewerhart”)
Becker US 2010/0114490 Al May 6, 2010
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a):
- Claims 1, 4, 6—10, 13, 16, 18, 21and 22 as unpatentable over Doerr,
Albero, and Yamadaji. Final Act. 2.
- Claims 5, 11 and 15 as unpatentable over Doerr, Albero, Yamadaji, and
Von Holt. Final Act. 16.
- Claims 12 and 20 as unpatentable over Doerr, Albero, Yamadaji, and
Koike. Final Act. 19.
- Claim 14 as unpatentable over Doerr, Albero, Yamadaji, and Ewerhart.
Final Act. 21.
3
Appeal 2015-006606
Application 13/177,277
- Claim 19 as unpatentable over Doerr, Albero, Yamadaji, Haberer, and
Becker. Final Act. 22.
OPINION
Regarding the dispositive issue in this case, Appellants correctly argue
that there are only limited instances when a generic disclosure, such as
“deceleration and acceleration,” (Final Act. 5—6 (citing Yamadaja para. 54))
can be relied upon to meet a narrower, more specific limitation, such as that
calling for both acceleration and deceleration to occur sequentially to create
a warning jerk, as required by each of the independent claims before us.
Reply Br. 2 (arguing claims 1,13, and 18). Namely, only where, based on
the generic disclosure, one skilled in the art can “at once envisage” the more
specific arrangement called for by the claim language can the claim
language be considered as satisfied by the prior art disclosure. MPEP
§2131.02.
There is insufficient evidence to conclude that Yamadaji used the
word “and” between acceleration and deceleration to indicate that both
acceleration and deceleration are used, as opposed to, for example, simply
using “and” as a conjunctive separator between the listed measures. See
Ans. 5—6. Although the words deceleration and acceleration are grouped
together as part of a list of measures for collision avoidance there is no
indication that both deceleration and acceleration cooperate to create a
warning to the driver. See Ans. 5—6. Thus, the Examiner has not
established by a preponderance of the evidence that that one skilled in the art
would understand from Yamadaji that both acceleration and deceleration are
employed in sequence to create a “warning jerk” as required by each of the
4
Appeal 2015-006606
Application 13/177,277
independent claims. Reply Br. 2—3. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the
Examiner’s rejections on the basis set forth by the Examiner.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
REVERSED
5