Ex Parte Stählins et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 24, 2017

13810560 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 24, 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.
14423-071 8739
EXAMINER
LAFONTANT, GARY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2646
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/810,560 03/08/2013
40878 7590 07/25/2017
BGL/Continental Teves Inc.
C/O BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
524 South Main Street
Suite 200
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Ulrich Stahlins
07/25/2017 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 ULRICH STAHLINS and MARC MENZEL
Appeal 2017-004218
Application 13/810,560
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC B. CHEN, ADAM J. PYONIN, and DAVID J. CUTITTAII,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-004218
Application 13/810,560
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1—12 and 14. Claims 13 and 15 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to validating a vehicle-to-X message.
(Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method for validating a vehicle-to-X message received
by an antenna arrangement of a vehicle-to-X communication device,
the antenna arrangement having at least two antenna elements, the
method comprising the steps of:
picking up an electromagnetic field strength of the vehicle-to-X
message with different power densities by the at least two antenna
elements due to the different reception characteristics of the at least
two antenna elements,
wherein the vehicle-to-X message is provided in a form
identifying an absolute position of a transmitter,
determining an absolute position of a receiver on the basis of a
global satellite navigation method or on the basis of a map
comparison, and
calculating from the absolute position of the receiver and the
absolute position of the transmitter, a first relative position of the
transmitter with respect to the receiver,
calculating a second relative position of the transmitter with
respect to the receiver based on a reference set of curves from the
ratio of the power densities picked up by the at least two antenna
elements of the antenna arrangement,
providing the reference set of curves in the form of a
multiplicity of ratios of the power densities picked up in the at least
two antenna elements in dependence on a multiplicity of directional
angles and distances of the receiver from the transmitter,
2
Appeal 2017-004218
Application 13/810,560
calculating the second relative position of the transmitter with
respect to the receiver based on the multiplicity of ratios of the
incoming electromagnetic field strengths of the vehicle-to-X message
in different elements of the antenna arrangement, and
wherein a comparison of the first relative position with the
second relative position is performed and, when the most extensive
correspondence of the first relative position with the second relative
position is detected, the vehicle-to-X message is validated or when the
most extensive deviation of the first relative position from the second
relative position is detected, the vehicle-to-X message is rejected.
Claims 1—12 and 14 stand rejected1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Basnayake (US 2009/0271112 Al; Oct. 29, 2009),
Bemtsen et al. (US 8,223,073 B2; July 17, 2012), and Bauer et al. (US
2008/0042876 Al; Feb. 21, 2008).
ANALYSIS
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 10-13; see
also Reply Br. 2—5) that the combination of Basnayake, Bemtsen, and Bauer
would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the
imitation “calculating from the absolute position of the receiver and the
absolute position of the transmitter, a first relative position of the transmitter
with respect to the receiver.”
The Examiner found that in Basnayake, the sending vehicle’s
transmission of raw GPS measurements to the receiver system in a receiving
vehicle for calculation of a relative position, correspond to the limitation
“calculating from the absolute position of the receiver and the absolute
1 We refer to the Final Office Action, mailed Dec. 16, 2015, the Appeal
Brief, filed May 13, 2016, the Examiner’s Answer, mailed Dec. 14, 2016,
and the Reply Brief, filed Jan. 13, 2017.
3
Appeal 2017-004218
Application 13/810,560
position of the transmitter, a first relative position of the transmitter with
respect to the receiver.” (Final Act. 7; see also Ans. 7.) We agree with the
Examiner’s findings.
Basnayake relates to “authenticating a message sent from one vehicle
to another vehicle.” (12.) Figure 1 of Basnayake illustrates
communications network 10 for vehicle-to-vehicle communications, in
which a forward vehicle 12 sends messages 26 to a following vehicle 16,
such messages 26 including “a V2V or V2X data portion 28 having various
information about the sending vehicle, such as vehicle speed, vehicle
position, acceleration, deceleration, status of various systems.” (114.)
Basnayake explains that the forward vehicle 12 includes GPS receiver 22
and that the following vehicle 16 includes GPS receiver 24, such that both
vehicles receive GPS signals from satellites 20. (Id.)
Figure 3 of Basnayake illustrates a block diagram of receiver
system 60 for a receiving vehicle (i.e., following vehicle 16). (118.)
Basnayake further explains that “system 60 also includes a DSRC radio 68
that receives the messages from the sending vehicle by an antenna 70 where
the messages are demodulated and separated into the sending vehicle’s raw
GPS measurements 72” and that such “raw measurements 72 are also sent to
the RTK engine 66 that calculates the precise relative position of the sending
vehicle based on the raw data.” (Id.)
Because receiver system 60 of Basnayake, which resides in the
receiving vehicle (i.e., following vehicle 16), uses raw measurements 72
from the sending vehicle to calculate the “relative position” of the sending
vehicle (i.e., forward vehicle 12), Basnayake teaches the limitation
“calculating from the absolute position of the receiver and the absolute
4
Appeal 2017-004218
Application 13/810,560
position of the transmitter, a first relative position of the transmitter with
respect to the receiver.”
Appellants argue that “the Final Office Action states ‘[t]he vehicle 16
can compare the calculated positon of the vehicle 16 to the position of the
vehicle 12 in the V2V data portion 28 that the user has calculated from the
GPS re measurement data to define its position’” and thus, “the Office
Action relies on paragraph [0016] of Basnayake for this support.” (App.
Br. 10.) Accordingly, Appellants argue, “Basnayake only discloses
comparing the calculated position of the vehicle 12 (the sender vehicle) to
the position of the vehicle 12 (also the sender vehicle)” and “[t]here is no
comparison between the positions of the sender vehicle to the receiver
vehicle as claimed in the independent claims.” {Id. at 11 (emphases
omitted).) However, as discussed previously, the Examiner also cited to
paragraph 18 of Basnayake, which teaches the limitation “a first relative
position of the transmitter with respect to the receiver.”
Appellants further argue that “[paragraph 18 of Basnayake] also
makes no mention of comparing the positions of the sender vehicle to the
receiver vehicle,” but instead, “[t]his paragraph only discloses determining
the position of the sending vehicle using data received from the sending
vehicle.” (Reply Br. 3.) Similarly, Appellants argue that “[Figure 3 of
Basnayake] also makes no mention of comparing the positions of the sender
vehicle to the receiver vehicle.” {Id. at 5.) However, paragraph 18 of
Basnayake provides a description of Figure 3, which is a block diagram of
receiver system 60 in a receiving vehicle. Appellants argue the cited
paragraphs 14—16, 18, 19, 21, and Figure 3 of Basnayake separately {see
Reply Br. 2—5), and do not account for the combined teachings of such
5
Appeal 2017-004218
Application 13/810,560
citations. When the last sentence of paragraph 18 is read in the context of
the entire paragraph, the term “relative position of the sending vehicle”
refers to a relative position of the sending vehicle with respect to the
receiving vehicle. (See 118.)
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Basnayake,
Bemtsen, and Bauer would have rendered obvious independent claim 1,
which includes the limitation “calculating from the absolute position of the
receiver and the absolute position of the transmitter, a first relative position
of the transmitter with respect to the receiver.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2—9 depend from claim 1, and Appellants have not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2—9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
Independent claims 10 and 11 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
We sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 11, as well as dependent claims 12
and 14, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—12 and 14 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