International Business Machines Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 4, 2021

2020004766 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2021)

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.
14/477,669 09/04/2014 William R. Dietz AUS920140010US2 8352
103765 7590 03/04/2021
IBM Corp-Rochester Drafting Center
1701 North Street Building 256-3
Department SHCB
Endicott, NY 13760
EXAMINER
ALSOMIRI, MAJDI A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/04/2021 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):
rocdrctr@us.ibm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WILLIAM R. DIETZ, WILLIAM R. HOLTZHAUSER III,
AJIT JARIWALA, and FRANCESCO C. SCHEMBARI
____________

Appeal 2020-004766
Application 14/477,669
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before DANIEL S. SONG, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision in the Non-Final Office Action (dated Nov. 8, 2019, hereinafter
“Non-Final Act.”) rejecting claims 15–34. We have jurisdiction over this
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. International Business Machines Corporation is identified
as the real party in interest. See Appellant’s Appeal Brief (filed Mar. 27,
2020, hereinafter “Appeal Br.”) 1.

Appeal 2020-004766
Application 14/477,669

2

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to a “system for managing a vehicle
incident by collecting information related to the vehicle incident, including a
set of potential causes of the vehicle incident.” Spec. para. 13.
Claims 15 and 25 are independent. Claim 15 is illustrative of the
claimed invention and reads as follows:
15. A system for managing a vehicle incident, the system
comprising:
a standby sensor of a first vehicle, the standby sensor
configured to remain active in a low-power mode and to detect
an environmental stimulus;
an array of sensors configured to activate in response to
the standby sensor detecting the environmental stimulus,
wherein the array of sensors is configured to monitor a
respective physical condition of one or more components of the
first vehicle and to collect incident circumstance information in
response to detecting an impact to the first vehicle that caused
damage to at least one of the one or more components of the
first vehicle;
a processing unit communicatively coupled to the
standby sensor and to the array of sensors, wherein the
processing unit is configured to generate a list of a plurality of
potential sources of the impact that caused the damage to the at
least one of the one or more components based on the incident
circumstance information, wherein each source of the plurality
of sources is a physical object external to the first vehicle;
wherein the processing unit is configured to analyze
respective incident circumstance information associated with
each source of the plurality of potential sources to assign a
respective confidence value to each potential source of the
impact that caused the damage to the at least one of the one or
Appeal 2020-004766
Application 14/477,669

3

more components, each respective confidence value
representing a likelihood that each potential source is the source
of the impact to the first vehicle; and
an interface communicatively coupled to the processing
unit and configured to output the list of potential sources with
the respective assigned confidence values.

REJECTIONS2

I. The Examiner rejects claims 15–20, 22–29, and 31–34 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Brinkmann3 and
Schwarz.4
II. The Examiner rejects claims 21 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Brinkmann, Schwarz, and Chick.5

ANALYSIS
Rejection I
The Examiner finds Brinkmann discloses many of the limitations of
independent claims 15 and 25 including, inter alia,
a processing unit communicatively coupled to the standby
sensor and to the array of sensors, wherein the processing unit
is configured to generate a list of a plurality of potential sources
of the impact that caused the damage to the at least one of the
one or more components based on the incident circumstance
information, wherein each source of the plurality of sources is a
physical object external to the first vehicle.

2 The rejection of claims 15–34 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to
comply with the written description requirement has been withdrawn. See
Examiner’s Answer (dated Apr. 10, 2020, hereinafter “Ans.”) 3.
3 Brinkmann et al, US 9,524,269 B1, issued Dec. 20, 2016.
4 Schwarz et al., US 2015/0332587 A1, published Nov. 19, 2015.
5 Chick, US 5,181,010, issued Jan. 19, 1993.
Appeal 2020-004766
Application 14/477,669

4

Non-Final Act. 5, 10. In particular, the Examiner finds that Brinkmann’s
system can “calculate ranks and/or percentages associated with one or more
determined causes of a driving event.” Id. at 5–6 (citing Brinkmann, col. 6,
ll. 13–17, col. 7, ll. 20–29, col. 13, ll. 53–64). In particular, the Examiner
finds that Brinkmann discloses that “a traffic accident between two vehicles
may be determined by the driving analysis server 220 to have been 30%
caused by tailgating by the trailing vehicle . . . [and] 50% caused by a
sudden occurrence of jaywalking by a pedestrian in front of the leading
vehicle.” Id. at 6.
In response, Appellant notes that each of independent “claims 15 and
25 recite[s] ‘a list of a plurality of potential sources of the impact that caused
the damage . . . wherein each source of the plurality of sources is a physical
object external to the first vehicle.’” Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis omitted).
Thus, Appellant considers that “the [claimed] system is configured to
analyze incident circumstance information to identify a plurality of physical
objects which are potentially the source of an impact that caused damage.”
Id. (emphasis omitted). In contrast, according to Appellant, “none of the
causes listed in Brinkmann,” i.e., tailgating, slick road conditions, worn
brake pads, and jaywalking, “is a physical object external to the vehicle and
which impacted the vehicle.” Id. (citing Brinkmann, col. 13, ll. 57–64)
(emphasis omitted).
The Examiner does not agree with Appellant’s position because
Brinkmann’s system “may indicate that a pedestrian, animal, cyclist,
disabled vehicle, or other obstruction was an external cause” of a vehicle
accident, such as, an impact to the vehicle. Ans. 4–5 (citing Brinkmann, col.
2, ll. 20–28, col. 12, ll. 1–19, col. 13, ll. 47–48, col. 15, ll. 46–55).
Appeal 2020-004766
Application 14/477,669

