VOLVO CAR CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 24, 2021

2020004992 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 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.
15/276,832 09/27/2016 Erik ISRAELSSON VCC0434PUSA 1130
22045 7590 09/24/2021
Brooks Kushman
1000 Town Center
22nd Floor
Southfield, MI 48075
EXAMINER
TRAN, THANG DUC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/24/2021 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
kdilucia@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ERIK ISRAELSSON and MARTIN MAGNUSSON
___________

Appeal 2020-04992
Application 15/276,832
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, CHRISTA P. ZADO and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–9 and 12–22, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. Final Act. 1. Claims 1, 8, and 18 are
independent. Appeal Br., Claims App. Appellant cancels claims 10 and 11.
Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We refer to the Specification, filed September 27, 2016 (“Spec.”); Final
Office Action, mailed October 9, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed
March 2, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed April 27, 2020
(“Ans.”), and Reply Brief, filed June 22, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies the real party-in-interest as VOLVO CAR
CORPORATION. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-004992
Application 15/276,832

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claimed systems and methods relate to “providing an alert to a
driver of a vehicle, when the closest vehicle-in-front decelerates and the
distance to the closest vehicle-in-front decreases.” Spec. ¶ 14. Appeal Br. 2.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with supplementary labels
added in brackets, is illustrative.
1. A method for providing an alert to a driver of a host vehicle,
the method comprising:
(a) receiving, from a vehicle-to-vehicle communication,
[(i)] deceleration information of a vehicle-in-front of the host
vehicle, [(ii)] wherein the vehicle-in-front is located in a same
lane of a road as the host vehicle and [(iii)] the deceleration
information includes a brake message indicating that the vehicle-
in-front is performing a braking function;
(b) detecting a decrease in distance to a closest vehicle-in-
front of the host vehicle by a vehicle sensor system in the host
vehicle, wherein the closest vehicle-in-front is located in the
same lane of the road as the host vehicle; and
(c) issuing an alert to the driver of the host vehicle only in
response to both (a) and (b) occurring simultaneously.
Appeal Br., Claims App.
Appeal 2020-004992
Application 15/276,832

3

REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Name3 Reference Publ’d/Issued Filed
Yurimoto US 2002/0105418 Al Aug. 8, 2002 Dec. 20, 2001
Burzio US 2005/0228578 Al Oct. 13, 2005 Mar. 18, 2005
Tengler US 2007/0109146 Al May 17, 2007 Nov. 17, 2005
Avery, Jr. (“Avery”) US 2009/0096597 Al Apr. 16, 2009 Oct. 11, 2007
Iwasaki US 2012/0078498 Al Mar. 29, 2012 Dec. 1, 2011
Rashid US 2014/0035737 Al Feb. 6, 2014 Aug. 5, 2013
Conrad US 2014/0136044 Al May 15, 2014 Nov. 15, 2012

The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–9, 14, and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Iwasaki, Tengler,
and Avery. Final Act. 2–15.
The Examiner rejects claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combined teachings of Iwasaki, Tengler, Avery, and Conrad. Final
Act. 15–16.
The Examiner rejects claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combined teachings of Iwasaki, Tengler, Avery, and Burzio. Final
Act. 16.
The Examiner rejects claims 12, 13, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Iwasaki, Tengler,
Avery, and Rashid. Final Act. 17–20.

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2020-004992
Application 15/276,832

4

The Examiner rejects claims 18, 19, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over the combined teachings of Iwasaki, Yurimoto, Avery, and
Tengler. Final Act. 20–28.
The Examiner rejects claims 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combined teachings of Iwasaki, Yurimoto, Avery, Tengler,
and Rashid. Final Act. 28–30.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the contentions and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). The Examiner and Appellant focus their findings and
contentions on claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 7–15; Ans. 3–11); so we do as well.
Arguments not made are forfeited.4 Unless otherwise indicated, we adopt
the Examiner’s findings in the Final Office Action, Advisory Action, and the
Answer as our own and add any additional findings of fact for emphasis.
We address the rejections below.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Iwasaki’s disclosure of a vehicular peripheral
surveillance device that includes lane and obstacle recognition sensors
teaches or suggests many of the claim limitations, including those recited by
claim 1’s claim elements (a)(i), (a)(ii), and (b). Final Act. 2–4 (citing

4 See In re Google Tech. Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
(“We interpret the Patent Office to be arguing that Google’s failure to raise
its lexicography arguments, inadvertent or not, compels a finding of
forfeiture.”); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019) (“Except as provided for in
§§ 41.41, 41.47 and 41.52, any arguments or authorities not included in the
appeal brief will be refused consideration by the Board for purposes of the
present appeal.”).
Appeal 2020-004992
Application 15/276,832

