Mitsubishi Electric Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 29, 2021

2021002750 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2021)

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.
16/111,865 08/24/2018 Kazuo HITOSUGI Q241235 7450
23373 7590 10/29/2021
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2000 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
SUITE 9000
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
EXAMINER
EL CHANTI, HUSSEIN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/29/2021 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):
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
USPTO@sughrue.com
sughrue@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KAZUO HITOSUGI, TOSHIHIDE SATAKE,
and TAKAHIRO URABE
____________

Appeal 2021-002750
Application 16/111,865
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, BRUCE T. WIEDER,
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOHANTY, 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 1–9. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Mitsubishi Electric
Corporation. (Appeal Br. 3).
Appeal 2021-002750
Application 16/111,865

2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a vehicle position
detector (Spec. page 1, lines 14–16). Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the subject matter on appeal.

1. A vehicle position detector comprising:
a satellite positioning receiver;
an autonomous navigation processor that outputs an own-
vehicle position detected by said autonomous navigation as an
autonomous navigation position;
a processor that determines occurrence of a position jump
on the basis of a positional difference between said autonomous
navigation position and a satellite positioning position detected
by said satellite positioning receiver using said satellite
positioning; and
a selector that selects one of said autonomous navigation
position and said satellite positioning position on the basis of
positioning precision of said satellite positioning that is output
by said satellite positioning receiver, and a result of said
determination on position jump by said processor,
wherein said vehicle position detector outputs one of said
autonomous navigation position and said satellite positioning
position as said own-vehicle position on the basis of a result of
said selection by said selector.

THE REJECTION
The following rejections are before us for review:2
Claims 1–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Okamura et al. (US 9,121,929 B2, issued Sept. 1, 2015) (“Okamura”).

2 The record indicates that the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn (Advisory Action, June 15, 2020).
Appeal 2021-002750
Application 16/111,865

3

FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence.3

ANALYSIS
The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because
Okamura fails to disclose a selector that selects one of said autonomous
navigation position and said satellite positioning position both on the “basis
of positioning precision” of the satellite, and the determination of a “position
jump” by the processor (Appeal Br. 7–12, Reply Br. 4–6).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection is proper
(Final Act. 4, 5, 7, 8; Ans. 3–9).
We agree with the Appellant. Here, the argued claim limitation
requires:
a selector that selects one of said autonomous navigation
position and said satellite positioning position on the basis of
positioning precision of said satellite positioning that is output by said
satellite positioning receiver, and a result of said determination on
position jump by said processor.

(Claim 1, emphasis added). The Specification at page 6, lines 3 to 19, sets
forth and describes that a “precision indicator” is calculated to show satellite
precision. The Specification at page 10, lines 7 to 10, describes that the
selector 26 selects on the basis of both the “position jump” and the

3 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
Appeal 2021-002750
Application 16/111,865

4

“precision indicator” (which is indicative of the positioning precision as
claimed).
The claim requires that the “selector” selects one of the autonomous
navigation position and satellite positioning system on the basis of: the
positioning precision of said satellite positioning that is output by said
satellite; and as a result of said determination on position jump by said
processor. The claim specifically requires that the selection is based on both
the criteria of the “positioning precision” that is output by the satellite, and
as “a result of the determination on position jump.” Here, the claim
limitation is not made in the alternative and selection on both the
“positioning precision” of the satellite and “determination on position jump”
is required. The Examiner has found the above argued claim limitation as
being disclosed by Okamura at column 6, lines 18–42; and column 6, lines
61– column 7, line 15 (Final Act. 5; Ans. 7, 8). However, while this cited
portion does make reference to the selection being based on “position jump,”
it makes no reference to the requirement that the selection also be based on
the “positioning precision” of the satellite as the claim limitation requires in
light of the Specification.
Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the rejection of claim 1 and
its dependent claims is not sustained. Claim 9 contains a similar limitation
and the rejection of this claim is not sustained for the same reasons given
above.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that the Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1–9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Okamura.
Appeal 2021-002750
Application 16/111,865

5

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–9 102(b) Okamura 1–9

REVERSED