Ex Parte LevineDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 29, 201510986927 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2015) 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. 10/986,927 11/15/2004 Alfred B. Levine 11104 8613 7590 01/29/2015 Alfred B. Levine 9005 Seven Locks Road Bethesda, MD 20817 EXAMINER HARRIS, DOROTHY H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2625 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/29/2015 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 ALFRED B. LEVINE ____________________ Appeal 2014-009490 Application 10/986,927 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 30-32, 34, 35, and 39. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1-29 have been cancelled, and claims 36-38 have been withdrawn. We affirm.2 1 The real party in interest is Alfred B. Levine. 2 Our Decision refers to the Appeal Brief filed July 31, 2014 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed Aug. 21, 2014 (“Ans.”), the Appellant’s Supplemental Answer and Reply Brief filed Sept. 8, 2014 (“Reply Br.”), the Final Office Action mailed June 25, 2014 (“FOA”), and the Specification filed on Nov. 15, 2004 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2014-009490 Application 10/986,927 2 THE INVENTION Appellant’s invention is directed to a conditionally activated advisory display system for a vehicle to avoid collision with other vehicles. The display system conditionally operates to indicate nearby vehicles in order to avoid collisions, such as when the driver turns the steering wheel or activates a turn signal to change lanes on a highway. Independent claim 30 recites sensor means to detect other vehicles near a host vehicle, and controller means to conditionally operate display means to display other vehicles near the host vehicle when the driver turns the vehicle. Claims 31 and 32 are dependent from claim 30. Independent claim 34 recites a conditionally activated display system with controller means responsive to one of the manual operation of the turning mechanism and the manual operation of the turn signal mechanism, to conditionally activate display means to display a representation of vehicles detected by sensing means. Claim 35 depends from claim 34. Independent claim 39 recites similar limitations to claim 34 as pertains to the issues presented in this appeal. REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 30-32, 34, 35, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Pawlicki3 and Schofield4 (FOA 7). 3 US 7,038,577 B2 issued May 2, 2006. 4 US 2002/0003571 A1 published Jan. 2, 2002. Appeal 2014-009490 Application 10/986,927 3 ANALYSIS Appellant’s Arguments Regarding the cited prior art, Appellant states that Pawlicki requires two concurrent conditions to exist before activation of its display system, the first being detection of its “location” on the road by detecting the painted lane markings dividing lanes of travel, and the second concurrent condition being detection of a vehicle at the location where a collision would result (App. Br. 3-4). According to Appellant, only if both conditions are detected concurrently, will the system generate an audible warning to the driver (id.). Appellant argues Schofield was added to the rejection to teach a visual display to replace the audible warning of Pawlicki (App. Br. 4). With respect to claims 30, 34, and 39, Appellant states the claimed warning display means “directly responds to the sole action of the driver beginning to turn the vehicle steering wheel, regardless of whether there are any vehicles next to or around the host vehicle.” (App. Br. 2, 5; Reply Br. 1). With respect to claims 34 and 39, Appellant states, in addition to activation by turning, the display may be independently activated by the single action of the driver operating the turn signaling lever of the vehicle (id.). Examiner’s Findings The Examiner states that Pawlicki teaches the following: “The warning or alert signal may be provided to the driver of the vehicle 12 in response to another vehicle being detected at the blind spot area (as shown in FIG. 1) and may only be provided when the driver of vehicle 12 actuates a turn signal toward that side or begins turning the subject vehicle 12 toward that side to change lanes into the lane occupied by the other detected vehicle.” Appeal 2014-009490 Application 10/986,927 4 (Ans. 6 citing Pawlicki, col. 8, ll. 29-35)(emphasis in original). From this teaching, the Examiner concludes that Pawlicki provides an alert only when a driver of a vehicle actuates a turn signal toward an intended adjacent lane or begins turning the subject vehicle toward an adjacent lane (id.). With respect to Schofield, the Examiner cites the following: “For vehicles equipped with side-lane monitoring cameras, selection of the left or right turn signal indicator can optionally automatically change camera selection and display view to the respective side to which the vehicle is signaling an intent to turn. When the turn signal indicator deactivates, the camera selection and display automatically reverts to its pre-turn event condition.” (Ans. 6 citing Schofield ¶ 391). Claim 30 Regarding claim 30, Appellant argues turning the vehicle is the sole condition causing operation of the display means (App. Br. 2, 5; Reply Br. 1). Thus, according to Appellant’s reasoning, because Pawlicki uses multiple conditions, namely, detection of vehicle presence in a lane near the host vehicle, in addition to turning or activating a turn signal, the claim is not taught by the cited prior art (id.). We agree with the Examiner there is no limitation in claim 30 indicating that turning the vehicle is an independent condition for operating the display (Ans. 5). Moreover, the claim does not preclude detection of a vehicle in a lane into which the host vehicle is turning as a condition for operation of its display means. Appellant’s arguments are thus not commensurate in scope with the limitations recited in the claim. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in this rejection. Appeal 2014-009490 Application 10/986,927 5 We therefore sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 30. Claims 34 and 39 Claims 34 and 39 differ from claim 30 in that they recite as conditions for operating the display means either manual operation of the turning mechanism of the vehicle or manual operation of the turn signal mechanism. Appellant argues these conditions are independent and thus do not require detection of a vehicle in the lane into which a host vehicle is to turn, as taught by the combined prior art, and specifically, Pawlicki (see App. Br. 4-6). Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims as recited. Specifically, these claims do not recite that the manual operation of turning a steering wheel or activating a turn signal are independent conditions for operation of the display. Moreover, the claims do not preclude detection of a vehicle as a condition for operating the display means. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in this rejection and sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 34 and 39. Remaining Dependent Claims No separate arguments are presented for the remaining dependent claims. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of these claims for the same reasons stated with respect to their respective independent claims. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Appeal 2014-009490 Application 10/986,927 6 DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 30-32, 34, 35, and 39 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 gvw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation