Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 23, 2016

13441962 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/441,962 04/09/2012
81466 7590 09/27/2016
MacMillan, Sobanski & Todd, LLC - GM
One Maritime Plaza
720 Water Street
5th Floor
Toledo, OH 43604
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
WENDE ZHANG
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.
P015301-RD-SDJ 1088
EXAMINER
LI, TRACYY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2016 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):
docketing@mstfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WENDE ZHANG and JINSONG WANG
Appeal2015-007830
Application 13/441,962
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1---6, 9-19, and 22-26. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Examiner has indicated that claims 7, 8, 20, and 21 contain allowable
subject matter. Final Act. 11
Appeal2015-007830
Application 13/441,962
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 illustrates the invention as follows, with disputed
elements highlighted in italics:
1. A reconfigurable clear path detection system for a
vehicle comprising:
an image capture device for capturing images of a scene
in a path of travel;
a primary clear path detection module determining a
clear path in an input image captured from the image capture
device;
a plurality of secondary clear path detection modules,
each secondary clear path detection module configured to
independently assist in identifying a respective clear path of the
road of travel in the input image, wherein one or more of the
secondary clear path detection modules are selectively enabled
for assisting in identifying the clear path of the road of
travel, wherein only the selectively enabled secondary clear
path detection modules are used to identifY the clear path of the
road of travel in the input image; and
a fusion module for collectively analyzing the clear path
detection results of the primary clear path detection module and
the selectively enabled secondary clear path detection modules
for identifying the clear path in the input image.
Rejections
Claims 1, 3---6, 12-14, 16-19, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Englander (US 2012/0105638 Al,
May 3, 2012) and Zhang (US 2010/0104199 Al, Apr. 29, 2010). Final Act.
5-8.
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Englander and Zhang, further in view of Fan
(US 2011/0274315 Al, Nov. 10, 2011). Final Act. 8-9.
2
Appeal2015-007830
Application 13/441,962
Claims 9 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Englander and Zhang, further in view of Hashiguchi
(US 2010/0046840 Al, Feb. 25, 2010). Final Act. 9-10.
Claims 10, 11, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Englander and Lages (US 2004/0247157 Al,
Dec. 9, 2004). Final Act. 10-11.
ANALYSIS
In the Briefs, Appellants contend the Examiner's finding that the
combination of Englander and Zhang teaches all the elements of Appellants'
claimed invention in claim 1 is incorrect (see App. Br. 7-11; Reply Br. 2-5).
Appellants argue, among other things, "a plurality of secondary clear path
detection modules from which to selectively enable to assist in identifying
the clear path of travel in the input image is not described or suggested" by
the combination of Englander and Zhang (Reply Br. 4). 2
We agree with Appellants as our interpretation of the disclosure of
Englander and Zhang coincides with that of Appellants. See Reply Br. 2-5.
We conclude that the Examiner's findings are not supported by Englander
and Zhang for the reasons set forth by Appellants.
Therefore, on this record, we find the weight of the evidence supports
the positions articulated by Appellants in the Briefs. Accordingly, as such,
we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and independent
claim 14, which recites commensurate limitations. Because we reverse the
2 This contention is determinative as to the rejections on appeal. Therefore,
Appellants' other contentions are not discussed herein.
3
Appeal2015-007830
Application 13/441,962
rejection of each independent claim on appeal, we also reverse the rejection
of each associated dependent claim.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1---6, 9-19, and 22-26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1---6, 9-19, and 22-26 are
reversed.
REVERSED
4