Ex parte SEYMOUR et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 2, 1998

08255128 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 2, 1998)

Application for patent filed June 7, 1994. According1
to appellants, the application is a continuation of
Application 07/786,450, filed November 1, 1991.
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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte LESLIE G. SEYMOUR,
MICHAEL BARENA, and
ALLAN KIRSON
__________
Appeal No. 97-2524
Application 08/255,1281
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before KRASS, JERRY SMITH, and TORCZON, Administrative Patent
Judges.
JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 97-2524
Application 08/255,128
2
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 9 and 11-20,
which constitute all the claims remaining in the application.

The disclosed invention pertains to a vehicle route
guidance system and method. More particularly, the route
guidance system of the invention provides instructions to a
driver which take into account the timing preferences of the
driver.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A vehicle route guidance system comprising:
means for sensing vehicle location;
means for determining a location of an anticipated
vehicle manoeuvre;
means for comparing said sensed vehicle location and said
determined location and generating a distance difference
corresponding to a difference between the vehicle location and
the location of the anticipated vehicle manoeuvre;
means for providing driver instruction timing preferences
in accordance with the generated distance difference;
means, responsive to said generated distance difference,
for determining a degree of conformance to the driver
Appeal No. 97-2524
Application 08/255,128
3
instruction timing preferences, and for generating a guidance
instruction whose timing is determined by the degree of
conformance to the driver instruction timing preferences; and
means for communicating said guidance instruction to a
driver of the vehicle.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Nimura et al. (Nimura ’696) 4,882,696 Nov. 21, 1989
Nimura et al. (Nimura ’751) 4,937,751 June 26, 1990
Davis et al. (Davis) 5,177,685 Jan. 05, 1993
(filed Aug. 09,
1990)
Claims 1, 9, 17 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by the disclosures of Nimura
’696 or Nimura ’751. Claims 1, 2, 9, 11-15 and 17-20 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the
disclosure of Davis. Finally, claim 16 stands rejected under
35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Davis.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
Appeal No. 97-2524
Application 08/255,128
4
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in the brief
along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that Nimura ’696 and Nimura ’751 do not fully meet
the invention as set forth in claims 1, 9, 17 and 19. We are
also of the view that Davis does fully meet the invention as
recited in claims 1, 2, 9, 11, 12, 17 and 18, but Davis does
not anticipate the invention of claims 13-15, 19 and 20.
Finally, we are of the view that the evidence relied upon
would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art
the obviousness of the invention as set forth in claim 16.
Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
Appeal No. 97-2524
Application 08/255,128
5
We consider first the rejection of independent claims
1, 9, 17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by the disclosures of Nimura ’696 or Nimura ’751.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as
well as disclosing structure which is capable of performing
the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied
Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385,
388 (Fed. Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L.
Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540,
1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469
U.S. 851 (1984).
The examiner supports this rejection by attempting to
read exemplary claim 1 on each Nimura reference [answer, page
3].
Appellants argue that neither Nimura reference discloses the
claimed means for providing driver instruction timing
preferences and the means for determining a degree of
conformance [brief, pages 4-8]. The examiner points to the
Appeal No. 97-2524
Application 08/255,128
6
methodology of the Nimura references and asserts that Nimura
’696 and Nimura ’751 inherently suggest and/or disclose the
claimed features [answer, pages 5-6].
We agree with appellants that neither Nimura reference
discloses the invention of independent claims 1, 9, 17 and 19.
The data processing controller of either Nimura reference does
not provide instructions based on the driver’s timing
preferences. The timing instructions in each Nimura reference
are location dependent only. That is, instructions in both
Nimura references are timed to occur at specific locations and
are not based on individual driver timing preferences. Thus,
driver instruction timing preferences are not provided in
Nimura ’696 or Nimura ’751. Therefore, there is also no
degree of conformance determined as recited in independent
claims 1 and 9 nor a timing preference score determined as
recited in independent claim 19. Since the invention of
claims 1, 9, 17 and 19 is not fully disclosed by either Nimura
reference, we do not sustain the rejections based on Nimura
’696 or Nimura ’751. We now consider the
rejection of claims 1, 2, 9, 11-15 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. §
Appeal No. 97-2524
Application 08/255,128
7
102(e) as anticipated by the disclosure of Davis. The
examiner supports this rejection by attempting to read
exemplary claim 1 on Davis [answer, pages 3-4]. With respect
to claim 1, appellants argue that Davis does not disclose
generating “distance differences,” driver preferences for
instruction timing or generating an instruction whose timing
is determined by a degree of conformance [brief, pages 12-14].
We do not agree with any of these contentions of
appellants. Davis clearly calculates distance differences
because Davis must calculate the place to speak by calculating
distances from where a maneuver is to take place [column 18,
lines 19-31]. The actual location must be compared to the
calculated location in order to implement the instruction at