5

Iwasaki ¶¶ 21, 22, 45–61, 63–64, 66–67, 72, 78–79, 83, 85, 87–89; Figs. 1,
2, 4, 11, 13). Recognizing that Iwasaki “do[es] not explicitly teach [] the
deceleration information includes a brake message indicating that the
vehicle-in-front is performing a braking function,” (claim element (a)(iii))
the Examiner applies Tengler’s disclosure of a forward vehicle braking
warning system for teaching or suggesting the noted deficiency. Id. at 4–6
(citing Tengler ¶¶ 11, 27–36, 54–57; Figs. 2, 5–12). The Examiner finds the
combination of lwassaki and Tengler teaches
[a] warning component to alert the driver [of an] imminent
danger [ahead] either alone or in concert with [an]other warning
signal . . . but they do not explicitly teach . . . (c) issuing an alert
to the driver of the host vehicle only in response to both (a) and
(b) occurring simultaneously.
Final Act. 6 (citations omitted). To remedy the deficiency of the
combination to teach claim element (c), the Examiner applies Avery’s
disclosure of a driver interface unit that provides vehicle condition
information including alerts and warnings based on various combinations of
conditions. Id. at 7. In particular, the Examiner directs attention to Avery’s
table 1 describing a warning indicator activated upon detection of a target
that is (1) in the same lane as the host vehicle, (2) slowing down, and (3)
within a predetermined threshold distance of the host vehicle. Id. Further,
the Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would
have had reason to combine the teachings of Iwasaki with those of Tengler
and Avery to achieve the limitations of claim 1. Id. at 6, 7.
Appellant contends the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1, arguing as
follows:
1. None of the applied references teach or suggest claim element (c)
requiring an alert be issued only in response to both conditions (a)
Appeal 2020-004992
Application 15/276,832

6

(receipt of a braking message from a vehicle-in-front) and (b) (a
decreasing distance from a closest vehicle-in-front) (Appeal Br. 7–
12);
2. Iwasaki’s disclosure of detecting a deceleration of a closest
vehicle-in-front of a host vehicle fails to teach decreasing a
distance between the two vehicles (id. at 10–11); and
3. “[T]he Examiner’s proffered motivation fails to articulate any
reason why one of ordinary skill would combine those references
in the fashion recited in the Applicant’s claimed invention” (id. at
12–13).
We address Appellant’s contentions of error as follows.
1. Issuing an Alert Only in Response to Both (a) and (b) (Claim
element c)
Appellant contends, rather than issuing an alert only when detecting
both braking and a decreasing distance from a vehicle ahead, the asserted
combination of prior art teachings would issue an alert when either condition
occurs. Appellant argues as follows:
In any such combination, according to the teaching of Tengler,
the resulting system would issue an alert to a host vehicle driver
whenever (i.e., every time) condition (a) occurred -- even in the
absence of condition (b) occurring. Similarly, in any such
combination, according to the teaching of Avery, the resulting
system would issue an alert to a host vehicle driver whenever
(i.e., every time) condition (b) occurred -- even in the absence of
condition (a) occurring. Therefore, in any such combination, the
Appeal 2020-004992
Application 15/276,832

7

resulting system would not issue an alert to a host vehicle driver
only when both conditions (a) and (b) occur simultaneously.
Id. at 9.
In response, the Examiner explains Avery’s Fig. 2 depicts visual
indicators alerting a driver to a plurality of potentially hazardous situations
as detailed in table 1. Ans. 6.
Appellant’s contention is unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
Avery discloses issuing alerts based on various combinations of
simultaneously occurring conditions. See, e.g., Avery, table 1. For example,
Avery discloses a collision warning having a condition priority of 9 issued
under the following conditions: “[(1) a v]ehicle speed greater than 10 mph,
[(2)] target in same lane, [(3)] following interval 1–2 seconds, [(4)] target
distance less than desired following distance, [and (5)] target velocity less
than 101 % of host vehicle speed.” Avery, Table 1. Thus, Avery discloses
issuing a particular alert only when multiple conditions are satisfied, i.e.
simultaneously occur.5 Although the alert conditions found by the Examiner
to be taught by Iwasaki (decreasing following distance) and Tengler
(braking by a vehicle in the lane ahead) could be combined so that either

5 Although claim 1 is directed to providing an alert to a driver only in
response to the simultaneous occurrence of both of two conditions, i.e.,
braking of and a closing distance with one or more vehicle in the lane ahead,
claim 1 does not exclude a host vehicle from providing additional alerts
including, for example, alerts in response to either braking or a closing
distance. Similarly, claim 1 issues a particular alert “only in response to
both (a) and (b) occurring simultaneously,” but the claim—read in view of
the Specification—encompasses other alerts that may be sent for one of (a)
and (b). See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 22 (“It is further conceivable that the higher
degree of enforcement may be addition of an alert. Thus, a tactile alert or an
audible alert may be added to the visual alert if the detected decrease in
distance to a closest vehicle-in-front exceeds a threshold value.”).
Appeal 2020-004992
Application 15/276,832

8

would result in issuing an alert, Avery teaches issuing alerts based on the
occurrence of multiple, simultaneous conditions. We agree with the
Examiner, therefore, that Avery teaches or suggests issuing an alert only in
response to both Iwasaki and Tengler’s alert conditions occurring
simultaneously, in the manner claimed. See Final Act. 6, 7.
Furthermore,
[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a
problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable
solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue
the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads
to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of
innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.

KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). We note there are
only a limited number of ways to combine pairs of logical conditions
including the AND, OR, XOR, and NOT Boolean operators.6 Thus for this
additional reason, we agree with the Examiner in finding the combined
teachings of Iwasaki, Tengler, and Avery teach or suggest the limitation of
claim 1’s element (c) requiring issuing an alert only in response to both (a)
AND (b) occurring simultaneously.
2. Detecting a Decrease in Distance to a Closest Vehicle-In-Front of
the Host Vehicle (Claim element b)
Appellant further contends that Iwasaki’s disclosure of detecting a
deceleration of a vehicle-in-front is not equivalent and fails to teach

6 See definition: “Boolean operator n. An operator designed to work with
Boolean values. The four most common Boolean operators in programming
use are AND (logical conjunction), OR (logical inclusion), XOR (exclusive
OR), and NOT (logical negation).” MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 69
(5th ed. 2002).
Appeal 2020-004992
Application 15/276,832

9

detecting a decrease in distance between vehicles as recited by claim 1’s
element b. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant argues there are situations wherein a
vehicle-in-front can decelerate without decreasing the distance between it
and a following host vehicle such as when the host vehicle decelerates more
rapidly or initiates deceleration earlier than the vehicle-in-front. Id.
The Examiner responds, directing attention to, inter alia, Iwasaki’s
disclosure of a decrease in a safety area AS between host vehicle 100 and
vehicle 201 that is in front of host vehicle 100 upon a deceleration of
forward vehicle 201. Ans. 5 (citing Iwasaki ¶¶ 53, 57; Fig. 2). The
Examiner further finds Tengler’s disclosure of providing a warning when a
forward vehicle is braking also teaches or suggests a decreasing distance
between vehicles.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the prior art fails
to teach detecting a decrease in vehicle spacing as recited by claim element
(b). See, e.g., App. Br. 11. We agree with the Examiner that the limitation
is taught or at least suggested by Iwasaki’s disclosure of a decrease in a
safety area AS between host vehicle 100 and preceding vehicle 201
positioned in front of host vehicle 100 upon a deceleration of forward
vehicle 201. See Ans. 5 (citing Iwasaki ¶¶ 53, 57; Fig. 2). We further agree
with the Examiner that Tengler’s disclosure of providing a warning when a
forward vehicle is braking also teaches or suggests a decreasing distance
between vehicles. Id. (citing Tengler Figs. 2, 5).7 Thus, the Examiner has

7 We further note in passing and without reliance in arriving at our decision
that Conrad’s disclosure of providing a warning as the distance between a
vehicle and a detected object decreases (Conrad ¶ 36, claim 9) further
teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claim 1’s element b.
Furthermore, Avery’s collision warning system that provides alerts when
Appeal 2020-004992
Application 15/276,832

10

provided sufficient support for the finding that the recited “detecting a
decrease in distance to a closest vehicle-in-front of the host vehicle” (claim
1’s element b) is taught or suggested by both Iwasaki and Tengler. See In re
Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]n considering the disclosure of
a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the
reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would
reasonably be expected to draw therefrom” (citation omitted).).
In this light, Appellant’s argument (see Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 2)—
that the Examiner has erred because Iwasaki fails to teach detecting a
decreasing distance between vehicles because a decreased spacing is not
inherent in Iwasaki’s deceleration of a vehicle-in-front—is unpersuasive.
Appellant’s inherency-based arguments are more germane to anticipation —
not obviousness as is the case here. See Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Top-US.A.
Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[O]bviousness is not inherent
anticipation.”). It is well settled that the test for obviousness is what the
cited references’ collective teachings would have suggested to ordinarily
skilled artisans. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991). To
that end, we considered not only the explicit teachings of the cited references
in our decision, but also the inferences that ordinarily skilled artisans would
reasonably be expected to draw from those teachings, e.g., a spacing
between vehicles is often reduced when a vehicle-in-front starts braking or
otherwise decelerates. See Preda, 401 F.2d at 826.

inter-vehicle spacing is less than some distance or travel time further teaches
or suggests detecting a decrease in distance. Avery passim. Avery’s
condition priority 9 is explicitly for a vehicle condition of “2 second interval,
decreasing.” Avery Table 1.
Appeal 2020-004992
Application 15/276,832

11

3. Propriety of Combing the Teachings of the References
Appellant contends neither Iwasaki, Tengler, nor Avery provide any
teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the references as suggested by
the Examiner. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant further argues, as follows:
To the extent that the Examiner relies on official or judicial
notice of facts or on common knowledge in the art to support the
Examiner’s suggested modification, the Applicant does not
acquiesce to and the Examiner has not cited any reference or
other documentary evidence to support or corroborate any such
official or judicial notice or common knowledge contention.
Id. According to Appellant, any reason for combing the prior art teachings
“could only have been gleaned from Applicant’s claimed invention” and, as
such, constitutes impermissible hindsight reconstruction. Id. (citing Leo
Pharmaceutical Products, Ltd v. Rea, 726 F.3d 1346, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
2013)).
Appellant’s contention is unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, “the motivation to combine need not be
found in prior art references, but equally can be found ‘in the knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.’” Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd.
v. Canadian Pacific Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting
In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 351 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “Evidence of a motivation
to combine prior art references ‘may flow from the prior art references
themselves, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some
cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved.’” Medichem, S.A. v.
Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1164 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1125 (Fed.
Cir. 2000)). The Examiner’s explanation of the reasons a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have had to combine the prior art teachings is sufficient
Appeal 2020-004992
Application 15/276,832

12

when an allowance is made for “the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see also PerfectWeb Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA,
Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (an analysis of obviousness “may
include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the
person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any
reference or expert opinion”). However, the analysis does not require
evidence of an explicit teaching of motivation to combine, only a rationale.
Ball Aerosol v. Ltd. Brands, 555 F.3d 984, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
(requirement for an explicit analysis does not require record evidence of an
explicit teaching of a motivation to combine in the prior art); see also MPEP
§ 2143(I).
The Examiner finds the reason to modify Iwasaki’s deceleration
information to include Tengler’s brake message “is to provide a warning
system to alert a driver [to] the risk of the surrounding environment.” Final
Act. 6. The Examiner further finds it would have been obvious to modify
the combined teaching of Iwasaki and Tengler to include Avery’s teaching
of issuing an alert only in response to both (a) a braking message and (b) a
decrease in vehicle spacing (i.e., distance) so as “to provide a warning
indicator for various condition to alert a driver [to] maintain a safe distance
with the preceding vehicle.” Id. at 7. Appellant fails to address these
findings. Thus, we find the Examiner has provided the requisite “articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
For the reasons discussed supra, Appellant’s arguments are
unpersuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
Appeal 2020-004992
Application 15/276,832

13

103. See Appeal Br. 7–13. Appellant’s arguments in connection with
independent claim 18 (id. at 14–15) are substantively repetitive of those
discussed in connection with claim 1 and are unpersuasive for the same
reasons. Independent claim 8 and dependent claims 2–7, 9, 12–17, and 19–
22 are not argued separately with particularity. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–9 and 12–22 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–9, 14, and
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of
Iwasaki, Tengler, and Avery.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Iwasaki, Tengler,
Avery, and Conrad.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Iwasaki, Tengler,
Avery, and Burzio.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 13, 15, and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Iwasaki,
Tengler, Avery, and Rashid.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18, 19, and 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Iwasaki,
Yurimoto, Avery, and Tengler.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 20 and 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Iwasaki,
Yurimoto, Avery, Tengler, and Rashid.
Appeal 2020-004992
Application 15/276,832

14

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 5,
7–9, 14, 17
103 Iwasaki, Tengler,
Avery
1, 2, 4, 5, 7–
9, 14, 17

3 103 Iwasaki, Tengler,
Avery, Conrad
3
6 103 Iwasaki, Tengler,
Avery, Burzio
6
12, 13, 15,
16
103 Iwasaki, Tengler,
Avery, Rashid
12, 13, 15,
16

18, 19, 22 103 Iwasaki, Yurimoto,
Avery, Tengler
18, 19, 22
20, 21 103 Iwasaki, Tengler,
Avery
20, 21
Overall
Outcome
1–9, 12–22
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any 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