Yudanov, Dmitri

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 30, 2019

15486080 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2019)

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.
15/486,080 04/12/2017 Dmitri Yudanov AMDI:330\HON 5024
16501 7590 12/30/2019
Timothy M. Honeycutt
Attorney at Law
37713 Parkway Oaks Ln.
Magnolia, TX 77355
EXAMINER
BARAKAT, MOHAMED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2019 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):
elizabethahoneycutt@earthlink.net
timhoney@sprynet.com
timhoneycutt@earthlink.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DMITRI YUDANOV
____________

Appeal 2019-000213
Application 15/486,080
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–20. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Throughout this Decision, we use the word “Appellant” to refer to
“applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2017). Appellant identifies the
real party in interest as Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-000213
Application 15/486,080

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claimed Invention
Appellant’s invention generally relates to a traffic management
system with an intelligent traffic signal (“ITS”) for managing traffic flow at
an intersection.” Spec. ¶ 8.
According to the Specification, the “[ITS] is operable to periodically
acquire positions and speeds of one or more vehicles traveling toward the
intersection. Id. The ITS “compute[s] a recommended speed for the one or
more vehicles to transit the intersection without stopping based on the
positions and speeds and a time to red or a time to green of the [ITS].” Id.
The ITS “transmit[s] the recommended speed to the one or more vehicles,”
which have “a receiver to receive, and a device to convey, the recommended
speeds to the one or more vehicles.” Id.
According to the Specification, “[a] technical aim is to provide
multiple vehicles the capability to transit an intersection without stopping”
(id. ¶ 11), which reduces certain costs associated with vehicles repeatedly
accelerating and decelerating in and around intersections, such as fuel
consumption and tire and brake wear (id. ¶ 7).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A traffic management system, comprising:
an intelligent traffic signal for managing traffic flow at an
intersection, the intelligent traffic signal being operable to
periodically acquire positions and speeds of one or more vehicles
traveling toward the intersection, to compute a recommended
speed for the one or more vehicles to transit the intersection
without stopping based on the positions and speeds and a time to
red or a time to green of the intelligent traffic signal, and transmit
the recommended speed to the one or more vehicles; and
Appeal 2019-000213
Application 15/486,080

3
one or more vehicles having a receiver to receive and a device to
convey the recommended speeds to the one or more vehicles.
App. Br. 23 (Claims Appendix).

The Applied References
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability of the claims on appeal:
Publicover US 2008/0012726 A1 Jan. 17, 2008
Daniel US 2014/0063196 A1 Mar. 6, 2014
Lee US 2014/0118168 A1 May 1, 2014

The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner made the following rejections of the claims on appeal:
Claims 1–9 and 11–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Daniel and Publicover. Final Act. 2–6.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Daniel, Publicover, and Lee. Final Act. 6–7.

ANALYSIS2
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s findings that various combinations
of Daniel, Publicover, and Lee render obvious claims 1–20. App. Br. 14–21;
Reply Br. 2–5. Appellant argues all appealed claims, except claim 8, as a
group, and separately argues claim 8. See App. Br. 14–21. Thus, for
purposes of our analysis, we select independent claim 1 and dependent

2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered Appellant’s Appeal Brief
filed June 15, 2018 (“App. Br.”); Appellant’s Reply Brief filed October 3,
2018 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 9, 2018
(“Ans.”); the Final Office Action mailed January 17, 2018 (“Final Act.”);
and Appellant’s Specification filed April 12, 2017 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2019-000213
Application 15/486,080

4
claim 8 as the representative claims, and any claim not argued separately
will stand or fall with our analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 8.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We turn to the teachings of Daniel and
Publicover.
Daniel generally relates to “a comprehensive and intelligent traffic
and emergency services management system.” Daniel ¶ 15. In particular,
Daniel discloses:
a plurality of location determination means positioned on or near
traffic signals and vehicles, which are used to determine the
relative speed and position of vehicles from traffic signals, and
inform drivers as to whether or not they should proceed through
an intersection given the time until a traffic signal turns red and
the position and speed of a vehicle.
Id. ¶ 6. Daniel also discloses “a first location determination means
electronically connected to [a] processor, positioned on or near a traffic
signal at an intersection,” and that the processor is programmed “to
determine how long it will take [a] first vehicle to reach the intersection,
[and] display a count-down until the traffic signal shows a red light . . . on
[a] first display means,” “positioned within the first vehicle . . . and visible
to a driver.” See id. ¶ 15.
Similarly, Publicover generally relates to a smart traffic control device
(“TCD”) (e.g., a smart traffic light) that “transmits information to
approaching vehicles regarding its current and future state enabling vehicles
to control their speed to avoid arriving at the traffic control device until it
permits the passage of traffic, thus avoiding stopping, idling and
reaccelerating when reaching the traffic control device.” Publicover,
Abstract. In particular, Publicover discloses “[a] vehicle has a receiving
device to collect signals from the TCD, the receiving device being operative
Appeal 2019-000213
Application 15/486,080

5
to ascertain the vehicles position with respect to the TCD and determine a
preferred rate of speed so as to arrive at the TCD while it is in the ‘green’
state, thus avoiding the deceleration, waiting at the TCD and acceleration to
driving speed.” Id. ¶ 30. Publicover also discloses various types of
notifications of such information to drivers, including “visual stimuli in
graphical, digital, analog, numerical, or color-coded displays, audio stimuli
in the form of voice or tones, or touch stimuli in the form of vibration or
motion.” Id. ¶ 67 (emphasis added).
Claims 1–7 and 9–20
Appellant argues neither Daniel nor Publicover discloses:
the intelligent traffic signal being operable to . . . compute a
recommended speed for the one or more vehicles to transit the
intersection without stopping based on the positions and speeds
and a time to red or a time to green of the intelligent traffic signal,
and transmit the recommended speed to the one or more vehicles.
App. Br. 14–15. Appellant concludes, “therefore the combination of Daniel
and Publicover does not disclose all the limitations of claims 1-9 and 11-20.”
Id. at 15. According to Appellant, “[t]he reason that Publicover fails to
disclose the missing limitations is that in Publicover, the device 115 that
communicates a recommended speed to a vehicle’s driver is in the vehicle,
not in the traffic light (TCD).” Id. (emphasis added); see Reply Br. 2–4.
We find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive, particularly as the argument
ignores the teachings of Daniel and Publicover in combination, as discussed
below. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
(“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.”) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425–26
(CCPA 1981)).
Appeal 2019-000213
Application 15/486,080

6
The Examiner finds Daniel discloses all of the limitations recited in
independent claim 1, except for the feature of “computing and transmitting
the recommended speed.” Ans. 5. In relevant part, the Examiner finds
Daniel discloses “an intelligent traffic signal for managing traffic flow at an
intersection” that is operable to compute “whether the one or more vehicles
should or should not proceed with the intersection based on the positions and
speeds and a time to red or a time to green of the intelligent traffic signal,”
and “[to] transmit whether the one or more vehicles should or should not
proceed with the intersection.” Id. at 4–5 (citing Daniel ¶¶ 6, 15, 19, 29, 34,
Fig. 1b). The Examiner also finds Daniel discloses “one or more vehicles
having a receiver to receive and a device to convey the information about
whether the vehicle should proceed with the intersection or not to the one or
more vehicles.” Id. at 5. In short, the Examiner finds Daniel discloses
“computing data ‘at a computing device at the intelligent traffic signal’ for
the one or more vehicles to transit the intersection without stopping” based
on the same parameters as recited in claim 1, and “transmit[ting] [and
conveying] the computed data to the one or more vehicles.” Id. (emphasis
added). The Examiner turns to Publicover only “to show that it was well
known in the art of traffic management to compute and convey
recommended speed for vehicles.” Id. The Examiner finds Daniel in view
of this teaching in Publicover renders obvious claim 1, and specifically the
above-noted limitation contested by Appellant. We agree, and adopt as our
own these findings of the Examiner.
Appellant does not meaningfully address the Examiner’s rejection as
outlined above (and set forth in the Answer and Final Action), but rather
argues, in Publicover, “the device . . . that communicates a recommended
Appeal 2019-000213
Application 15/486,080

7
speed to a vehicle’s driver is in the vehicle, not in the traffic light (TCD).”
App. Br. 15. But, as a preliminary matter, this argument concedes the
Examiner’s point—Publicover teaches “communicat[ing] a recommended
speed to a vehicle’s driver.” See Ans. 4–5. As discussed above and contrary
to Appellant’s argument here, the Examiner relies on Daniel, not Publicover,
for teaching a device that computes and conveys data to vehicles based on
the same parameters as recited in claim 1. The Examiner finds, and we
agree, the combination of Daniel and Publicover teaches not only computing
and conveying data as in Daniels, but computing and conveying to vehicles
data concerning recommended speeds. Based on the foregoing, we find
Appellant has not persuasively shown that the Examiner erred in finding
Daniel and Publicover render obvious claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 of independent claim 1. For similar reasons, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 2–7 and 9–20, which
depend therefrom and were not argued separately.
Claim 8
As for remaining dependent claim 8, Appellant characterizes the
Examiner’s position, and “points out” the disclosure in Publicover, but does
not otherwise set forth a clear argument for the separate patentability of
claim 8. See App. Br. 19.
Claim 8 broadly recites “the device comprises an audio output
system.” In independent claim 1, a vehicle has “a device to convey the
recommended speeds to the one or more vehicles.” So, claim 8 requires that
the vehicle device conveying recommended speeds have an audio output
system. The Examiner cites Publicover “to show that it was well known in
Appeal 2019-000213
Application 15/486,080

8
the art of devices to include a device that comprises an audio output
system,” and “for disclosing known types of notifications such as “audio
stimuli in the form of voice or tones.” Ans. 6 (citing Publicover ¶ 67).
We agree with the Examiner, and find Appellant has not persuasively shown
that the Examiner erred in finding Daniel and Publicover render obvious
claim 8.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 of dependent claim 8.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–9, 11–20 103 Daniel, Publicover 1–9, 11–20
10 103 Daniel, Publicover,
Lee
10
Overall
Outcome
1–20

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).
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED