10563664 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2013)

Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 25, 2013

10563664 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2013)

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. 10/563,664 01/06/2006 Wei-Chia Lee 10191/4091 2943 26646 7590 04/26/2013 KENYON & KENYON LLP ONE BROADWAY NEW YORK, NY 10004 EXAMINER MORTELL, JOHN F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2689 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/26/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte WEI-CHIA LEE and CYRILLE BOLLENGIER _____________ Appeal 2010-011607 Application 10/563,664 Technology Center 2600 ______________ Before ERIC B. CHEN, BRYAN F. MOORE, JOHN G. NEW Administrative Patent Judges. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-011607 Application 10/563,664 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 10-30 which represent all the pending claims. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. INVENTION The invention is directed to a system for parking assistance. Claim 10 is exemplary of the invention and is reproduced below: 10. A device for driving assistance for parallel parking a vehicle, comprising: an output unit for outputting parallel parking driving instructions to a driver; wherein the parallel parking driving instructions provide a driver with a driving zone situated between two trajectories which are calculated in such a way that the vehicle can be moved within the driving zone. REFERENCES Luckscheiter US 6,226,592 Bl May 1, 2001 Tanaka US 2003/0058337 Al Mar. 27, 2003 Okamoto US 2003/0045973 Al Mar. 6, 2003 Janssen US 6,919,917 Bl Jul. 19, 2005 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 10 to 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Tanaka. Ans. 3-5. Claims 14, 21, 23, 24, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Tanaka and Janssen. Ans. 5-8. Appeal 2010-011607 Application 10/563,664 3 Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Tanaka and Luckscheiter. Ans. 8-9. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Tanaka and Okamoto. Ans. 9-10. Claims 22 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Tanaka, Janssen, and Luckscheiter. Ans. 10-11. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Tanaka, Janssen, and Okamoto. Ans. 11-12. Claims 29 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Tanaka, Janssen, Luckscheiter, and Okamoto. Ans. 12-18. ISSUES 1. Did the Examiner err in finding that Tanaka discloses “the parallel parking driving instructions provide a driver with a driving zone situated between two trajectories which are calculated in such a way that the vehicle can be moved within the driving zone,” recited in claim 10; and 2. Did the Examiner err in finding that Tanaka discloses “the driving instructions indicate to the driver a driving range between two trajectories which designate two different determined routes, the routes being determined so that the vehicle is moveable to park it within the driving range,” recited in claim 28? Appeal 2010-011607 Application 10/563,664 4 ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) - Tanaka Claims 10 to 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, and 28 Claim 10 Claim 10 recites “the parallel parking driving instructions provide a driver with a driving zone situated between two trajectories which are calculated in such a way that the vehicle can be moved within the driving zone.” Appellants argue that nothing in the Tanaka reference identically discloses (or even suggests) a driving zone delimited by two paths along which a fixed point of the vehicle can be guided during a move and outside of which the vehicle may collide, as provided for in the context of the presently claimed subject matter.” App. Br. 9; see also, Reply. Br. 3-5. The argument is not persuasive of Examiner error. The Examiner responds that Tanaka discloses a display that depicts the anticipated course R of the vehicle which enables the driver to adjust the steering of the vehicle by comparison with a parking path S, which is depicted on the same display. Ans. 19 (citingTanaka, ¶ [0053]). The Examiner finds that Tanaka also discloses that the system calculates the parking path S from the current position of the vehicle to the parking target point. Ans. 19(citing Tanaka, ¶ [0057]). The Examiner finds that Tanaka discloses that the calculated parking path S makes it possible for the driver “to grasp the relationship between relative positions to obstacles such as the forward parking vehicle 12, the backward parking vehicle 13, and the road shoulder edge 14.” Id. The Examiner also finds that Tanaka discloses that the system calculates parking path S so as to avoid a collision with the Appeal 2010-011607 Application 10/563,664 5 obstacle at the target point. Ans. 19 (citing Tanaka, ¶ [0058]). Parking path S as shown in Fig. 1 shows a path that includes left and right vehicle boundaries. Id. at Fig. 1. We note that claim 10 does not recite a “fixed point on the vehicle” as suggested by Appellants. With that understanding, based on the disclosures of Tanaka discussed above, we agree with the Examiner that parking path S has two trajectories representing the left and right vehicle boundaries that are calculated such that the driver can move between them in a defined driving zone. Ans. 19-20. We therefore conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that Tanaka discloses the limitation of claim 10 reciting “the parallel parking driving instructions provide a driver with a driving zone situated between two trajectories which are calculated in such a way that the vehicle can be moved within the driving zone.” Claim 28 recites “the driving instructions indicate to the driver a driving range between two trajectories which designate two different determined routes, the routes being determined so that the vehicle is moveable to park it within the driving range.” Appellants argue “the Tanaka reference does not identically disclose (nor suggest) the claim feature of two different determined routes, since any review of the Tanaka reference makes plain that two different determined routes are not even discussed.” App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 5-6. The argument is not persuasive of Examiner error. Appellants suggest that claim 28 is limited to two independent paths for the vehicle to follow and Tanaka only show a single trajectory. App. Br. 11. As noted above, Tanaka discloses a parking path S as shown in Fig. 1 Appeal 2010-011607 Application 10/563,664 6 shows a path that includes left and right vehicle boundaries. Ans. 19 (citing Tanaka, Fig. 1). We agree with the Examiner that Tanaka’s two boundaries meet the claim language. Ans. 21. That is, we agree with the Examiner that parking path S as shown in Fig. 1 delimits two trajectories between which the driver can drive. Ans. 28. We consequently conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that Tanaka discloses the disputed limitation of claim 28. Appellants do not substantively argue the rejection of claims 11-27, 29, and 30. Thus, for the reasons stated above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 10-30. ADDITIONAL ARGUMENTS Appellants argue generally that the “Office must provide proper evidence of a motivation for modifying or combining the references to provide the claimed subject matter” (App. Br. 15) and that there is “lack of any of the required factual findings forces both Appellants and this Appeals Board to resort to unwarranted speculation to ascertain exactly what facts underly the present obviousness rejections.” (App. Br. 16). Appellants do not specify which combinations of references are lacking motivation and/or which underlying facts are allegedly missing from the Examiner’s analysis. Moreover, attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “Argument in the brief does not take the place of evidence in the record.” In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965) (citing In re Cole, 326 F.2d 769, 773 (CCPA 1964)). Appeal 2010-011607 Application 10/563,664 7 Appellants also argue “the Office Actions to date never made any findings, such as, for example, regarding in any way whatsoever what a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been at the time the claimed subject matter of the present application was made.” App. Br. 16. As noted by our reviewing court, “the absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.”’ Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In cases where the patents and prior art are “easily understandable, a factual determination of the level of skill in the art was unnecessary. . . . [one] cannot argue that an unnecessary fact is material. It makes only a naked allegation that some unspecified higher level of skill should have been applied.” Chrome-Time Equipment Inc. v. Cumberland Corp., 713 F.2d 774, 779 (Fed. Cir.1983). The Patent Office satisfies its initial burden of production by “adequately explain[ing] the shortcomings it perceives so that the applicant is properly notified and able to respond.” In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). The Examiner cited references in the art of displaying vehicle positions. We find that the cited references reflect the appropriate level of skill in the art and Appellants have not established otherwise with persuasive evidence. Except for the general arguments noted above, Appellants do not substantively argue the rejection of claims 11-27, 29, and 30. Thus, for the reasons stated above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 10- 30. Appeal 2010-011607 Application 10/563,664 8 DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 10-30 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED ke