Salgado, Jose C. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 22, 2020

14515160 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 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.
14/515,160 10/15/2014 Jose C. Salgado 2014P04973US 7465
126362 7590 01/22/2020
Continental Automotive Systems, Inc.
One Continental Drive
Auburn Hills, MI 48326-1581
EXAMINER
SMITH, AARON C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/22/2020 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):
patentsAH@continental-corporation.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JOSE C. SALGADO and KEYUR SHAH
____________________

Appeal 2019-003460
Application 14/515,160
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–3, 5–12, 14, and 17.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Continental
Automotive Systems, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 4, 13, 15, 16, and 18–20 are canceled. See Amendment filed June
6, 2018; see also Advisory Act. dated Aug. 15, 2018 (entering the
Amendment filed June 6, 2018).
Appeal 2019-003460
Application 14/515,160

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A collision avoidance system for an automotive vehicle, the
collision avoidance system comprising:
a visual sensory system the visual sensory system being
located inside and coupled to the automotive vehicle, the visual
sensory system comprising:
a first camera located in front of a driver of the
automotive vehicle and which is directed toward the
driver of the automotive vehicle;
a second camera located behind the driver and
which is also directed toward the driver; and
a controller coupled to both the first and second
cameras;
wherein the first and second cameras and the
controller are configured to determine the driver’s
intended forward or reverse travel direction by
determining the driver’s head position and the driver’s
eye position, the driver’s head and eye positions being
determined by one of the first camera and the second
cameras detecting edges of the driver’s lips and detecting
the driver’s eyes;
the controller being additionally configured to detect
whether a transmission gear shift is positioned in either a
forward or rearward direction, said controller preventing
movement of said vehicle upon a conflict with a determined
intended travel direction and the position of said driver gear
shift; and
wherein said controller is additionally configured to
prevent movement of said vehicle if said driver head position is
in an indeterminate position that does not indicate either a
forward or rearward direction.

Appeal 2019-003460
Application 14/515,160

3
EVIDENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Clapper US 6,200,139 B1 Mar.13, 2001
Larsson US 7,460,940 B2 Dec. 2, 2008
Kameyama US 8,131,440 B2 Mar. 6, 2012
Sun US 2012/0288167 A1 Nov. 15, 2012
Park US 2015/0309567 A1 Oct. 29, 2015
REJECTIONS3
I. Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 10–12, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Kameyama, Larsson, Clapper, and
Sun.4
II. Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kameyama, Larsson, Clapper, Sun, and Park.
III. Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kameyama, Larsson, Clapper, and Park.

3 The Final Action contained rejections of claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 112(a), 112(b), and 103. Final Act. 4–6, 19. Appellant cancelled claims
19 and 20 in the amendment filed June 6, 2018, subsequent to the Final
Action. In the Advisory Action dated August 15, 2018, the Examiner
indicated that the amendment would be entered for purposes of appeal. As
such, cancelled claims 19 and 20 are not involved in this appeal, and the
rejections of these claims presented in the Final Action are rendered moot.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.31 (c) (“An appeal, when taken, is presumed to be taken
from the rejection of all claims under rejection unless cancelled by an
amendment filed by the applicant and entered by the Office.”).
4 The Examiner’s inclusion of claim 4 in the statement of this rejection on
page 6 of the Final Action is presumed to be an inadvertent error, as this
claim was cancelled in the amendment filed September 6, 2016, and, thus, is
not involved in this appeal.
Appeal 2019-003460
Application 14/515,160

4
OPINION
Rejection I – Obviousness based on Kameyama, Larsson,
Clapper, and Sun
In contesting this rejection, Appellant presents arguments for
independent claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 6–13), and relies on the same
arguments for independent claim 10 and dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12,
and 14 (see id. at 13). We select claim 1 as representative of the claims
subject to this basis for rejection, with claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 10–12, and 14
standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (permitting
the Board to select a single claim to decide the appeal as to a single ground
of rejection of a group of claims argued together).
The Examiner finds that Kameyama teaches most of the limitations
recited in claim 1, including, in relevant part, a controller that is
configured to prevent movement of said vehicle if said driver
head position is in an indeterminate position that does not
indicate either a forward or rearward direction (see at least
col.11, lines 15–54, particularly col.11, lines 24–28, and col.16,
lines 24–28, Kameyama teaches that the system compares the
most recent shift position and the face position and performs
automatic accident prevention. Also, see at least col.18, lines
1–12, wherein the accident prevention restricts the movement
of the vehicle. Therefore, Kameyama teaches that any head
position that is directed to an arbitrary positon that does not
correspond to forward or reverse driving will cause the system
to restrict the movement of the vehicle, wherein the arbitrary
position corresponds to any “intermediate position”).
Final Act. 7–8 (boldface omitted).
Appellant argues that Kameyama does not teach or suggest a
controller that is “configured to prevent vehicle motion if the driver’s head
position is in an indeterminate position that does not indicate either a
Appeal 2019-003460
Application 14/515,160

