Ex Parte Spangenberg

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2016

13146569 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/146,569 10/04/2011 Robert Spangenberg
23399 7590 09/22/2016
REISING ETHINGTON P.C.
PO BOX4390
TROY, MI 48099-4390
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.
8165.3001.001 5279
EXAMINER
RETALLICK, KAITLIN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2016 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
Exparte ROBERT SPANGENBERG
Appeal2015-007483
Application 13/146,569
Technology Center 2400
Before MARC S. HOFF, SCOTT E. BAIN, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-11, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
Appeal2015-007483
Application 13/146,569
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention is a method and device for determining a valid
lane marking with the aid of a camera system of a road vehicle. Several
successive pictures of the area in front of the subject vehicle are taken. At
least a first lane marking and a second lane marking are detected in at least
one picture of the series. A vehicle driving ahead of the subject vehicle is
detected in at least two successively taken pictures, and its position relative
to the first lane marking and the second lane marking is determined.
Dependent on the determined positions of the vehicle driving ahead, one of
the detected lane markings is selected as the valid lane marking. See
Abstract.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A method for determining a valid lane marking with the
aid of a camera system of a vehicle, in particular a road vehicle,
in which with the aid of a camera of the camera system
(16) several pictures (30, 54, 66) with images of an area in front
of the vehicle (12) are successively taken as a picture series,
and image data corresponding to the respective picture (30, 54,
66) are generated,
and in which the image data of at least a part of the
pictures (30, 54, 66) of the picture series are processed,
wherein at least a first lane marking (38, 40) and a
second lane marking (56, 58) different from the first lane
marking are detected in at least one picture of the picture series,
the second lane marking having been temporarily applied to
divert traffic from a lane delimited by the first lane marking,
a vehicle (34) driving ahead of the vehicle (12) ls
detected m at least two successively taken pictures (30, 54, 66)
of the picture series,
2
Appeal2015-007483
Application 13/146,569
for each of the at least two pictures, the position (Pl to
P4; Pl to P4*) of the vehicle driving ahead (34) relative to the
first lane marking (38, 40) and the position (Pl to P4; Pl to
P4 *) of the vehicle driving ahead (34) relative to the second
lane marking (56, 58) is determined,
and wherein, dependent on the positions (Pl to P4; Pl to
P4*) of the vehicle driving ahead (34) determined with the aid
of the pictures, one of the detected lane markings (38, 40; 56,
58) is selected as the valid lane marking.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
UN WIN EP 1530186 Bl Nov. 3, 2004
MIYAHARA US 2005/0244034 Al Nov. 3, 2005
IKEDA US 2008/0027627 Al Jan. 31, 2008
FURUSAWA US 2008/0056537 Al Mar. 6, 2008
MACHI! US 2008/0136612 Al June 12, 2008
MORI US 2009/0080704 Al Mar. 26, 2009
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ikeda, Machii, and Unwin.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ikeda, Machii, Unwin, and Furusawa.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ikeda, Machii, Unwin, Furusawa, and Mori.
3
Appeal2015-007483
Application 13/146,569
Claims 6-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ikeda, Machii, Unwin, Furusawa, Mori, and Miyahara.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
("App. Br.," filed Jan. 15, 2015), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Aug.
10, 2015), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed June 10, 2015) for
their respective details.
ISSUE
Appellant's arguments present us with the following issue:
Does the combination of Ikeda, Machii, and Unwin teach or suggest
that dependent on the positions of a vehicle driving ahead determined with
the aid of at least two successively taken pictures of a series, one of at least a
first detected lane marking and a second detected lane marking is selected as
the valid lane marking?
ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1-3 AND 11
Independent claim 1 recites a method of determining a valid lane
marking, from among at least a first detected lane marking and a second
detected lane marking, including determining, in at least two pictures, the
position of the vehicle driving ahead relative to the first lane marking and
relative to the second lane marking, "wherein, dependent on the positions ..
. of the vehicle driving ahead (34) determined with the aid of the pictures,
one of the detected lane markings is selected as the valid lane marking."
Independent claim 11 recites nearly identical limitations.
4
Appeal2015-007483
Application 13/146,569
The Examiner admits that none of the applied references - Ikeda,
Machii, and Unwin - discloses determining the position of a vehicle driving
ahead. See Ans. 3-5. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to modify Ikeda using the teachings of Machii, which discloses
detecting "automobiles, motorcycles, and other obstacles approaching a host
vehicle" from behind, citing Ikeda's teaching that multiple images are taken
of the lane in front of the vehicle. See Ans. 2; Machii i-f 35.
The Examiner finds that Machii teaches detection of another vehicle
through imaging, and determines the lane the vehicle is in using lane
markings recognition and the position of the vehicle in relation to the lane
markings. Ans. 4; Machii i-fi-135, 64. The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to modify the combination of Ikeda and Machii in order
to image a vehicle in front of the host vehicle, "since it is known to image a
vehicle that is traveling with or behind the host vehicle as taught by Machii
and the position of the camera is not of significance . . . . It is known in the
art to image in front of the subject/host vehicle [See Ikeda] and thus it would
have been obvious to detect the vehicle in front of the host vehicle." Ans.
17.
The Examiner accurately characterizes the teaching of Machii. We
nonetheless agree with Appellant that while the claimed invention is
concerned with determination of a valid lane marking for the host vehicle
based on the position of a vehicle ahead, Machii's teaching amounts to the
reverse concept, to wit, "determination of the position of a vehicle [behind]
based on the position of lane markings." App. Br. 13 (emphasis added).
Unwin's disclosure is limited to distinguishing temporary lane
markings in colored paint from regular lane markings in white paint. See
5
Appeal2015-007483
Application 13/146,569
Unwin il 3. Unwin does not cure the deficiencies of Ikeda and Machii in that
Unwin does not contemplate employing the position of a vehicle, whether
ahead or behind the subject vehicle, in the determination of valid lane
markings.
We agree with Appellant that the combined teachings of Ikeda,
Machii, and Unwin fails to teach or suggest determining, dependent on the
positions of a vehicle determined in a plurality of pictures, which of a
plurality of detected lane markings to select as the valid lane marking. As a
result, we do not sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of claims 1-3 and
11 over Ikeda, Machii, and Unwin.
CLAIMS 4--10
Each of these claims depends from independent claim 1. The
Examiner has not identified disclosure in Furusawa, Mori, or Miyahara that
cures the deficiencies of Ikeda, Machii, and Unwin identified supra.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the § 103 rejections of claims 4--10, for the
same reasons expressed with respect to the rejection of claim 1, supra.
CONCLUSION
The combination of Ikeda, Machii, and Unwin does not teach or
suggest that dependent on the positions of a vehicle driving ahead
determined with the aid of at least two successively taken pictures of a
series, one of at least a first detected lane marking and a second detected
lane marking is selected as the valid lane marking.
6
Appeal2015-007483
Application 13/146,569
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-11 is reversed.
REVERSED
7