Ex Parte Tang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 9, 2016

12959305 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/959,305 12/02/2010
111332 7590 06/13/2016
Intellectual Property Investment Law Group
3150 De La Cruz Blvd.
Suite 206
Santa Clara, CA 95054
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ky Tang
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.
59-050 4808
EXAMINER
KHATIB, RAM!
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/13/2016 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):
efs@ipinvestlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KY TANG
Appeal2014-006219
Application 12/959,305 1
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to the Appellant, "[t]he real party in interest is TeleNav, Inc."
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2014-006219
Application 12/959,305
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1, 6, and 11 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A method of operation of a navigation system comprising:
detecting, with a control unit, a vehicle abrupt maneuver;
scanning a vehicle environment for a road hindrance;
identifying a cause of the vehicle abrupt maneuver based on the
vehicle environment;
determining a classification as a provoked maneuver or an
unprovoked maneuver based on the cause; and
generating a message based on the classification and the cause,
the message including a safety recommendation.
Rejections2
Claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Yoshioka (US 2007/0032929 Al, pub. Feb. 8, 2007).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Yoshioka and Catten (US 2010/0207787 Al, pub. Aug. 19, 2010).
ANALYSIS
The Appellant argues claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20 as a group. Appeal
Br. 9-11. We select claim 1 as the representative claim from the group, and
claims 2-8, 10-18, and 20 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv)(2015).
The Examiner finds that Yoshioka's driver support system includes a
step of generating a message that includes a safety recommendation as
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as ineligible subject matter. Ans. 2.
2
Appeal2014-006219
Application 12/959,305
required by claim 1. See Final Act. 4, 5 (citing Yoshioka, paras. 12, 13, 36,
48, Fig. 8), Adv. Act. 3, Ans. 2-3.
The Appellant argues that the Examiner's finding is in error. See
Appeal Br. 13-14. The Appellant supports this argument by asserting that
"Yoshioka ... discloses only providing a warning with risky situation
information," which is "not a safety recommendation based on plain
meanings of the claimed terms." Appeal Br. 14; see Reply Br. 4--5.
Additionally, the Appellant points to the Specification at paragraph 190,
which in part states "a specific warning of the safety recommendation 228 of
FIG. 2 can be recommended." Appeal Br. 13-14 (emphasis omitted). The
Appellant's argument is not persuasive.
In interpreting claim language, we apply the broadest reasonable
meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever
enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by
the written description. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). See also In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364
(Fed. Cir. 2004).
The claimed term "safety recommendation" is defined in the
Specification "as a notification that provides advice to avoid a dangerous
driving situation." Spec. para. 53 (emphases added). Moreover, the
Specification gives examples of a "safety recommendation," for example,
the content of safety recommendation 228 in Figure 2 states "avoid reckless
driver." See Spec. para. 53. The statement "avoid reckless driver" is a
notification that provides specific advice to avoid a dangerous situation,
3
Appeal2014-006219
Application 12/959,305
however the claimed "safety recommendation" by definition does not have
to include specific text. See also Ans. 3.
Yoshioka discloses a message provision unit 21 that displays a
message on display unit 10 or outputs a guidance voice from a speaker "as a
notification for the driver." Yoshioka, para. 36 (emphasis added).
Moreover, Yoshioka discloses a process in Figure 8 that provides driving
support guidance by notifying the driver in a message of risky situation
information, i.e., step S56. Yoshioka, para. 73. Figure 7 provides an
example of notification step S56:
For example, for the driver in the vehicle at the intersection A in
FIG. 7, a message sounds like "Overlooked a vehicle in a dead
angle at the next intersection when turning right." The voice
message may be accompanied by information of vehicle speeds
of a subject vehicle and the overlooked vehicle displayed on the
display unit 10.
Yoshioka, para. 73; see also Final Act. 5 (citing Yoshioka, Figs. 7, 8). As
such, the purpose of Yoshioka' s guidance message is to provide a warning,
i.e., advice, for a risky situation/condition to a "driver prior to a travel
through a risky point so as to avoid the risky situation experienced by a
driver" (Yoshioka, para. 13 (emphasis added)). See Adv. Act. 3, Ans. 3.
Based on the foregoing, we find that Yoshioka' s guidance message is a
notification that provides advice to avoid a dangerous driving situation. As
such, the Examiner adequately supports the finding that the claimed "safety
recommendation" reads on Yoshioka's guidance message.
Thus, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20 as
anticipated by Yoshioka is sustained. The Appellant does not add further
argument for the Examiner's rejection of claims 9 and 19. Indeed, the
Appellant states that claims 9 and 19 "stand or fall with the independent
4
Appeal2014-006219
Application 12/959,305
claims 6 and 11 from which they depend." Appeal Br. 16. The Appellant's
statement is not persuasive of Examiner error. Thus, the Examiner's
rejection of claims 9 and 19 as unpatentable over Yoshioka and Catten is
sustained.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
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).
AFFIRMED
5