Ex Parte Loomis

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 27, 2019

14830983 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/830,983 08/20/2015
112877 7590 07/01/2019
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Trimble Inc.
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Peter Van Wyck Loomis
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.
089730-046100US-1026010 9319
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, NGA X
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2019 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER VAN WYCK LOOMIS 1
Appeal2018---003274
Application 14/830,983
Technology Center 3600
Before JAMES P. CALVE, JILL D. HILL, and SEAN P. O'HANLON,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Peter Van Wyck Loomis ("Appellant") appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6-14, and
16-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as TRIMBLE INC. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal2018---003274
Application 14/830,983
BACKGROUND
Independent claims 1 and 11 are pending. Independent claim 1,
reproduced below, illustrates the claimed invention.
1. A system for estimating a position of a land
vehicle, the system comprising:
a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver;
a three-axis rate gyroscope;
a three-axis accelerometer;
an elevation database storing road surface heights as a
function of lateral position on a surface of the earth; and
a navigation filter communicatively coupled to the GNSS
receiver, the three-axis rate gyroscope, the three-axis
accelerometer, and the elevation database, the navigation filter
configured to:
estimate the position of the land vehicle based on
GNSS data received at the GNSS receiver when GNSS
signals are available; and
estimate the position of the land vehicle based on
gyroscope data measured by the three-axis rate
gyroscope, accelerometer data measured by the three-axis
accelerometer, and a road surface height obtained from
the elevation database when GNSS signals are not
available, wherein the road surface height is returned by
the elevation database for an estimated lateral position of
the land vehicle on the surface of the earth.
REJECTION
I. Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Breed (US 2015/0127239 Al, pub. May 7, 2015) and
Anderson (US 2014/0297116 Al, pub. Oct. 2, 2014). Final Act. 3.
II. Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Breed, Anderson, and Hoshizaki (US 2013/0138264 Al,
pub. May 30, 2013). Final Act. 5.
2
Appeal2018---003274
Application 14/830,983
III. Claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hoshizaki and Anderson. Final Act. 6.
IV. Claims 7-10 and 17-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Hoshizaki, Anderson, and Breed. Final Act. 8.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I - Breed and Anderson
The Examiner finds that Breed discloses the limitations of
independent claims 1 and 11, except for "an elevation database storing road
surface heights as a function of lateral positon on a surface of the earth,"
wherein "the road surface height is returned by the elevation database for an
estimated lateral position of the land vehicle on the surface of the earth."
Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner finds, however, that Anderson discloses a
vehicle system including "an elevation database storing road surface heights
as a function of lateral position on a surface of the earth," wherein "the road
surface height is returned by the elevation database for an estimated lateral
position of the land vehicle on the surface of the earth. Id. at 4. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Breed "to
store elevation data ... for location and navigation as taught by Anderson
for providing more detail and accuracy information for navigation." Id.
( emphasis omitted).
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in concluding that it would
have been obvious to combine Breed and Anderson to use road height
information for vehicle position determination, because neither Breed nor
Anderson uses road height information in determining a position of the
vehicle. Appeal Br. 8. Rather, Appellant contends, Breed does not use road
3
Appeal2018---003274
Application 14/830,983
height information in determining a position of its vehicle (id. at 7), and
Anderson uses road height information to "adaptively change autonomous
driving behavior," rather than to estimate vehicle position. Id. at 8.
Appellant further contends that Anderson does not "mention anything about
how road height information could be used with the other sensors in
determining the position of the vehicle." Id. Thus, Appellant argues,
because neither Breed nor Anderson uses road height information to
determine vehicle position, it would not have been obvious to combine
Breed and Anderson to teach a navigation filter configured to estimate the
position of the land vehicle based on a road surface height obtained from an
elevation database when GNSS signals are not available. Id. Appellants
thus contend that the Examiner's proposed combination can only be based
on hindsight. Id.
The Examiner responds that "Anderson discloses a self-driving
vehicle compris[ing] location sensors such as GPS receiver, IMU,
accelerometer, etc., topographical map, and a Kalman Filter which combines
the location data and relative data to obtain an accurate [sic] of an absolute
position." Ans. 3 (citing Anderson ,r 9).
Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, an elevation database storing
road surface heights as a function of a lateral position of a vehicle, and a
navigation filter communicatively coupled to the elevation database, the
navigation filter configured to estimate the position of the vehicle based on a
road surface height obtained from the elevation database for an estimated
lateral position of the vehicle. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). Independent
method claim 11 similarly recites estimating, using the navigation filter, the
position of a vehicle based, in part, on a surface height obtained from an
4
Appeal2018---003274
Application 14/830,983
elevation database, wherein the surface height is returned by the elevation
database for an estimated lateral position of the vehicle. Id. at 12 (Claims
App.).
Anderson discloses a self-driving vehicle with improved ride comfort
achieved via integrated active suspension, having suspension actuators and a
forward-looking sensor to detect upcoming road conditions. Anderson ,r,r 7,
9. Vehicle location is determined by "[a] sensor fusion system such as a
Kalman Filter [ combining] location data and relative data to obtain an
accurate estimate of absolute position." Id. ,r 9. A topographical map is
stored in a memory system, and correlates height data to vehicle coordinates.
Id. An active suspension controller, separate from the sensor fusion system,
"may receive information from the sensor fusion system and the memory
system containing the topological map" to control the suspension actuators
"in response to the topographical map." Id. In Anderson, data from the
topographical map is used to adapt driving behavior (slowing on a rough
road), and/or adapt active suspension (proactively adjust suspension for
upcoming road perturbations). Id. ,r 24. The topographical map can also be
employed to select a smooth path of vehicle travel. Id. ,r 24, 33. The
topographical map is indexed by the vehicle's current position, which
position is determined by the sensor fusion system using multiple sensors.
Id. ,r 29. Nowhere does Anderson disclose, teach, or suggest that its
topographical map could be input to its sensor fusion system to determine
vehicle position. Indeed, Anderson instead uses vehicle location as
topographical map input to derive an upcoming road height/roughness.
The Examiner, therefore, errs in finding that Anderson discloses a
self-driving vehicle with location sensors including a GPS receiver, IMU,
5
Appeal2018---003274
Application 14/830,983
accelerometer, and topographical map, and a Kalman Filter that "combines
the location data and relative data to obtain an accurate [sic] of an absolute
position" (Ans. 3). The Examiner further does not allege that a skilled
artisan would have understood how to use data from Anderson's
topographical map in Breed's or Anderson's Kalman filter to provide more
detailed and accurate information for navigation. For this reason, we do not
sustain Rejection I.
Rejection II - Breed, Anderson, and Hoshizaki
Claims 21 and 22 depend from claims 1 and 11. For the reason set
forth above, we do not sustain Rejection II.
Rejection III - Hoshizaki and Anderson
The Examiner finds that Hoshizaki discloses the limitations of
independent claims 1 and 11, except for "an elevation database storing road
surface heights as a function of lateral positon on a surface of the earth,"
wherein "the road surface height is returned by the elevation database for an
estimated lateral position of the land vehicle on the surface of the earth."
Final Act. 7. The Examiner finds, however, that Anderson discloses a
vehicle system including "an elevation database storing road surface heights
as a function of lateral position on a surface of the earth," wherein "the road
surface height is returned by the elevation database for an estimated lateral
position of the land vehicle on the surface of the earth. Id. The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Hoshizaki "to store
elevation data ... for location and navigation as taught by Anderson for
providing more detail and accuracy information for navigation." Id. at 8.
( emphasis omitted).
6
Appeal2018---003274
Application 14/830,983
Appellant argues, again, that Anderson fails to disclose estimating
vehicle position based on a road surface height obtained from an elevation
database. Appeal Br. 4. Appellant also argues that "Hoshizaki uses a
different approach to achieve accurate navigation when GPS signals are not
available, namely utilizing the internal geometry of the sensor position with
respect to the vehicle's rear-wheel axis." Id. at 9-10. Thus, Appellant
argues, "there is no motivation to combine gyroscope data and accelerometer
data with road surface height obtained from the elevation database to
estimate the position of the land vehicle when GNSS signals are not
available." Id. at 5.
The Examiner responds that Anderson's system uses relative position
data and a topographical map having height information "to estimate an
accurate position," making it obvious to combine Hoshizaki's disclosure of
estimating the position of the land vehicle based on gyroscope data,
accelerometer data, "by including a road surface height obtained from the
elevation database as taught by Anderson." Ans. 4--5.
As explained above in our analysis of Rejection I, the Examiner erred
in finding that Anderson's system uses relative position data and a
topographical map having height information "to estimate an accurate
position." This erroneous finding formed the basis for the Examiner's
determination that it would have been obvious to combine Hoshizaki' s
disclosure of estimating the position of the land vehicle based on gyroscope
data, accelerometer data, "by including a road surface height obtained from
the elevation database as taught by Anderson" (Ans. 4--5). The Examiner
further does not allege that a skilled artisan would have understood how to
use data from Anderson's topographical map is Hoshizaki's or Anderson's
7
Appeal2018---003274
Application 14/830,983
Kalman filter to provide more detailed and accurate information for
navigation. For this reason, we do not sustain Rejection III.
Rejection IV - Hoshizaki, Anderson, and Breed
Claims 7-10 and 17-22 depend from claims 1 and 11. For the reason
set forth above, we do not sustain Rejection IV.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-20 as unpatentable over
Breed and Anderson.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 21 and 22 as unpatentable over
Breed, Anderson, and Hoshizaki.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-22 as unpatentable over
Hoshizaki and Anderson.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 7-10 and 17-22 as
unpatentable over Hoshizaki, Anderson, and Breed.
REVERSED
8