Ex Parte Stiller

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 3, 2009

10362989 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 3, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte CHRISTOPH STILLER
____________________

Appeal 2009-005775
Application 10/362,989
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Decided: December 3, 2009
____________________

Before WILLIAM F. PATE, III, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, and
FRED A. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Christoph Stiller (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134
of the final rejection of claims 20, 22-24 and 26-40. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

Appeal 2009-005775
Application 10/362,989

2
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to manipulating at least one
vehicle parameter to increase the safety of vehicle occupants in response to
monitoring the vicinity and the interior of the vehicle (Spec. 1:2-3; Spec.
2:27-Spec. 3:30).
Claim 20, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
20. A method of manipulating at least one
parameter of a vehicle to optimize vehicle
occupant safety, the method comprising:
monitoring a vicinity of the vehicle for
occurrence of at least one relevant event, wherein
the at least one relevant event includes detection of
at least one of another vehicle, a person outside the
vehicle and an object in the vicinity of the vehicle;
monitoring a vehicle interior for an actual
position of at least one person inside the vehicle;
supplying signals corresponding to one of
the at least one relevant event and the actual
position to an evaluation unit upon occurrence of
the at least one relevant event and on detecting the
actual position; and
activating, based on an evaluation output of
the evaluation unit, an active safety system and a
passive safety system of the vehicle as a function
of the at least one relevant event and the actual
position;
wherein kinematics of the at least one of
another vehicle, the person outside the vehicle, and
the object detected in the vicinity of the vehicle is
predicted and kinematics of the at least one person
Appeal 2009-005775
Application 10/362,989

3
inside the vehicle is predicted, and wherein the
predicted kinematics of the at least one of another
vehicle, the person outside the vehicle and the
object in the vicinity of the vehicle and the
predicted kinematics of the at least one person
inside the vehicle are considered by the evaluation
unit in generating the evaluation output.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Shuman EP 1 034 984 A2 Sep. 13, 2000
Breed US 6,910,711 B1 Jun. 28, 2005

The following rejection by the Examiner is before us for review:
Claims 20, 22-24 and 26-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Shuman in view of Breed.

ISSUE
The issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in concluding that
the combined teachings of Shuman and Breed would have led a person
having ordinary skill in the art to use the predicted kinematics of a vehicle
occupant to control both the vehicle active safety system and the vehicle
passive safety system occupant as called for in claims 20 and 34 (Reply Br.
3-5, App. Br. 5-7).
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings are supported by at
least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d
Appeal 2009-005775
Application 10/362,989

4
1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for
proceedings before the Office).
The Board’s Findings
1. Shuman describes controlling a vehicle active safety system (e.g.,
managing vehicle speed as well as braking) by predicting the
kinematics of another vehicle, a person outside the vehicle or an
object in the vicinity of the vehicle (col. 10, para. [0059]; col. 11,
para. [0065]; col. 14, para. [0086]; col. 16-17, para. [0096]; and
col. 20, para. [0115]).
2. Breed describes controlling a vehicle passive safety system (e.g.,
deployment of an air bag) by predicting the kinematics of a vehicle
occupant (col. 25, l. 17-col. 26, l. 63).
3. Additional findings as necessary appear in the Analysis portion of
this opinion.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Obviousness
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3)
the level of skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary
Appeal 2009-005775
Application 10/362,989

5
considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See
also KSR, 550 U.S. at 407 (“While the sequence of these questions might be
reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the
inquiry that controls.”).

ANALYSIS
Claim Construction
Claims 20 and 34 are the only independent claims on appeal.
Claim 20 calls for, inter alia,
activating, based on an evaluation output of
the evaluation unit, an active safety system and a
passive safety system of the vehicle as a function
of the at least one relevant event and the actual
position;
wherein kinematics of the at least one of
another vehicle, the person outside the vehicle, and
the object detected in the vicinity of the vehicle is
predicted and kinematics of the at least one person
inside the vehicle is predicted, and wherein the
predicted kinematics of the at least one of another
vehicle, the person outside the vehicle and the
object in the vicinity of the vehicle and the
predicted kinematics of the at least one person
inside the vehicle are considered by the evaluation
unit in generating the evaluation output.
[emphasis added]
Claim 34 calls for, inter alia,
an arrangement to control an active safety
system and a passive safety system as a function of
the signals, the arrangement being arranged in the
evaluation unit, wherein the predicted kinematics
of the at least one of another vehicle, the person
outside the vehicle and the object in the vicinity of
Appeal 2009-005775
Application 10/362,989