5

According to the Examiner, it is not clear how an accident resulting from
“tailgating by the trailing vehicle” does not constitute “a physical object
external to the vehicle and which impacted the vehicle.” Id. at 4.
Appellant responds that because Brinkmann does not list a trailing
vehicle or a pedestrian as the cause of an accident, but rather, tailgating or
jaywalking, “none of the causes listed by Brinkmann . . . are potential
1) physical objects, 2) external to the vehicle, and 3) that impact the vehicle
to cause damage to the vehicle, as claimed.” Reply Brief (filed June 9,
2020, hereinafter “Reply Br.”) 2 (emphasis omitted). Appellant explains
that “Brinkmann is attempting to answer the question of ‘WHY’ an accident
or vehicle event occurs,” whereas the claimed invention “focuses on
answering the question of ‘WHAT’ impacted the vehicle to cause the
detected damage.” Id. (emphasis omitted).
Each of independent claims 15 and 25 requires, inter alia, to
“generate a list of a plurality of potential sources of the impact that caused
the damage to the at least one of the one or more components.” Appeal Br.
10, 12 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). In contrast, Brinkmann discloses a
system to generate a list of “potential causes of driving events,” that is,
potential sources of the accident, i.e., driving event. Brinkmann, col. 2, l.
26, col. 12, ll. 10–11. In other words, Brinkmann’s system does not
determine what are the “potential sources of the impact that caused the
damage,” as called for by each of independent claims 15 and 25, but merely
determines what are the “potential sources of the impact.”
In particular, we appreciate that a driving event in Brinkmann is an
“impact to the vehicle.” See id. at col. 2, l. 4, col. 13, l. 47. We also
appreciate that Brinkmann’s system includes external cameras and proximity
Appeal 2020-004766
Application 14/477,669

6

sensors 214 to record the presence of external objects such as “nearby
vehicles . . . traffic obstructions, animals, cyclists, pedestrians.” Id. at col. 5,
ll. 41–44. However, Brinkmann employs the identification of such external
objects to determine potential sources of a driving event, that is, “to
determine if there was an external cause for . . . vehicle impact.” Id. at col.
10, ll. 41–42. For example, in the case where a vehicle swerves and hits a
tree or a parked vehicle, Brinkmann’s system determines whether the cause
(source) of the “vehicle impact” is an “external object” in the vehicle’s path,
such as, a pedestrian, a cyclist, an animal, or a disabled vehicle. See
Brinkmann, col. 12, ll. 36–42. Thus, Brinkmann’s system generates a list of
potential external causes (sources) of the vehicle impact, i.e., pedestrian,
cyclist, animal, or disabled vehicle, and not a list of potential causes
(sources) of the vehicle impact that caused the resultant damage to the
vehicle, i.e., tree or parked vehicle. Hence, we agree with Appellant that
“nothing in Brinkmann discusses generating a list of a plurality of physical
objects external to the vehicle that potentially impacted the vehicle to cause
the detected damage,” as called for by each of independent claims 15 and 25.
Reply Br. 4.
In a similar manner, when a traffic accident (impact) occurs between
two vehicles, Brinkmann’s system generates a list of potential sources of the
accident (impact), such as, tailgating, road conditions, inappropriate brake
pads, and pedestrian jaywalking, and not potential sources of the accident
(impact) that caused the damage, i.e., one of the two vehicles. See
Brinkmann, col. 13, ll. 57–64. Even assuming arguendo that a skilled
person would implicitly understand that in the case of tailgating, the trailing
vehicle is the source of the accident (impact) that caused the damage, the
Appeal 2020-004766
Application 14/477,669

7

trailing vehicle does not constitute “a list of a plurality of potential sources,”
as called for by claims 15 and 25, because the trailing vehicle constitutes a
single source.
The Examiner does not employ the disclosure of Schwarz in any
manner to remedy the deficiencies of Brinkmann discussed supra. See Non-
Final Act. 7–8. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of independent claims 15 and 25, and
their respective dependent claims 16–20, 22–24, 26–29, and 31–34, as
unpatentable over Brinkmann and Schwarz.

Rejection II
The Examiner does not employ the disclosure of Chick in any manner
to remedy the deficiencies of the combination of Brinkmann and Schwarz
discussed supra. See Non-Final Act. 10–11. Therefore, we also do not
sustain the rejection of claims 21 and 30 as unpatentable over the combined
teachings of Brinkmann, Schwarz, and Chick.

CONCLUSION

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
15–20,
22–29,
31–34
103 Brinkmann,
Schwarz
15–20,
22–29,
31–34
21, 30 103 Brinkmann,
Schwarz, Chick
21, 30
Overall
Outcome
15–34

Appeal 2020-004766
Application 14/477,669

8

REVERSED