FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 31, 2020

2019005105 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2020)

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.
15/160,886 05/20/2016 Frederic STEFAN 83645483 8046
28395 7590 12/31/2020
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
TOPGYAL, GELEK W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2020 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@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte FREDERIC STEFAN, UWE GUSSEN, and
CHRISTOPH ARNDT
________________

Appeal 2019-005105
Application 15/160,886
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, DEBORAH KATZ, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 6–9, 11, 14, and 15. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global Technologies, LLC.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-005105
Application 15/160,886

2

SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to “assisting a maneuvering
procedure of a vehicle.” Abstract.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
(Disputed Limitations Emphasized and Bracketing Added)
1. A method for assisting a maneuvering procedure of a
vehicle, comprising:
by a controller,
[1] linking environmental image data received from a
sensor external to the vehicle and environmental image
data received from a sensor of the vehicle to create
linked image data [2] responsive to existence of a direct
line-of-sight connection between the vehicle and the
sensor external to the vehicle; and
displaying a visual representation of an environment of
the vehicle for a driver of the vehicle based on the linked
image data.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Sakai et al. (“Sakai”) US 2009/0140881 A1 June 4, 2009
Healey et al. (“Healey”) US 2014/0207338 A1 July 24, 2014
Gupta et al. (“Gupta”) US 2015/0049193 A1 Feb. 19, 2015
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 6–8, 11, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over Sakai and Healey. Final Act. 4–8.
The Examiner rejects claims 9 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Sakai, Healey, and Gupta. Final Act. 8–9.
Appeal 2019-005105
Application 15/160,886

3

ADOPTION OF EXAMINER’S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings as set
forth in the Answer and in the Final Action from which this appeal was
taken, and we concur with the Examiner’s conclusions. We have considered
Appellant’s arguments, but we do not find them persuasive of error. We
provide the following explanation for emphasis.
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1 as obvious, the Examiner finds that Sakai’s
system for capturing a blind-spot image and transmitting a synthesized
image to a vehicle teaches recitation [1], “linking environmental image data
received from a sensor external to the vehicle and environmental image data
received from a sensor of the vehicle to create linked image data.” Final Act.
4 (citing Sakai ¶¶ 12–14, 27, Figs. 1–3, 9). The Examiner, however, relies on
Healey’s teaching of links that comprise wireless links formed according to
line-of-sight radio technology to teach recitation [2], “responsive to
existence of a direct line-of-sight connection between the vehicle and the
sensor external to the vehicle.” Id. at 5 (citing Healey ¶ 15). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Sakai with “Healey’s
direct line of sight connection . . . for the benefit of an improved coupling
process by ensuring that the system connects to the desired external device
based not only on vicinity but also on a clear path of communication.” Id.;
Ans. 9–10.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “Sakai . . . does not
require a physical communication between its off-board sensor and vehicle
because Sakai communicates via radio transmissions.” Appeal Br. 3 (citing
Appeal 2019-005105
Application 15/160,886

4

Sakai ¶¶ 42, 43). Appellant argues Healey’s line-of-site communications do
not improve Sakai because “[l]ine-of-sight technology (Healey) is finicky
relative to radio technology (Sakai): The objects communicating must be
near and in-sight of each other.” Id.; Reply Br. 2.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because they support, rather
than contradict, the Examiner’s proffered reason for why it would have been
obvious to combine the teachings of Sakai and Healey. Specifically,
Appellant’s contention that with line-of-sight technology “objects
communicating must be near and in-sight of each other” (Appeal Br. 3)
accords with the Examiner’s finding that line-of-site communications enable
communications “based not only on vicinity but also on a clear path of
communication” (Final Act. 5 (emphasis added)). Thus, the Examiner’s
conclusion that it would have been obvious to modify Sakai based on the
teachings of Healey is supported by a reason having a rational underpinning.
See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
We further note that recitations [1] and [2] do not require linking
environmental image data because the connection between the vehicle and
the sensor external to the vehicle is a direct line-of-sight connection. That is,
there is no determination in claim 1 whether the connection is a direct line-
of-sight connection. Thus, Sakai alone—which depicts an operation with a
clear path of communication between transmitter/receiver 22 and vehicle 76
(Sakai Fig. 9)—teaches capturing of a blind-spot image and transmission of
a synthesized image to a vehicle responsive to existence of a direct line-of-
sight connection between the vehicle and the sensor external to the vehicle.
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Sakai and Healey teaches or suggests recitations [1] and [2]. Accordingly,
Appeal 2019-005105
Application 15/160,886

5

we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claim 1, and the Examiner’s obviousness rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 103 of claims 6–9, 11, 14, and 15, which Appellant does not argue
separately. Appeal Br. 3.
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1, 6–8, 11, 14 103 Sakai, Healey 1, 6–8, 11,
14

9, 15 103 Sakai, Healey, Gupta 9, 15
Overall
Outcome
1, 6–9, 11,
14, 15

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking 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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED