Ex Parte SinghalDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 30, 201411497047 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2014) 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. 11/497,047 08/01/2006 Tara Chand Singhal 11195.91 6997 103550 7590 05/01/2014 Tara Chand Sighal P.O. Box 5075 Torrance, CA 90510 EXAMINER WANG, JACK K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2682 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/01/2014 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 TARA CHAND SINGHAL ____________ Appeal 2011-004195 Application 11/497,047 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-004195 Application 11/497,047 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 16-22 and 24-35. Claims 1-15 and 23 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION The claimed invention relates to a satellite based Driver Mentally Impaired (DMI) determination system for auto safety that automatically enables, a reaction time test to be conducted, which measures the reaction time responses to simple questions, and determines the driver’s ability to drive, based on driver specific and generic reaction time profiles. See Abstract and Fig. 1A. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 16. A system that prevents temporarily mentally impaired drivers from driving a vehicle comprising: a. a driver mental impairment (DMI) safety system located in a ground station is linked via a communication satellite interface to a control module in the vehicle; b. the DMI safety system in the ground station is connected via Internet that enables driver and vehicle profiles required for a driver mental impairment test to be created and maintained in the ground station via the Internet; c. the DMI safety system for the driver mental impairment test through only an interactive voice response system from the Appeal 2011-004195 Application 11/497,047 3 ground station conducts a reaction time test on a vehicle driver to measure the driver’s mental state for safely operating the vehicle enabling centralized operation and management of the DMI safety system from the ground station via the communication satellite interface, without the need to create and maintain individual driver profiles in the control module in the vehicles. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 24 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. 1 2. The Examiner rejected claims 16, 19-22, 25, 27-29, and 31-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Murphy (U.S. Pat. No. 6,232,874 B1, May 15, 2001), and further in view of Mizuno et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2007/0134156 A1, Jun. 14, 2007). 3. The Examiner rejected claims 17 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Murphy in view of Mizuno, as applied to claims 16 and 25 above, and further in view of Naboulsi (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2004/0209594 A1, Oct. 21, 2004). 4. The Examiner rejected claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Murphy in view Mizuno, as applied to claim 16 above, further in view of MacCarthy (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2006/0170770 A1, Aug. 3, 2006). 5. The Examiner rejected claims 24, 30, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Murphy in view of Mizuno, as applied to 1 Appellant does not argue the rejection of claims 24 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. See Ans. 3-4. Accordingly, we summarily sustain the rejection. Appeal 2011-004195 Application 11/497,047 4 claims 16,19, 28, and 34 above, and further in view of Borugian (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2003/0095046 A1, May 22, 2003). ISSUES The pivotal issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Murphy and Mizuno teaches: 1. a driver mental impairment (DMI) safety system using a communication satellite to provide communication between a ground station and a vehicle; and 2. a driver profile impairment test located in the ground station and connected via the internet to the vehicle. ANALYSIS Appellant argues that that GPS of Murphy does not read on a communication satellite with a bidirectional communication link from central ground station to a vehicle (App. Br. 36), as required by claims 16, 25, and 34. Appellant argues the GPS satellite of Murphy is only a one way transmitter, not a bidirectional or interactive voice response system from a ground station (App. Br. 36-37). Appellant further argues the control system of claims 16, 25, and 34 does not require the function of location determination (LD) as provided by Murphy, and therefore the systems are different and distinguishable (App. Br. 38). The Examiner found that the satellite communication with bidirectional communication is well known and taught by the satellite of Murphy (Ans. 13). The Examiner additionally found that bidirectional is not literally required in any of claims. Appeal 2011-004195 Application 11/497,047 5 We agree with the Examiner findings that Murphy (col. 4, ll. 19-65) teaches a communication satellite (HILD) that provides interactive communication between a base station and a vehicle (Ans. 5). Murphy teaches interactive communication because the vehicle control system sends information and receives control actions to and from the base station (col. 4, ll. 25-30). Appellant argues the driver profiles of Murphy are maintained in a vehicle, while the claims require the profiles to be maintained at a ground station (App. Br. 37). “[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner found (Ans. 5 and 14) Murphy did not teach the profiles maintained at the ground station, but that Mizuno teaches a driver mental impairment test created and maintained at a ground station via the internet for improved system accessibility (¶ [0105]). We agree with the Examiner that the combined teachings of Murphy and Mizuno teach the driver profiles can be maintained either at the vehicle as taught by Murphy (col. 5, ll. 15-20) or at a location that is satellite connectable to the evaluation apparatus as in Mizuno (¶ [0105]). There are a finite number of choices for the location of the driver profiles of Murphy, either in the vehicle or in the base station. Consistent with KSR, one of ordinary skill in the art faced with the design need for the location of the driver profiles of Murphy, would have either stored them in the vehicle or in the base station, since it is among the finite number of identified, predictable solutions and the “person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the Appeal 2011-004195 Application 11/497,047 6 known options within his or her technical grasp.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Appellant argues the control system of Murphy functions by vehicle location (GPS), not by conducting an interactive reaction time test with an interactive voice response system as recited in claims 16, 25, and 34 (App. Br. 37). Appellant argues the control module in the claimed vehicle only has the function of audio communication with the DMI safety system and vehicles status and control information (App. Br. 38). Examiner found, and we agree, that additional features, such as vehicle location (GPS), do not teach away from the combined teaching of Murphy and Mizuno (Ans. 15). Appellant’s claims are open ended, reciting the transitional phrase “comprising,” and as such the claims do not preclude additional features such as vehicle location (GPS) (see Mars, Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding the term “comprising” being open-ended)). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the driver impairment test with a reaction time test was met by Murphy, where a required response time is required for a biometric indicium, such as a voice sample (col. 4, ll. 19-65). Appellant argues Mizuno is non-analogous art with the claimed invention (App. Br. 40). Appellant argues that Mizuno is limited to setting up communication between a fatigue evaluation apparatus and program codes supplied through a communication network (App. Br. 39). We disagree. “Whether a reference in the prior art is ‘analogous’ is a fact question.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1568 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). Contrary to the Appellant’s argument, the question is not whether Appeal 2011-004195 Application 11/497,047 7 references are directed to different endeavors. Instead, two criteria have evolved for answering the question: “(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Id. at 658-59 (citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979)). In the instant Appeal, both Murphy and Mizuno are analogous because they are in the same field of endeavor of preventing accidents due to driver fatigue or impairment. Appellant argues that the Examiner misapplied KSR because known elements were not applied by known methods for predictable results (App. Br. 43). Appellant argues that if the Examiner followed known elements and known methods, then the DMI would be installed in the vehicle. We do not agree. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. Appellant is arguing the teachings of Murphy separately without considering the combined teaching of Murphy and Mizuno. All of the features of the secondary reference need not be bodily incorporated into the primary reference, but consideration should be given to what the combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art (Id.). Murphy teaches the vehicle provides status parameters to the base station, which responds with Appeal 2011-004195 Application 11/497,047 8 signals for control actions such as locking the doors or killing the ignition (col. 4, ll. 27-30). Mizuno teaches that the fatigue evaluation apparatus can be supplied with program codes through communication networks, such as the internet and satellites (¶ [0105]). The combination of Murphy and Mizuno teaches the DMI at the ground station with the driver and vehicle profiles created and maintained at the base station to provide control signals to the vehicle, as set forth by the Examiner (Ans. 5). Appellant argues that the broadest reasonable interpretation of communication satellite does not include GPS and that the interactive voice response system for conducting reaction time tests does not include a reaction times test on a driver via a device (App. Br. 44). We do not agree for the reasons discussed supra. Murphy teaches an HILD Satellite (col. 4, ll. 25-30), which includes satellite GPS and interactive, bidirectional communication between a vehicle and a base station. Furthermore, Murphy teaches an interactive device using voice samples and audio communications with a required response time (col. 4, ll. 44-55). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16, and also the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17-22 and 24-35 for the same reasons. Appeal 2011-004195 Application 11/497,047 9 CONCLUSIONS The Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Murphy and Mizuno teaches: 1. a driver mental impairment (DMI) safety system using a communication satellite to provide communication between a ground station and a vehicle; and 2. a driver profile impairment test located in the ground station and connected via the internet to the vehicle. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 24 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is summarily affirmed and the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 16-22 and 24-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. 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 msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation