Ex Parte Kaplan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 18, 2018

14158282 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/158,282 01/17/2014
88032 7590 09/20/2018
Jordan IP Law, LLC
12501 Prosperity Drive, Suite 401
Silver Spring, MD 20904
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David Kaplan
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
P61891 9157
EXAMINER
DIEDHIOU, IBRAHIMA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2872
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2018 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):
info@jordaniplaw.com
admin@jordaniplaw.com
inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID KAPLAN,
TOMER RIDER, A VIV RON, and
SHARAR TAITE
Appeal2018-002151
Application 14/158,282 1
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-25.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 2
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Intel Corporation, which, according to the
Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) 3, filed
June 14, 2017.
2 Our Decision additionally refers to the Specification (Spec.) filed January
17, 2014, the Final Office Action (Final Act.) dated November 3, 2016, the
Examiner's Answer (Ans.) dated October 19, 2017, and the Reply Brief
(Reply Br.) dated December 19, 2017.
Appeal 2018-002151
Application 14/158,282
We AFFIRM.
The subject matter on appeal relates to systems to control rear-views,
methods of operating a rear-view mirror, non-transitory computer readable
storage mediums comprising a set of instructions for controlling a rear-view
mirror, and an apparatus for adjusting a rear-view mirror (see, e.g., claims 1,
5, 12, and 19). The Inventors state that when a vehicle travels on a hill, the
line of sight provided by a rear-view mirror may be too low or too high,
which creates safety concerns because a driver lacks a full view of the road
behind them and the driver may manually adjust a rear-view mirror while
driving. Spec. ,r 2. In view of this, the Inventors disclose systems that
automatically rotate a rear-view mirror to maintain a target field of view for
a driver when a vehicle travels upward or downward on an incline. Id.
,r,r 12-13.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the
Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. Limitations at issue are italicized.
1. A system to control rear-views, comprising:
a plurality of sensors;
. .
a rear-view mirror;
a motor coupled to the rear-view mirror;
an initialization module to identify a first position of the
rear-view mirror, wherein the first position is to provide a target
field of view;
a tilt module to detect a travel related tilt of the rear-view
mirror based on one or more sensor signals from the plurality of
sensors and determine a second position for the rear-view
mirror in response to the travel related tilt; and
an adjustment module to adjust the rear-view mirror to
the second position, wherein the second position is to provide
the target field of view after the travel related tilt,
wherein the adjusting of the rear-view mirror is
terminated based on a determination of a stationary travel
2
Appeal 2018-002151
Application 14/158,282
related state, and
wherein signals from two or more of the plurality of
sensors are to be combined to determine a tilt angle of the rear-
. .
view mirror.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
I. Claims 1, 2, 4--7, 10-14, 17-21, 24, and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as being anticipated by Sakamoto; 3
and
II. Claims 3, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 23 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sakamoto.
B. DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Claims 1, 2, 4--7, 10-14, 17-21, 24, and 25 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as being anticipated by Sakamoto.
We address claims separately from representative claim 1 only to the
extent that they have been argued separately pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds Sakamoto discloses a system to control rear-
views that includes, among other things, a plurality of sensors, a rear-view
mirror, a motor coupled to the rear-view mirror, an initialization module, a
tilt module, and an adjustment module. Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner finds
the adjustment of the rear-view mirror is terminated in Sakamoto's system
3 Sakamoto et al., US 2006/0262432 Al, published Nov. 23, 2006
("Sakamoto").
3
Appeal 2018-002151
Application 14/158,282
based on a determination of a stationary travel related state, as recited in
claim 1. Id. at 4.
Appellant contends Sakamoto does not disclose that the adjustment of
a rear-view mirror is terminated based on a determination of a stationary
travel related state, as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 9. Specifically,
Appellant asserts Sakamoto simply teaches storing an initial mirror angle via
operation of a switch, ignoring a variation of vehicle height over a short
period of time while a vehicle is traveling, and not tilting mirrors during
vehicle travel when the weight of passengers and a load is small but tilting
mirrors when the weight of passengers and a load is large, which are not
disclosures of terminating rear-view mirror adjustment based on a
determination of a stationary travel related state, as recited in claim 1. Id. at
9-11; Reply Br. 6-8.
To analyze the rejection of claim 1, we determine the scope of the
language "wherein the adjusting of the rear-view mirror is terminated based
on a determination of a stationary travel related state." It is not clear from
the language of claim 1 whether the term "adjusting" refers to the
adjustment (i.e., physical tilting or rotation) of a rear-view mirror performed
by the recited adjustment module or generally refers to the overall control
performed by the claimed system. Therefore, we tum to the Specification to
determine the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language.
When applying the mode of claim construction applicable during
examination, we "give claims their broadest reasonable construction
consistent with the specification." In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496
F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). See also In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393,
1404--1405 (CCPA 1969) ("[C]laims yet unpatented are to be given the
4
Appeal 2018-002151
Application 14/158,282
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during
the examination of a patent application since the applicant may then amend
his claims, the thought being to reduce the possibility that, after the patent is
granted, the claims may be interpreted as giving broader coverage than is
justified.")
Appellant's Specification describes a method for operating a rear-
view mirror, as depicted in Appellant's Figure 4. Spec. ,r,r 18-20. Appellant
cites this description when summarizing the "adjusting" subject matter of
claim 1. Appeal Br. 5. Processing block 52 of Figure 4 involves identifying
a first position of a rear-view mirror. Spec. ,r 19. Processing block 54
involves determining a second position for the rear-view mirror in response
to travel related tilt and processing block 56 adjusts the rear-view mirror to
the second position. Id. ,r,r 19-20. For processing block 58, the
Specification describes determining whether the adjustment loop should
continue by considering "various factors such as, for example, user
preferences, vehicle state ( e.g., stationary versus mobile), and so forth." Id.
,r 20. The Specification further states "[i]f so, [the determination is made to
continue] the position determination at block 54 and the mirror adjustment at
block 56 may repeat on a continual basis," as depicted in Figure 4. Id.
Thus, the "adjustment loop" does not consist solely of tilting the rear-view
mirror (i.e., processing block 56) but also determines a second position (i.e.,
target position) for the rear-view mirror, per processing block 54.
In view of the above, the language "adjusting of the rear-view mirror"
is not limited to the physical adjustment (i.e., tilting) of a rear-view mirror
but encompasses at least portions of the overall control process performed
by the claimed system. Furthermore, the language "a stationary travel
5
Appeal 2018-002151
Application 14/158,282
related state" is not limited by the claim language to a vehicle being
stationary. The plain language "stationary travel related state" encompasses
states related to stationary travel, such as, for example, the state of a vehicle
incline not changing because the vehicle is stationary. Thus, the scope of
claim 1 encompasses more than terminating the physical adjustment (i.e.,
physical tilting) of a rear-view mirror when a vehicle is determined to be
stationary. In view of the above, the language "wherein the adjusting of the
rear-view mirror is terminated based on a determination of a stationary travel
related state" encompasses a situation in which no adjustment control of a
rear-view mirror is carried out because an incline for a vehicle is not
changing when the vehicle is stationary (i.e., a state of a non-changing
incline due to a stationary vehicle is "a stationary travel related state").
Turning to the§ I02(a)(l) rejection, the Examiner finds that
Sakamoto' s system would inherently function in the claimed manner. Ans.
2-3. We agree that the scope of claim 1 encompasses an operation
inherently performed by Sakamoto' s system.
Sakamoto discloses a rearview correction/controlling system having a
control means that uses an initial mirror surface angle storing section 32, 4 an
inclination sensor 38, an inclination determining section 31 that determines
the vehicle has been inclined, and drive means 27 AR and 27 AL having
motors for tilting mirrors in accordance with the result of the determining
section 31 until the angles detected by the sensors coincide with an angle
determined by a mirror driving angle determining section 33. Sakamoto
,r,r 3, 26-27. In other words, Sakamoto's system operates to change the tilt
4 Throughout this Decision, for clarity, we present labels to elements in
figures in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
6
Appeal 2018-002151
Application 14/158,282
angle of mirrors until the angle corresponds to a vehicle's angle of
inclination. For example, if a vehicle having Sakamoto's system has
stopped and the vehicle inclination is not changing (i.e., a state related to
stationary travel), Sakamoto's system will determine the mirror angle
corresponds to the vehicle's angle of inclination ( which is not changing
because the vehicle is stationary) and no control or adjustment of the mirror
angle is required (i.e., "the adjusting of the rear-view mirror is terminated
based on a determination of a stationary travel related state"). As a result,
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive that Sakamoto does not anticipate
claim 1.
Appellant argues claims 1, 12, and 19 recite structures not disclosed
by Sakamoto and claim 5 recites a method not disclosed by Sakamoto.
Reply Br. 5---6. These arguments also do not identify a reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection. As explained above, the normal and usual operation
of Sakamoto' s system would inherently function in a manner that is
encompassed by the claimed systems and methods.
Appellant further contends "Sakamoto does not disclose a computer
readable storage medium that terminates the adjusting of the rear-view
mirror based on a determination of a stationary travel related state," as
recited in claim 12. Reply Br. 5-6 (emphasis omitted). Appellant has not
shown good cause why this argument could not have been presented in the
Appeal Brief. Therefore, we will not consider this argument newly raised in
the Reply Brief. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.41(b)(2).
Appellant does not present separate arguments for claims 2, 4--7, 10-
14, 17-21, 24, and 25. Appeal Br. 9-11.
7
Appeal 2018-002151
Application 14/158,282
For the reasons discussed above and those set forth in the Examiner's
Answer, we sustain the Examiner's§ 102(a)(l) rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--7,
10-14, 17-21, 24, and 25 over Sakamoto.
Rejection II
Claims 3, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 23 are rejected as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sakamoto.
Appellant argues claims 3, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 23 are patentable for
the same reasons as the claims they depend from. Appeal Br. 11. As
discussed above with regard to the§ 102(a)(l) rejection, Appellant's
arguments do not identify a reversible error in the rejections of the
independent claims. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above and those
set forth in the Examiner's Answer, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103
rejection of claims 3, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 23.
C. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
8