Ex Parte Marti et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 27, 2013

11831244 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LUKAS MICHAEL MARTI and JORGE SANS SANGORRIN
____________
Appeal 2011-003326
Application 11/831,244
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before KARL D. EASTHOM, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-003326
Application 11/831,244

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-20. App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a method for maintaining a database for a
plurality of vehicles that includes obtaining first sensor data from a vehicle
sensor and comparing that data to data stored in a database. Abstract. If the
first sensor data does not match the data stored in the database, the disclosed
invention determines whether data from a single vehicle sensor or a plurality
of vehicle sensors is required to update the database. Id. The disclosed
invention updates the database if consistent data from the required number
of vehicle sensors is available. Id. If data from a plurality of vehicle sensors
is required to update the database, but is not available, the disclosed
invention identifies a loss of database integrity. Id. If data from a plurality
of vehicle sensors is required to update the database and is available, and the
first sensor data is not confirmed by data from other vehicle sensors, the
disclosed invention identifies an anomalous driving condition. Id.
Illustrative Claim
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent claims. Claims 2-8 directly
depend from independent claim 1, claims 10-16 directly depend from
independent claim 9, and claims 18-20 directly or indirectly depend from
independent claim 17. Independent claims 1 and 17 are illustrative of the
disclosed invention and are reproduced below.
Appeal 2011-003326
Application 11/831,244

3
1. A method of maintaining a database for a plurality
of vehicles, said method comprising the steps of:
obtaining first sensor data from a vehicle sensor;
comparing the first sensor data to data in the database;
and
if the first sensor data does not match the database data:
determining whether data from a single vehicle
sensor or from a plurality of vehicle sensors is required to
update the database;
updating the database if consistent data from a
required number of vehicle sensors is available;
identifying a loss of database integrity if data from
a plurality of vehicle sensors is required to update the
database but is not available; and
identifying anomalous driving if:
data from a plurality of vehicle sensors is
required to update the database and is available;
and
the first sensor data is not confirmed by data
from other vehicle sensors.

17. A method of maintaining a database for a plurality
of vehicles, said method comprising the steps of:
obtaining first sensor data from a vehicle sensor;
comparing the first sensor data to data in the database;
and
if the first sensor data does not match the database data,
identifying anomalous driving if:
data from a plurality of vehicle sensors is required
to update the database and is available; and
the first sensor data is not confirmed by data from
other vehicle sensors.

Prior Art Relied Upon
Cherveny US 6,853,913 B2 Feb. 8, 2005

Appeal 2011-003326
Application 11/831,244

4
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Cherveny. Ans. 3-14.
Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
1. The Examiner finds that Cherveny describes all the claim
limitations recited in independent claims 1 and 9. Ans. 3-5, 7-8. In
particular, the Examiner finds that Cherveny’s disclosure of filtering sensor
data that is beyond a specified variance range describes “identifying a loss of
database integrity if data from a plurality of vehicle sensors is required to
update the database but is not available,” as recited in independent claim 1,
and similarly recited in independent claim 9. Id. at 4, 8 (citing to Cherveny
Fig. 3; col. 8, ll. 56-60).
2. The Examiner finds that Cherveny describes all the claim
limitations recited in independent claim 17. Ans. 11-12. In particular, the
Examiner finds that Cherveny discloses determining automatically if a
vehicle is deviating from a roadway or veering out of its lane and, therefore,
describes “identifying anomalous driving,” as recited in independent claim
17. Id. at 12 (citing to Cherveny, col. 9, ll. 40-45). The Examiner also finds
that Cherveny’s disclosure of determining that the sensors in a vehicle are
not calibrated properly describes “data from a plurality of vehicle sensors is
required to update the database and is available; and the first sensor data is
not confirmed by data from other vehicle sensors,” as claimed. Id. (citing to
Cherveny, col. 9, ll. 54-55).
Appellants’ Contentions
1. Appellants contend that Cherveny’s disclosure of filtering data
does not describe “identifying a loss of database integrity if data from a
Appeal 2011-003326
Application 11/831,244

5
plurality of vehicle sensors is required to update the database but is not
available,” as recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 9.
Appellants rely upon the same arguments presented against the anticipation
rejection of independent claim 1 to rebut the anticipation rejection of
independent claim 9. App. Br. 13.
2. Appellants contend that Cherveny’s disclosure of determining
automatically if a vehicle is deviating from the roadway or veering out of its
lane, in conjunction with sensors that are not calibrated properly, does not
describe “identifying anomalous driving if: data from a plurality of vehicle
sensors is required to update the database and is available; and the first
sensor data is not confirmed by data from other vehicle sensors,” as recited
in independent claim 17. App. Br. 13.

II. ISSUES
1. Has the Examiner erred in determining that Cherveny describes
“identifying a loss of database integrity if data from a plurality of vehicle
sensors is required to update the database but is not available,” as recited in
independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claim 9?
2. Has the Examiner erred in determining that Cherveny describes
“identifying anomalous driving if: data from a plurality of vehicle sensors is
required to update the database and is available; and the first sensor data is
not confirmed by data from other vehicle sensors,” as recited in independent
claim 17?

Appeal 2011-003326
Application 11/831,244

6
III. ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 91
Based on the record before us, we discern error in the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of independent claim 1, which recites, inter alia,
“identifying a loss of database integrity if data from a plurality of vehicle
sensors is required to update the database but is not available.” We also
discern error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 9,
which recites a similar claim limitation.
We begin our analysis by determining the scope and breadth of the
disputed claim limitation. The claimed “identifying a loss of database
integrity” is predicated upon two conditions: (1) “data from a plurality of
vehicle sensors is required to update the database” and (2) “data from a
plurality of vehicle sensors . . . is not available.” Both conditions must be
satisfied in order to identify “loss of database integrity.” With this claim
construction in mind, we turn to the merits of the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection.
The Examiner takes the position that Figure 3 of Cherveny illustrates
a scenario in which sensor data becomes unavailable for update and is
filtered out based on a variety of criteria. Ans. 17; see also id. at 4, 8 (citing
to Cherveny, col. 8, ll. 56-60). Based on Figure 3 and its corresponding

1 If prosecution of the present patent application resumes, the Examiner
should consider whether the claim limitations that follow the conditional “if
the first sensor data does not match the database data” language recited in
independent claims 1 and 9 are required to be performed in every
circumstance. See Ex parte Katz, 2011 WL 514314, at *4-5 (BPAI Jan. 27,
2011) (interpreting a similar conditional limitation); see also In re Johnston,
435 F.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“optional elements do not narrow the
claim because they can always be omitted”).
Appeal 2011-003326
Application 11/831,244

7
description, the Examiner finds that there is adequate evidence to support a
finding that Cherveny describes the disputed claim limitation. Id. at 17-18.
We do not agree with the Examiner. The Examiner bears the initial burden
of presenting a prima facie case of anticipation. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the Examiner has not met that
burden. The Examiner does not explain adequately how Cherveny’s
disclosure of storing filtered, sensor data in a database identifies a loss of
database integrity, let alone how Cherveny satisfies the two conditions
outlined in our claim construction above—namely determining whether data
from a plurality of vehicle sensors is required to update the database, and
determining whether such data is available. Consequently, we are not
persuaded that Cherveny describes the disputed limitation. It follows that
the Examiner erred in determining that Cherveny anticipates independent
claims 1 and 9.
Claims 2-8 and 10-16
The Examiner erred in rejecting depending claims 2-8 and 10-16 for
the same reasons set forth in our discussion of independent claims 1 and 9
because each of these dependent claims incorporates by reference the same
disputed claim limitation as its underlying base claim.
Claim 172
Based on the record before us, we discern error in the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of independent claim 17, which recites, inter alia,
“identifying anomalous driving if: data from a plurality of vehicle sensors is

2 See supra FN 1.
Appeal 2011-003326
Application 11/831,244

8
required to update the database and is available; and the first sensor data is
not confirmed by data from other vehicle sensors.”
We begin our analysis by determining the scope and breadth of the
disputed claim limitation. The claimed “identifying anomalous driving” is
predicated upon three conditions: (1) “data from a plurality of vehicle
sensors is required to update the database,” (2) “data from a plurality of
vehicle sensors . . . is available,” and (3) “the first sensor data is not
confirmed by data from other vehicle sensors.” All three conditions must be
satisfied in order to identify “anomalous driving.” With this claim
construction in mind, we turn to the merits of the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection.
The Examiner takes the position that Cherveny discloses an
anomalous driving condition because is determines that the sensors in a
vehicle are not calibrated properly and, therefore, describes the disputed
claim limitation. Ans. 21 (citing to Cherveny, col. 9, ll. 54-55). We do not
agree with the Examiner. Once again, the Examiner has not presented a
prima facie case of anticipation. Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445. While an
anomalous driving condition may be the root cause of Cherveny’s
determination that sensors in a vehicle are not calibrated properly, the
Examiner does not explain adequately how the identification of that
anomalous driving condition is predicated on the three conditions outlined in
our claim construction above—namely determining whether data from a
plurality of vehicle sensors is required to update a database, determining
whether such data is available, and confirming that data gathered by a first
sensor node cannot be validated by other sensor nodes. Consequently, we
are not persuaded that Cherveny describes the disputed limitation. It follows
Appeal 2011-003326
Application 11/831,244

9
that the Examiner erred in determining that Cherveny anticipates
independent claim 17.
Claims 18-20
The Examiner erred in rejecting depending claims 18-20 for the same
reasons set forth in our discussion of independent claim 17 because each of
these dependent claims incorporates by reference the same disputed claim
limitation recited in independent claim 17.

IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20
as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

V. DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20.

REVERSED

llw