DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 3, 20212020006802 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/940,390 03/29/2018 MICHAEL J. ILARDI 17-DIS-410-PR-US-UTL 4896 63652 7590 12/03/2021 DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC. c/o Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.; Attn IP DOCKET 400 East Van Buren Street Suite 1900 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202 EXAMINER HILGENDORF, DALE W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3662 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/03/2021 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): IPDOCKET@swlaw.com klembke@swlaw.com ksandoval@swlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MICHAEL J. ILARDI, FRANK D. MEZZATESTA III, JONATHAN MICHAEL BECKER, DAWSON McLEOD DILL, LUKE ANDREW SCIARAFFA, JOSEPH GEORGE HAGER IV, and WILLIAM BENNETT HOGUE JR. Appeal 2020-006802 Application 15/940,390 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–5, 9–17, and 20. We have jurisdiction 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. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Disney Enterprises, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company).” Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-006802 Application 15/940,390 2 ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM 1. A system for use in a park attraction that provides a collaborative driving experience, comprising: a vehicle including a body with a plurality of passenger seats, including a user input assembly proximate to each of the passenger seats, and further including a holonomic drive system adapted to move the body in any direction while riding on a driving surface of the park attraction; and a system controller operating to: receive user input from each of the user input assemblies; process the user input from each of the user input assemblies to generate a control vector associated with each of the user input assemblies; combine the control vectors from all of the user input assemblies to generate a resultant vector; generate a drive control signal from the resultant vector; and transmit the drive control signal to the vehicle, wherein the holonomic drive system operates in response to the drive control signal to move on the driving surface of the park attraction. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Weston US 6,796,908 B2 Sept. 28, 2004 Osterman et al. (“Osterman”) US 2017/0166221 A1 June 15, 2017 Appeal 2020-006802 Application 15/940,390 3 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1–5, 9–13, 15–17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1)–(2) as anticipated by Osterman. II. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Osterman and Weston. FINDINGS OF FACT The findings of fact relied upon, which are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, appear in the following Analysis. ANALYSIS The Appellant argues that independent claim 1 stands rejected erroneously, as anticipated by the Osterman reference, because Osterman does not teach claim 1’s limitations of “generat[ing] a drive control signal from the resultant vector” that “combine[s] the control vectors” based on “the user input from each of the user input assemblies.” Appeal Br. 12–14. The Appellant argues that the claim term “vector” is used “in a manner consistent with its commonly understood meaning in the mechanical arts as a quantity that has both magnitude and direction.” Appeal Br. 12. In claim 1, according to the Appellant, a “control vector, is readily combined with other users’ control vectors using vector addition math to produce the claimed resultant vector.” Id. The Appellant goes on to argue: Osterman, in para. [0039], simply states that “the vehicle controller 70 may combine (e.g., average, apply a weighted average, add, etc.) the feedback from the two activated steering wheels 36 into an aggregated signal to control the steering of the multi-passenger ride vehicle.” Osterman is silent as to generating a control vector associated with each steering wheel 36. Hence, Osterman is also silent as to combining control vectors associated with each steering wheel 36 to Appeal 2020-006802 Application 15/940,390 4 generate a resultant vector for use in driving the Osterman vehicle 12. This silence is not merely a matter of word choice; nothing in Osterman suggests that a quantity that has magnitude and direction is ever generated from the user input or is ever used to generate drive control signals. Id. at 13. In response, the Examiner refers to Osterman’s disclosure of passengers “cooperatively” controlling “direction, speed, and/or orientation” of a multi-passenger vehicle — which the Examiner characterizes as a vector possessing both direction and magnitude. Answer 6 (citing Osterman ¶ 22). Further, the Examiner finds that the control signals from multiple passengers, in Osterman, may be “averaged, weighted, or added,” so as to create a “resultant vector.” Id. (citing Osterman ¶ 39). Further, the Examiner finds that claims 18 and 19 of Osterman disclose the creation of resultant vectors. Id. Specifically, Osterman’s claim 18 discloses a controller that selects “the first feedback, the second feedback, or both” from two respective steering wheels, in order to “determine a direction of the vehicle path.” Id. (quoting Osterman, claim 18). The Examiner finds that such combination of directional feedback “equates to the directional portion of the vectors.” Id. As to Osterman’s claim 19 (which depends from claim 18 of the reference), the Examiner finds that feedback, from each of two passengers’ respective gas and brake pedals, may be combined to determine a speed of the vehicle, which the Examiner characterizes as “the magnitude portion of the vector.” Id. (citing Osterman, claim 19). The Appellant identifies a flaw in the Examiner’s findings, based upon Osterman, relating to the claim 1’s limitations of “generat[ing] a drive control signal from the resultant vector” that “combine[s] the control Appeal 2020-006802 Application 15/940,390 5 vectors” based on “the user input from each of the user input assemblies.” Specifically, Osterman describes combining directional and speed feedbacks separately, rather than combining them as vectors. For example, Osterman’s claim 18 describes a controller that “select[s] the first feedback [from the first steering wheel], the second feedback [from the second steering wheel], or both to determine a direction of the vehicle path” — but, such direction is determined without regard for the associated speed-related inputs (i.e., the magnitudes of velocity vectors). Osterman’s claim 19 adds a controller that selects one of the speed-related inputs “or a combination thereof” — but without regard for the directional inputs of the passengers. Separately adding directional inputs (without regard for their relative speed magnitudes) and speed inputs (without regard for their relative directions) is contrary to the claimed “generat[ing] a drive control signal from the resultant vector” that “combine[s] the control vectors” in claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, as anticipated by Osterman. Similarly, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of independent claim 15, which contains substantially identical limitations to those addressed herein. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–5, 9–13, 15–17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1)– (2). Claim 14, which depends from claim 13 and claim 1, is rejected as obvious over Osterman and Weston. However, the rejection does not rely upon Weston in a manner that might overcome the identified deficiency of Osterman, in regard to claim 1, as discussed above. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2020-006802 Application 15/940,390 6 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–5, 9–17, and 20 are reversed. More specifically: We reverse the rejection of claims 1–5, 9–13, 15–17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1)–(2) as anticipated by Osterman. We reverse the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Osterman and Weston. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–5, 9–13, 15–17, 20 102(a)(1) Osterman 1–5, 9–13, 15–17, 20 14 103(a) Osterman, Weston 14 Overall Outcome 1–5, 9–17, 20 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation