Ex Parte Sperrle

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2017

13828562 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 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.
13/828,562 03/14/2013 Christian Sperrle 081276-9626-US01 4726
34044 7590 03/30/2017
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch)
100 EAST WISCONSIN AVENUE
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
EXAMINER
HODGES, SUSAN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2489
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2017 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):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTIAN SPERRLE
Appeal 2016-0083541
Application 13/828,562
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JUSTIN BUSCH, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
YAP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—15, which are all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Robert Bosch LLC.
(App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2016-008354
Application 13/828,562
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention relates to a “standstill management function
[that] becomes active at or during vehicle standstill, either automatically or
based on driver input.” (Specification (filed March 14, 2013) (“Spec.”) 15.)
Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced below (with minor
reformatting):
1. A method of determining when a vehicle is at a standstill,
the method comprising:
detecting an object outside of the vehicle via a camera;
saving first data on the detected object in a memory;
detecting the same object after a delay;
saving, after the delay, second data on the detected object
in a memory;
analyzing, by a controller, the first and second data;
determining a standstill of the vehicle has occurred based
on the analysis.
Prior Art and Rejections on Appeal
The following table lists the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
US 6,137,531 Oct. 24,2000
US 2006/0039584 A1 Feb. 23, 2006
US 2013/0136309 A1 May 30, 2013
Claims 1^4 and 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Aichi in view of Zhang. (See Final Office Action (mailed
Sept. 4, 2015) (“Final Act.”) 4-8.)
Kanzaki et al.
(“Kanzaki”)
Aichi
Zhang et al.
(“Zhang”)
2
Appeal 2016-008354
Application 13/828,562
Claims 5—8 and 12—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Aichi, in view of Zhang, and further in view of
Kanzaki. (See Final Act. 9—11.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—15. We adopt as our own the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. (Ans. 2—5.) However, we highlight
and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Claim 1
With respect to independent claim l,2 the Examiner finds the
combination of Aichi and Zhang teaches or suggests “determining a
standstill of the vehicle has occurred based on the analysis.” (Final Act. 5.)
According to the Examiner, Aichi teaches “determining a standstill. . . has
occurred based on the analysis” (of claim 1) but “does not teach the
standstill specifically relating to the vehicle F but] Zhang is relied upon to
teach the ‘vehicle’ is at a standstill.” (Ans. 4.)
Appellant contends that the combination does not teach or suggest the
limitation at issue because “Aichi cannot disclose determining that a
standstill of the vehicle has occurred [because] Aichi is designed to detect
movement when the vehicle is standing still[, which is] the opposite of the
2 Claim 9 contains similar limitations at issue and Appellant argues claim 9
together with claim 1. (App. Br. 6.)
3
Appeal 2016-008354
Application 13/828,562
present invention.” (App. Br. 5—6.) The Examiner, however, is relying on
Zhang, rather than on Aichi, to teach “the ‘vehicle’ is at a standstill” and it is
the combination of Aichi and Zhang that teaches or suggests the limitation at
issue. Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error because one cannot
“show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here,
the rejections are based on combinations of references.” See In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
Appellant also contends that the “Examiner has changed his
argument” because in the Final Action, “the Examiner admits that Aichi fails
to teach determining the vehicle is at a standstill,” but in the Answer, the
Examiner “assert[s] that Aichi [] teaches determining that a vehicle standstill
has occurred.” (Reply 2.) We find that the rejection has not changed. In
the Final Action, the Examiner finds that Aichi teaches “determining a
standstill has occurred based on the analysis” but “Aichi does not
specifically teach the determining the vehicle is at a standstill.” (Final Act.
5, original bolding omitted, italics added.) This is consistent with the
Examiner’s position in the Answer: Aichi teaches “determining a standstill
[] has occurred based on the analysis” (of claim 1) but “does not teach the
standstill specifically relating to the vehicle [but] Zhang is relied upon to
teach the ‘vehicle’ is at a standstill.” (Ans. 4.)
Appellant also contends that “[t]here is no teaching in Aichi of
determining that a standstill has occurred.” (Reply 2.) Appellant further
elaborates that the Examiner is “extend[ing] the disclosure of Aichi to teach
something it does not” because “Aichi is determining that the object is not
moving, and makes no determination as to the movement of the vehicle.”
(Reply 2, emphasis added.) However, “Zhang is relied upon to teach the
4
Appeal 2016-008354
Application 13/828,562
‘vehicle’ is at a standstill” and the Examiner is relying on the combination of
Aichi and Zhang for the limitation at issue. (Ans. 4.) See Keller, 642 F.2d
at 426. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that Aichi teaches
or suggests “determining a standstill has occurred based on the analysis” in
paragraph 42 of Aichi and Appellant does not explain how the Examiner’s
specific findings are incorrect. (Ans. 3; Final Act. 5.)
As discussed above, the Examiner finds that while “Aichi teaches
‘determining a standstill has occurred based on the analysis’, Aichi does not
teach the standstill specifically relating to the vehicle f hjowever, Zhang is
relied upon to teach the ‘vehicle’ is at a standstill” (Ans. 4—5):
In step 24, a determination is made whether the vehicle is
moving. If the vehicle is not moving, then immobility of the
vehicle would provide rationale as to why there is no change in
the location of the landmarks between subsequent frames of the
captured image. If determination is that the vehicle is not
moving when the images are captured, then a return is made to
step 20.
(Zhang 116, emphasis added.) Appellant contends that Zhang does not
teach the limitation at issue because the
determination of whether the vehicle is moving is not linked to
the imaging system at all [and i]f there was a fault in the imaging
system, and the images were frozen, the system of Zhang would
always determine that the vehicle was at a standstill and that the
imaging system was working.
(Reply 3.) Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. Claim 1
merely requires a first data and a second data be detected “after a delay.”
Therefore, the claim, as written, would also determine that a vehicle is at a
standstill if there was a fault in the system and both the first data (of the
detected object) and second data are the same. Importantly, the Examiner is
relying on Zhang to teach “the ‘vehicle’ is at a standstill” and it is the
5
Appeal 2016-008354
Application 13/828,562
combination of Aichi and Zhang that teaches or suggests the limitation at
issue. Appellant is again trying to “show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on
combinations of references.” See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in
the rejection of independent claim 1 and sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claim 1, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 2—
15, which are not argued separately. (App. Br. 6.)
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—15 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6