Ex Parte Sturm

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 12, 2012

11926244 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 12, 2012)

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.
11/926,244 10/29/2007 Christoph Sturm 080437.59539US 4219
23911 7590 01/13/2012
CROWELL & MORING LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP
P.O. BOX 14300
WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300
EXAMINER
WANG, JACK K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/13/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CHRISTOPH STURM
____________

Appeal 2010-006679
Application 11/926,244
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DENISE M. POTHIER,
and BRUCE R. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges.

WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006679
Application 11/926,244

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-19, which constitute all the claims pending in this application.1 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to:
[a] driver assistance system and method [that] outputs, as a
function of certain conditions, at least one piece of information,
in particular a warning, to the driver of a motor vehicle. The
driver assistance system can be transferred into a demonstration
and/or learning mode, in which the conditions applied for
outputting the piece of information are different from the
normal mode of operation.
(Abstract). For example, if the piece of information is a collision warning
(Spec. ¶¶ [0029] – [0030]), in the normal mode the warning may output if
the probability of collision is 90 percent within 2 seconds (Spec. ¶ [0031]).
In the demonstration mode, however, the collision warning may be output if
the probability of collision is 10 percent within 2 seconds (Spec. ¶ [0033]).
This allows the driver to become familiar with the warning without putting
himself or others into a safety critical situation (Spec. ¶ [0034]).
Claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows:
1. A system for a driver of a motor vehicle,
comprising:
a driver assistance system that outputs, as a function of
certain conditions, at least one piece of information to the driver
of the motor vehicle;

1 An oral hearing for this appeal, scheduled for Jan. 10, 2012, has been
waived.
Appeal 2010-006679
Application 11/926,244

3
wherein the driver assistance system has a normal mode
of operation and at least one of a demonstration and learning
mode of operation, the driver assistance system being
transferable into the at least one of the demonstration and
learning mode of operation in which the conditions applied for
outputting the at least one piece of information to the driver are
different from the conditions applied for outputting the at least
one piece of information to the driver in the normal mode of
operation.
Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Naboulsi (US 2004/0209594 A1, Oct. 21, 2004).
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we make reference to the
Briefs (App. Br. filed Sept. 22, 2009; Reply Br. filed Jan. 20, 2010) and the
Answer (mailed Dec. 4, 2009) for the respective positions of Appellant and
the Examiner.

ISSUE
The pivotal issue presented by Appellant’s contentions is: Does
Naboulsi disclose a driver assistance system having “at least one of [a]
demonstration and [a] learning mode of operation in which the conditions
applied for outputting . . . at least one piece of information to [a] driver are
different from the conditions applied for outputting the at least one piece of
information to the driver in [a] normal mode of operation” (hereinafter “the
disputed limitation”), as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
Claim construction is an issue of law that we review de novo. Cordis
Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Claims are not to be read in a vacuum, but must be given their broadest
Appeal 2010-006679
Application 11/926,244

4
reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification as it would be
interpreted by ordinary artisans. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). We find that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the disputed limitation of claim 1 encompasses a driver
assistance system that outputs a piece of information to a driver of a motor
vehicle. The system has at least two operating modes, both of which are
capable, under appropriate conditions, of outputting the at least one piece of
information to the driver. In a first (designated “normal” in the claim) mode
the condition that causes the output to occur is different in some way from
the condition that causes the output to occur in the second (designated
“demonstration” or “learning” in the claim) mode.
The Examiner cites Naboulsi at ¶¶ [0110]-[0111] as disclosing the
disputed limitation (Ans. 4, 7-8). The cited paragraphs disclose a “learning”
mode (¶ [0110]) and a “training” mode (¶ [0111]), which are separate modes
and are both separate from Naboulsi’s normal mode (Naboulsi ¶ [0058]).
Naboulsi’s learning mode is a mode in which Naboulsi’s system learns
information, while Naboulsi’s training mode is a mode in which the driver is
trained in the operation of the system.
Appellant contends, inter alia, that Naboulsi does not disclose the
disputed limitation because: (1) Naboulsi’s learning mode outputs the same
information under the same conditions as Naboulsi’s normal mode (App. Br.
6-7); and (2) Naboulsi’s training mode outputs additional information to that
output in the normal mode, but does not output the at least one piece of
information in both modes under conditions that differ between the modes
(see Reply Br. 2). We agree. We do not find in the cited paragraphs of
Appeal 2010-006679
Application 11/926,244

5
Naboulsi, or readily find elsewhere in Naboulsi, a disclosure of the disputed
limitation.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. Independent
claim 14 contains a limitation substantially similar to the disputed limitation,
which we find to be absent from Naboulsi’s disclosure. Claims 2-13 and 15-
19 depend from claims 1 and 14 respectively. Accordingly, for the reasons
set forth supra regarding claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2-
19.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Naboulsi is reversed.

REVERSED

msc