6
the vehicle and the predicted kinematics of the at
least one person inside the vehicle are considered
by the arrangement in controlling the active safety
system and the passive safety system.
[emphasis added]
Claims 20 and 34 call for two predicted kinematics, one of the
predicted kinematics is inside the vehicle and another of the predicted
kinematics is outside the vehicle. The two called for predicted kinematics
are separated by the word “and.” The claims also call for two safety
systems, an active safety system and a passive safety system. The two safety
systems are also separated by the word “and.”
The ordinary meaning of the word “and” includes “[t]ogether with or
along with; in addition to; as well as.” THE AMERICAN HERITAGE®
DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (4th ed. 2000).
Therefore, we find that both claims 20 and 34 call for, inter alia, (1)
using the predicted kinematics outside the vehicle to control the two safety
systems, as well as, (2) using the predicted kinematics inside the vehicle to
control the two safety systems.
Appellant contends that:
As recited in amended claims 20 and 34, the
present invention provides predicting two
different kinematics (kinematics of a relevant
entity outside the controlled vehicle (e.g., detected
car, person, or object), and kinematics of a person
inside the controlled vehicle), and considering
both predicted kinematics in generating an
evaluation output to activate both “an active
safety system and a passive safety system.”
(App. Br. 5). Appellant further contends that “it is absolutely clear from the
plain words of claim 20 that the predicted kinematics of the vehicle
Appeal 2009-005775
Application 10/362,989

7
occupant is used for controlling both the active and passive safety
systems . . . “ (App. Br. 6).
Regarding claims 20 and 34, we find that Appellant’s claim
construction is consistent with our claim construction.

Prior Art Rejection
Appellant contends that there is no suggestion in Breed that the
predicted kinematics of the vehicle occupant is used in any way to control
both the active and the passive safety system. (Reply Br. 3, 5; App. Br. 6,
8).
The Examiner found (1) that Shuman did not describe predicting the
kinematics of at least one person in the interior of the vehicle (Ans. 4), (2)
that Breed describes using the kinematics of a person in a vehicle to deploy
an airbag (Ans. 4, 8), and (3) that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify Shuman as taught by Breed for the
purpose of predicting the severity of an accident and determining seat belt
usage as criteria for deploying an air bag (Ans. 4).
Shuman describes controlling a vehicle active safety system (e.g.,
managing vehicle speed as well as braking) by predicting the kinematics of
another vehicle, a person outside the vehicle or an object in the vicinity of
the vehicle (Fact 1). As the Examiner has found, Shuman does not describe
predicting the kinematics of at least one person in the interior of the vehicle.
Therefore, Shuman does not describe predicting the kinematics of at least
one person in the interior of the vehicle to control both the active and the
passive safety systems as called for in claims 20 and 34.
Appeal 2009-005775
Application 10/362,989

8
Breed describes controlling a vehicle passive safety system (e.g.,
deployment of an air bag) by predicting the kinematics of a vehicle occupant
(Fact 2). Breed does not describe controlling a vehicle active safety system
(e.g., controlling the braking system) by predicting the kinematics of a
vehicle occupant. Therefore, Breed does not describe controlling both a
vehicle passive safety system and a vehicle active safety system (e.g.,
controlling the braking system) by predicting the kinematics of a vehicle
occupant as called for in claims 20 and 34.
As we previously found in our claim construction of claims 20 and 34,
both claims 20 and 34 call for, inter alia, using the predicted kinematics
inside the vehicle to control the two safety systems (the active and the
passive safety systems).
As set forth above, neither Shuman nor Breed describe predicting the
kinematics of at least one person in the interior of the vehicle to control the
two safety systems.
Therefore, it is unclear how combining the teachings of Breed with
the teachings of Shuman would cure the deficiency in Shuman and describe
using the predicted kinematics inside the vehicle to control the two safety
systems as called for in claims 20 and 34.
The Examiner has not provided a reasonable basis with rational
underpinning as to why it would have been obvious to combine the
teachings of Shuman and Breed to use the predicted kinematics inside the
vehicle to control an active and a passive safety system as called for in
claims 20 and 34 when neither Shuman nor Breed describe predicting the
kinematics of at least one person in the interior of the vehicle to control both
Appeal 2009-005775
Application 10/362,989

9
the active and the passive safety systems. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Therefore, we conclude that Appellant has demonstrated that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 20 and 34 over Shuman in view of Breed.
Appellant has likewise demonstrated error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 22-24, 26-33, and 35-40, which depend from claims 20 and 34,
respectively.

CONCLUSION
Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in concluding that
the combined teachings of Shuman and Breed would have led a person
having ordinary skill in the art to use the predicted kinematics of a vehicle
occupant to control both the vehicle active safety system and the vehicle
passive safety system as called for in claims 20 and 34.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 20, 22-24 and 26-40 is
reversed.

REVERSED

Klh

KENYON & KENYON LLP
ONE BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10004