ROBERT BOSCH GMBH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 23, 2021

2020004680 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 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.
15/329,307 01/26/2017 Takehito Torii 030413-3072-US01 1035
34044 7590 11/23/2021
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch)
790 N WATER ST
SUITE 2500
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
EXAMINER
NIRJHAR, NASIM NAZRUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/23/2021 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):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TAKEHITO TORII and YASUSHI YUI
____________

Appeal 2020-004680
Application 15/329,307
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ERIC B. CHEN, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, and 15. Claims
3–5, 8–10, 13, and 16 are canceled. See Claims App. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
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 Robert
Bosch GMBH. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-004680
Application 15/329,307

2
The present invention relates generally to a technique for a motorcycle
rider that provides a warning in accordance with the motorcycle’s inclination
angle. See Spec. Abstr.
Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is
representative:
1. An information providing device for a motorcycle, the
information providing device comprising:
an image acquisition section that acquires an image of a
road on which the motorcycle travels;
a lane detection section that detects
at least one of a left lane and a right lane from the
image of the road acquired by the image acquisition section,
a radius of curvature of the at least one detected
lane,
a lateral distance from the motorcycle to the at
least one detected lane;
a motorcycle trajectory curvature calculation section
that calculates a radius of curvature of a motorcycle trajectory on the
basis of the radius of curvature of the at least one detected lane and
the lateral distance from the motorcycle to the at least one detected
lane;
a vehicle speed acquisition section that acquires a vehicle
speed of the motorcycle;
a motorcycle physical quantity calculation section that
calculates an inclination angle of the motorcycle with respect to
vertical on the basis the radius of curvature of the motorcycle
trajectory and the vehicle speed;
a warning determination section that determines whether
a warning should be issued on the basis of the inclination angle of the
motorcycle; and
a warning signal generation section that generates a
warning signal when the warning determination section determines
that the warning should be issued, wherein the warning should be
issued when the inclination angle of the motorcycle exceeds a
threshold inclination angle set for the vehicle speed.

Appeal 2020-004680
Application 15/329,307

3
REFERENCES
The references relied upon by the Examiner are:
Name Reference Date
Ehmanns US 2007/0131471 A1 June 14, 2007
Kuehnle US 2010/0079590 A1 Apr. 1, 2010
Schiffmann US 2010/0076684 A1 Mar. 25, 2010
Slimi Advanced
Motorcycle-
Infrastructure-Driver
Roll Angle Profile for
Loss Control
Prevention
(Proceeding of the
12th International
IEEE Conference on
Intelligent
Transportation
Systems, St. Louis,
MO, USA).
Oct. 3–7, 2009

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 6, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kuehnle, Ehmanns, and Slimi. Final
Act. 4–11.
Claim 2, 7, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kuehnle, Ehmanns, Slimi, and
Schiffmann. Final Act. 11–13.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).

Appeal 2020-004680
Application 15/329,307

4
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, a motorcycle trajectory curvature
calculation section that calculates a radius of curvature of a motorcycle
trajectory. See claim 1. With respect to this feature, Appellant contends
“Kuehnle discloses measuring road curvature . . . There is no calculations
of a trajectory of a motorcycle or other vehicle. Instead, only lane markings
are tracked and used to detect road curvature and not the curvature of a
vehicle’s trajectory.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant emphasizes that
“[d]etermining a road curvature is simply not the same as determining a
curvature of a vehicle’s trajectory” (id.)(emphasis omitted), and “there still
is no mention of ever determining a vehicle’s trajectory.” Id. at 10. We
agree with Appellant.
As an initial matter, we note that the requirement of claim 1
“calculates a radius of curvature of a motorcycle trajectory” (see claim 1) is
an intended use of the claimed motorcycle trajectory curvature calculation
section, not a structural feature of the apparatus. Hewlett-Packard Co. v.
Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[A]pparatus
claims cover what a device is, not what a device does”). As such, the issue
is not whether Kuehnle discloses calculating a radius of curvature of a
motorcycle trajectory, but whether Kuehnle teaches that the apparatus of
Kuehnle is capable of being used to calculate a radius of curvature of a
motorcycle’s trajectory.
The Examiner finds that in Kuehnle the “vehicle camera position
compared to road curvature will accommodate calculation of vehicle
trajectory . . . using geometry.” Ans. 14 (emphasis added). Here, the
Examiner concludes that a “vehicle’s radius of curvature can be calculated
Appeal 2020-004680
Application 15/329,307

5
using geometry from the vehicle trajectory [] drawn from the lateral distance
from the lane trajectory calculated from every frame/timing point [T1, T2,
T3, T4 . . . ].” Id. at 19 (emphasis added).
In other words, the Examiner has not identified where Kuehnle’s
system actually calculates a radius of curvature of a motorcycle’s trajectory
but rather concludes that because Kuehnle detects road markings and
determines if a vehicle is too close to the road markings, Kuehnle can
accommodate calculation of a vehicle’s trajectory. However, we find that
the Examiner’s aforementioned conclusion is based on improper hindsight
reconstruction to supply deficiencies in the factual basis.
Here, claim 1 requires a vehicle trajectory curvature calculation
section (see claim 1), which Appellant’s Specification indicates “can be
realized when the CPU 2a executes a program that is stored in the ROM 2c.”
Spec. ¶ 21; see also ¶¶ 31–32 and Fig. 2, element 2. So, we look for whether
the Examiner has shown that Kuehnle teaches a CPU that executes a
program that is capable of calculating a radius of curvature of a motorcycle
trajectory.
The Examiner directs our attention to Keuhnle’s Figure 2. See
Ans. 13. Specifically, Kuehnle’s Fig. 2 illustrates detecting road markings,
finding camera position relative to the road markings, and determining
whether the vehicle is too close to the road markings, and if so, issuing a
warning. See Keuhnle’s Figure 2. However, we agree with Appellant that
“there simply is no calculation of a radius of curvature of a motorcycle
trajectory” (Reply Br. 3) as “the Examiner presents no prior-art reference
that supports the determination of a trajectory” (id.), but merely proposes
that Kuehnle “will accommodate” and the trajectory “can be calculated” (id.)
Appeal 2020-004680
Application 15/329,307

6
without directing our attention to any programs/algorithms in Keuhnle that is
capable of calculating the same. We also agree with Appellant that “[w]hat
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection amounts to is the Examiner modifying
Kuehnle based on impermissible hindsight.” Id.
Regarding Ehmanns, Appellant contends that “Ehmanns, much like
Kuehnle, discloses determining the curvature of the driving surface the
vehicle is traveling on, and not the radius of curvature of a trajectory of a
vehicle.” Appeal Br. 11. We agree with Appellant.
Here, the Examiner finds Ehmanns’ “‘radii of curves’ mentioned in
[0010] is associated with road trajectory or vehicle trajectory . . . and
distance to an object located ahead [lateral distance] will calculate a radius
of curvature of a motorcycle trajectory.” Ans. 20. We disagree with the
Examiner’s interpretation of Ehmanns.
For example, Ehmanns merely discloses “[o]perational conditions for
driving in the environment of the vehicle include, for example, the radii of
curves, distance to an object ahead, (for example, an automobile driving
ahead), indications of speed limits . . . weather . . . or the like.” Ehmanns
¶ 10. We find that Ehmanns fails to specifically teach or suggest a curvature
of the motorcycle trajectory in paragraph [0010], as proffered by the
Examiner. Instead, Ehmanns’ reference to “radii of curves” suggests curves
(radii) on the road that lie ahead, not any motorcycle’s trajectory. See
Ehmanns ¶ 11. The Examiner fails to direct our attention to any disclosure
in Ehmanns that would suggest otherwise.
Thus, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that at least Kuehnle
and/or Ehmanns are capable of calculating a radius of curvature of a
motorcycle trajectory, as recited in each of the independent claims 1, 6, 11,
Appeal 2020-004680
Application 15/329,307

7
or 14. The Examiner also has not found any of the other references of
record teach this feature. Since we agree with at least one of the arguments
advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other
arguments. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 15, and 15.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, and 15 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 6, 11, 14 103 Kuehnle,
Ehmanns, Slimi
1, 6, 11,
14
2, 7, 12, 15 103 Kuehnle,
Ehmanns, Slimi,
Schiffman
2, 7, 12,
15
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 6, 7,
11, 12,
14, 15

REVERSED