the proper time. These calculations result in distance
differences. Davis discloses providing driver
instruction timing preferences. Davis indicates that “[t]he
Back Seat Driver preferably stores knowledge of its users, and
uses this knowledge to customize its instructions to the
preferences of the users” [column 2, lines 59-62]. Davis also
notes that the new user should play the role of “back seat
Appeal No. 97-2524
Application 08/255,128
8
driver” and give instructions while in a car for some route
[column 21, lines 2-4]. These instructions of the driver
would include the driver’s own timing preferences. Davis
discloses that the Back Seat Driver learns the style of
instruction giving appropriate for each user. Finally, Davis
observes that the Back Seat Driver will collect user
information and offer instructions without being asked. These
disclosures of Davis would clearly suggest to the artisan that
the user-models in Davis contain driver instruction timing
preferences as broadly recited in claim 1.
The broad recitation of determining a degree of
conformance is also disclosed in Davis because Davis generates
an instruction when a specific location based on driver
preference has been reached. That is, the degree of
conformance in Davis is that a specific location as desired by
the driver must be reached and the instruction generated at
that time. This operation broadly meets the recitations of
claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as
anticipated by the disclosure of Davis. Since independent
Appeal No. 97-2524
Application 08/255,128
9
claim 9 is essentially analogous to claim 1, we also sustain
the rejection of claim 9.
With respect to claim 2, appellants argue that Davis
does not teach that the guidance instruction timing is
dependent on the measured speed of the vehicle. We do not
agree. Davis discloses that the navigator of the Back Seat
Driver maintains an estimate of the current position and
velocity of the car [column 25, lines 10-11]. Davis also
discloses that the Back Seat Driver determines at what point
to offer instructions to safely implement maneuvers based on
the speed of the vehicle. We are of the view that this
disclosure of Davis meets the broad recitation of claim 2 that
the timing of instructions is dependent on the speed of the
vehicle. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 2.
With respect to claim 11, appellants merely assert
that Davis does not disclose variable driver instruction
timing preferences [brief, page 15]. In our view, the user-
models created in Davis would clearly provide variable timing
preferences consistent with the preferences initially
established by the user acting as a “back seat driver.”
Appeal No. 97-2524
Application 08/255,128
10
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 11. With
respect to claim 12, appellants make the vehicle speed
argument that we considered earlier. Since Davis clearly
generates instructions based on the speed of the vehicle, we
sustain the rejection of claim 12.
With respect to claim 13, appellants argue that Davis
does not disclose any plurality of continuous functions
related to driver instruction timing preferences [brief, page
15]. Although we have determined that Davis does disclose the
broad concept of driver instruction timing preferences, we
agree with appellants that there is no disclosure in Davis of
what form these timing preferences should take. There
certainly is no disclosure in Davis that driver instruction
timing preferences should be comprised of a plurality of
continuous functions. Since the rejection is under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 and we can find no disclosure of continuous functions as
recited in claim 13, we do not sustain the rejection of claim
13 as anticipated by Davis. Since claims 14-16 depend from
claim 13, we also do not sustain the rejection of these
claims.
Appeal No. 97-2524
Application 08/255,128
11
With respect to claims 17 and 18, these claims recite
features which we discussed earlier in the rejection of claims
1 and 2. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 17 and
18 for reasons discussed above.
With respect to independent claim 19, appellants argue
that Davis has no disclosure of providing a maneuver
announcement timing preference score based on speed and
distance, and generating the guidance instructions at a timing
dependent on the timing preference score [brief, page 22]. We
agree with appellants that there is no disclosure in Davis of
computing a score in the manner recited in claim 19.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 19 as
anticipated by the disclosure of Davis. Since claim 20
depends from claim 19, we also do not sustain the rejection of
claim 20 as anticipated by the disclosure of Davis.
We now consider the rejection of claim 16 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the teachings of Davis. Claim 16
depends from claim 13 through claim 14. As noted above in our
discussion of the rejection of claim 13, Davis does not
Appeal No. 97-2524
Application 08/255,128
12
disclose the plurality of continuous functions recited
therein. This rejection of claim 16 under Section 103 also
does not indicate why it would have been obvious to the
artisan to modify the structure of Davis to have the driver
instruction timing preferences be comprised of a plurality of
continuous functions. Therefore, the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of the obviousness of claim 16.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 16 as
unpatentable over Davis.
In summary, the rejection of claims 1, 9, 17 and 19 as
anticipated by Nimura ’696 or Nimura ’751 has not been
sustained. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 9, 11-15 and 17-20
as anticipated by Davis is sustained with respect to claims 1,
2, 9, 11, 12, 17 and 18, but is not sustained with respect to
claims 13-15, 19 and 20. The rejection of claim 16 as
unpatentable over Davis is not sustained. Accordingly, the
decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 9 and 11-20 is
affirmed-in-part.
Appeal No. 97-2524
Application 08/255,128
13
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
)
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
RICHARD TORCZON )
Administrative Patent Judge )

sd
Appeal No. 97-2524
Application 08/255,128
14
Donald B. Southard
Motorola, Inc.
1303 E. Algonquin Road
Schaumburg, IL 60196