Ex Parte Sejalon et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 20, 201613304714 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/304,714 11/28/2011 34044 7590 07/22/2016 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch) 100 EAST WISCONSIN A VENUE MILWAUKEE, WI 53202 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Frederic Marcel Sejalon 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. 081276-1404 usoo 6982 EXAMINER NGUYEN, ANT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2683 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/22/2016 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): mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FREDERIC MARCEL SEJALON, GUNTER ROTTNER, JEFFREY BOCHENEK, WOLFGANG NIEHSEN Appeal2015-002265 Application 13/304,714 Technology Center 2600 Before KRISTENL. DROESCH, CATHERINE SHIANG, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 3-11, and 13-19, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm-in-part. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The present invention relates to a blind spot detection system for vehicles. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary: Appeal2015-002265 Application 13/304,714 1. A blind spot detection system, the system comprising: a camera mounted at the rear of a vehicle and configured to capture images in a field-of-view to the rear of the vehicle; a sensor configured to detect an object when the object is positioned beside the vehicle; a controller coupled to the camera and configured to receive a signal from the camera indicative of the images and a signal from the sensor indicative of the presence of the object beside the vehicle, the controller determining when a second vehicle enters a blind spot of the vehicle based on the images and the signal from the sensor; and an indicator coupled to the controller, the indicator activated by the controller when the second vehicle enters the blind spot of the vehicle. References and Rejections Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-11, 13, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hoek (US 2010/0073480 Al; pub. Mar. 25; 2010). Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hoek. Claims 6, 7, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hoek and Lee (US 2010/0117813 Al; pub. May 13, 2010). ANALYSIS Claims 1 and 3-10 Anticipation On this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1. 2 Appeal2015-002265 Application 13/304,714 We disagree with Appellants' arguments and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions regarding claims 1 and 3-10 in (i) the action from which this appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer to the extent they are consistent with our analysis below. First, Appellants argue: Hoek does not disclose a camera providing a plurality of images of a field-of-view (POV) behind the vehicle and a sensor (i.e., the forward facing camera 802) configured to detect an object adjacent the vehicle as recited by claims 1 .... Determining that a second vehicle is in a vehicle's blind spot because the vehicle has overtaken the second vehicle such that the second vehicle is no longer seen by the forward facing camera is not a disclosure of a sensor detecting an object adjacent to the vehicle. App. Br. 6. The front facing camera 802 cannot detect objects that are in the driver's blind spot. Reply Br. 4; see also Reply Br. 5. Appellants' conclusory argument that "Hoek does not disclose a camera providing a plurality of images of a field-of-view (POV) behind the vehicle" (App. Br. 6) is unpersuasive, as it lacks the requisite analysis and support. In contrast, the Examiner maps the claimed "a camera mounted at the rear of a vehicle" to Hoek's rear camera 804. See Ans. 2. The Examiner finds-and Appellants do not offer any substantive argument to dispute-Hoek's rear camera 804 is "configured to capture images in a field-of-view to the rear of the vehicle," as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 2; Hoek, Fig. 8; i-f 48. Further, Appellants' remaining argument (listed above) is not commensurate with the scope of the claim language. Claim 1 merely recites 3 Appeal2015-002265 Application 13/304,714 "a sensor configured to detect an object when the object is positioned beside the vehicle." Claim 1. Appellants have not shown claim 1 requires the sensor to "detect objects that are in the driver's blind spot." (Reply Br. 4) Second, Appellants argue: [T]he Examiner ignores the recited elements of a sensor detecting an object beside[] the vehicle. The Examiner applies his own meaning to the terms beside[] finding they mean anywhere around the vehicle and do not require that the object be at a side of the vehicle. Given the language of the claims, and the description given in the specification, beside[] clearly mean[s] to a side of the vehicle and do not include forward or rear of the vehicle. App. Br. 6 Applicants also note that the word "beside" means "by or at the side." ... The terms "front" and "rear" have well-accepted meanings and these two terms are distinct from the term "beside." Therefore, the Examiner is mistaken in using an overly broad definition of beside (apparently meaning anywhere near the vehicle) when term is clearly not that broad and the specification also describes what it means to "detect an object when the object is positioned beside the vehicle." In addition, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not interpret Hoek's camera 802 as being able to detect an object "beside" the vehicle when Hoek so clearly indicates the exact opposite. Hoek also makes the same distinctions between "front," "back," "side," and "blind spot" that the Applicants do. Reply Br. 5. Appellants' conclusory arguments are unpersuasive, because Appellants have not provided the requisite evidence to support such arguments. In contrast, the Examiner maps the claimed sensor to Hoek' s front camera 802. See Ans. 7. The Examiner finds Hoek's front camera 802 4 Appeal2015-002265 Application 13/304,714 detects vehicle 813 at position A, which is beside the vehicle. See Ans. 7; Hoek, i-f 48; Fig. 8. Appellants have not persuasively shown the Examiner's interpretation of "beside" is inconsistent with the Specification. In fact, the Examiner finds-and Appellants do not dispute-the term "beside" does not even appear in the original Specification. See Ans. 6-7. Because Appellants have not persuasively shown the Examiner's findings are incorrect, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and corresponding dependent claims 3, 5, and 8-10, which Appellants argue are allowable for the same reasons (App. Br. 6). Obviousness Appellants argue claims 4, 6, and 7 are allowable for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, and Lee does not cure the alleged deficiencies of Hoek. See App. Br. 7. As discussed above, Appellants' arguments addressing claim 1 are unpersuasive. Therefore, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 4, 6, and 7. Claims 11 and 13-19 Anticipation We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants' contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants' conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding Hoek discloses "detecting by a sensor configured to detect an object adjacent the vehicle, that the second vehicle is in the blind spot," as recited in claim 11. 5 Appeal2015-002265 Application 13/304,714 The Examiner maps the claimed sensor to Hoek's front camera 802. See Ans. 4. The Examiner finds Hoek's front camera 802 detects vehicle 813 at position A, which is "adjacent the vehicle," as claim 11 requires. See Ans. 7; Hoek, Fig. 8; i-f 48. As pointed out by Appellants, Hoek's front camera 802 "provides a viewing angle of approximately 60 degrees[] shown by viewing field 803." Hoek, i-f 47, Fig. 8; see App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 3. As a result, Hoek's front camera 802 detects a vehicle at position A-not the blind spot, which is at position B. See Hoek, i-f 48; Fig. 8; App. Br. 5. Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner fails to show Hoke discloses "detecting by a sensor configured to detect an object adjacent the vehicle, that the second vehicle is in the blind spot," as required by claim 11. See App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 3--4. Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or explanation to support the anticipation rejection, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 11, and corresponding dependent claims 13, 15, and 17-19. Obviousness The Examiner rejects claim 14 as being unpatentable over Hoek, and cites an additional reference for the obviousness rejection of claim 16. See Ans. 5---6. The Examiner relies on Hoek in the same manner discussed above in the context of claim 11, and does not rely on the additional reference in any manner that remedies the deficiencies of the underlying anticipation rejection. See Ans. 5-6. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 14 and 16. 6 Appeal2015-002265 Application 13/304,714 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-10 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103. We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 11 and 13-19 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103. AFFIRMED-IN-PART 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation