Ex Parte Stabrey

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

13500049 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/500,049 06/28/2012
24972 7590 10/03/2016
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
NEW YORK, NY 10019-6022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stephan Stabrey
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.
1019117268 9727
EXAMINER
WHITTINGTON, JESS G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 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
Exparte STEPHAN STABREY
Appeal2015-000391
Application 13/500,049
Technology Center 3600
Before BRETT C. MARTIN, JILL D. HILL, and THOMAS F. SMEGAL,
Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of
claims 16-25 and 27-31. Claims 1-15 1 and26 were cancelled during
prosecution. See Ans. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Claims 1-15 were cancelled via a preliminary amendment.
Appeal2015-000391
Application 13/500,049
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to "a method for setting a limiting value of a
vehicle state variable in a driver assistance system in a vehicle in the event
of an accident." Spec. p. 1, 11. 1-3. Claim 16, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
16. A method for setting a limiting value of a vehicle state
variable in a driver assistance system in a vehicle in the event of
an accident, the method comprising:
modifying the limiting value of the vehicle state variable
for the case when a parameter characterizing a severity of the
accident exceeds an assigned first threshold value, wherein the
limiting value of the vehicle state variable is modified as a
function of acceleration values which occur during the accident,
and wherein the modifying of the limiting value of the vehicle
state variable is carried out only if the parameter characterizing
the severity of the accident does not exceed a specified second
threshold value which is greater than the first threshold value.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Wanke
Inagaki
Pengov
Ewer hart
us 5,711,024
US 2002/0147532 Al
US 2007/0162212 Al
US 2009/0132112 Al
REJECTIONS
Jan.20, 1998
Oct. 10, 2002
July 12, 2007
May 21, 2009
Claims 16-19 and 27-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Ewerhart. Ans. 4.
Claims 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ewerhart and Inagaki. Id.
2
Appeal2015-000391
Application 13/500,049
Claims 23 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ewerhart and Wanke. Id.
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ewerhart, Wanke, and Pengov. Id.
OPINION
The Examiner asserts that Ewerhart teaches each and every limitation
of each of independent claims 16, 30, and 31. Ans. 4. The Appellants
present one dispositive argument, among others, pertaining to a limitation
found in all three independent claims relating to the second threshold. See,
e.g., Reply Br. 2---6. According to the Examiner, Ewerhart teaches both the
first and second threshold because it teaches that
if the accident is a strong crash signal and the crash signal is
now in the range of implausibility, past a second threshold,
which is larger than the first threshold, the sensor will register
an implausible signal, thus restricting functions or the
deactivation of the system.
Ans. 6 (citing Ewerhart i-f 3).
While this may be accurate, the mere presence of a second threshold
is not what is present in the claims. As the Appellants point out "'when the
signal crosses from plausible to implausible,' is the upper limit for the
plausibility of the vehicle state variables sensed by the sensors, not an upper
threshold for the severity of the accident." Reply Br. 5 (emphasis removed).
The Appellants further correctly argue that
Ewerhart teaches that the specified upper limit value for the
plausibility is modified if any collision is detected ... , but there
is no suggestion to specify an upper limit of crash severity
[that] will prevent the initial modification of the upper limit
of plausibility of a vehicle state variable.
3
Appeal2015-000391
Application 13/500,049
Id. We do not see any disclosure in Ewerhart that specifies an upper limit of
the crash severity as a parameter limiting the initial modification, which is
what is claimed as the second threshold. Accordingly, we are persuaded that
the Examiner erred in finding that the second threshold in Ewerhart is
equivalent to the claimed second threshold. As such we do not sustain the
Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent claims 16, 30, and 31, nor
of dependent claims 17-19 and 27-29. We also do not sustain the remaining
obviousness rejections because they likewise rely on the same faulty
application of Ewerhart to the claims.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 16-25 and 27-31 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
REVERSED
4