5
forward or rearward direction,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 9. In
particular, Appellant asserts that “Kameyama teaches two possible values
(front or back) for all three of the variables: shift position, face direction, and
obstacle existence direction . . . [and] is silent with respect to arbitrary,
intermediate, and indeterminate head positions.” Id. at 10. According to
Appellant, the Examiner “unduly broadens” Kameyama’s disclosure and
relies upon impermissible hindsight. Id. at 12–13. We are not persuaded by
these arguments.
Kameyama teaches a vehicle control system that prevents incorrect
starting-off by restricting movement of the vehicle. Kameyama, 2:35–37;
see also id., 6:8–10 (“the control in the incorrect starting-off prevention
process may be made such that the vehicle does not move at all”). In one
embodiment, the system prevents vehicle movement “[w]hen the driver’s
gaze direction does not accord with the same direction as the shift position
direction and the obstacle existence direction.” Id., 11:24–29 (emphasis
added); see also id., 4:17–19 (disclosing that the shift position may be
frontward or backward). The Examiner takes the position that
one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any gaze
direction that does not accord with the direction of the shift
position would result in a dangerous situation, for example, if a
driver is looking down at the floor of the vehicle or closing
his/her eyes while the shift position direction is set to “forward”
or “reverse.”
Ans. 19. The Examiner explains that
one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the
gaze/face position of a human organism sitting in a vehicle is
not limited to “forward” and “rearward” positions/directions,
and that any number of known positons/directions that do not
accord with the direction of the “shift position direction” of the
Appeal 2019-003460
Application 14/515,160

6
vehicle will result in a dangerous situation as taught explicitly
by Kameyama.
Id. at 21. In this regard, Appellant does not persuasively refute the
Examiner’s position.
Appellant’s contention that “Kameyama explicitly teaches that only
the front and back directions can be used” (Reply Br. 3 (emphasis added)) is
not correct. Kameyama does not teach preventing movement only when the
driver gaze direction is opposite to the shift/obstacle direction, but, rather, as
discussed above, teaches preventing movement “[w]hen the driver’s gaze
direction does not accord with the same direction as the shift position
direction and the obstacle existence direction.” Kameyama, 11:24–29
(emphasis added). Although Kameyama does not explicitly recite a driver
gaze direction that is other than front or back, we agree with the Examiner
that Kameyama does not preclude a driver from gazing in other directions.
See Ans. 19. To the extent Appellant suggests that a driver’s gaze direction
which does not accord with the shift position direction can only be a
direction that is opposite to the shift position direction (see Appeal Br. 12),
any number of directions (e.g., down or sideways) would not accord with the
shift position direction (i.e., front or back), thereby falling into the category
of situations in which Kameyama teaches that movement should be
prevented. We note that one of ordinary skill must be presumed to know
something about the art apart from what a reference expressly discloses. See
In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA 1962)). As such, we are
unpersuaded by Appellant’s contention that the Examiner has improperly
broadened the teachings of Kameyama in rejecting the claim. See Appeal
Br. 12–13.
Appeal 2019-003460
Application 14/515,160

7
Moreover, Appellant does not identify, nor do we discern, any
knowledge relied upon by the Examiner that was gleaned only from
Appellant’s disclosure and that was not otherwise within the level of
ordinary skill at the time of the invention. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d
1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (“Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense
necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it
takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary
skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include
knowledge gleaned only from [Appellant’s] disclosure, such a reconstruction
is proper.”). As such, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contention that the
Examiner relied on impermissible hindsight in reaching the determination of
obviousness of the claimed subject matter. See Appeal Br. 13.
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s determination that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been
obvious. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2, 3,
5, 6, 10–12, and 14 falling therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Kameyama, Larsson, Clapper, and Sun.

Rejections II and III – Obviousness based on Kameyama,
Larsson, Clapper, Park alone, or in combination with Sun
In contesting the rejections of independent claim 8 and dependent
claims 7, 9, and 17, Appellant relies on the aforementioned arguments
asserted against the rejection of independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 13.
For the reasons discussed above, these arguments fail to apprise us of error
in the rejection of claim 1, and, likewise, fail to apprise us of error in the
rejections of claims 7–9 and 17, which we sustain.
Appeal 2019-003460
Application 14/515,160

8
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 6,
10–12, 14
103 Kameyama, Larsson,
Clapper, Sun
1–3, 5, 6,
10–12, 14

7, 17 103 Kameyama, Larsson,
Clapper, Sun, Park
7, 17
8, 9 103 Kameyama, Larsson,
Clapper, Park
8, 9
Overall Outcome 1–3, 5–12,
14, 17

AFFIRMED