Continental Teves AG & Co. oHG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 13, 2020

14370156 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 13, 2020)

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.
14/370,156 07/01/2014 Ulrich Stählin 1700P12844WOUS 5726
23122 7590 08/13/2020
RATNERPRESTIA
2200 Renaissance Blvd
Suite 350
King of Prussia, PA 19406
EXAMINER
LIN, ABBY YEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3666
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/13/2020 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):
PCorrespondence@ratnerprestia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ULRICH STAHLIN, THOMAS GROTENDORST, and
RICHARD SCHERPING

Appeal 2019-003155
Application 14/370,156
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14, the
only claims now pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 The term “Appellant” is used herein to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Continental
Teves AG & Co. oHG. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003155
Application 14/370,156

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to a method for identifying redundantly
received information items in vehicle-to-X messages. Claim 1 is illustrative,
and is reproduced below:
1. A method for identifying redundantly received
information items in which the information items are comprised
by vehicle-to-X messages for processing by a driver assistance
system of a vehicle, the method including:
receiving, by a receiver in the vehicle, a multiplicity of vehicle-
to-X messages, wherein the received vehicle-to-X messages
originate from a multiplicity of different transmitters;
entering, by a processor of the vehicle, information items
extracted from the multiplicity of vehicle-to-X messages into an
information table in a memory device in the vehicle;
comparing, by a processor in the vehicle, the information items
in the information table against one another, before the received
information items are processed, to identify at least two
redundant messages originating from at least two of the
multiplicity of different transmitters;
choosing, by the processor in the vehicle, one of the at least two
redundant messages having a highest information resolution;
supplying the message having the highest information resolution
to the driver assistance system for processing, wherein in
response to processing the message, the driver assistance system
executes at least one of an autonomous braking intervention, an
autonomous steering intervention, and a warning to a driver; and
erasing another message of the at least two redundant messages
from the information table.

Appeal 2019-003155
Application 14/370,156

3
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects:
(i) claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Chen (US 2009/0310608 A1, published Dec. 17, 2009) in
view of Han (US 7,310,694 B2, issued Dec. 18, 2007); and
(ii) claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Chen in view of Bonar (US 2010/0124196 A1, published May 20,
2010).
A rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 101,
appearing at pages 4–7 of the Final Action, has been withdrawn (Ans. 12) in
light of the entry of an Amendment after Final Action dated August 29,
2018, as set forth in the Advisory Action dated October 5, 2018. Ans. 12.
As a result of the entry of that Amendment, independent claims 1 and 10
were amended to include the subject matter of claims 3 and 12, respectively,
and claims 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 16 were canceled.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, and 14--§ 103--Chen/Han
The Examiner finds that Chen discloses many of the limitations in the
method of claim 1, but does not teach the choosing of one redundant
message over another on the basis of the message having the higher
information resolution, supplying the chosen message for processing, and
erasing the non-chosen message from an information table. Final Act. 7–8.
The Examiner finds that Han discloses these steps in a similar method or
process, and concludes that it would have been obvious to incorporate these
steps in the Chen method, on the basis that the modification would have the
Appeal 2019-003155
Application 14/370,156

4
benefit of increasing data throughput as recognized by Han. Id. at 8. The
Examiner additionally concludes that the proposed combination is an
obvious combining of prior art elements according to known methods that
yields predictable results. Id.
Appellant does not contest the aspects of the proposed modification to
Chen in view of Han, and instead maintains that the process or method
employed by Chen will not identify packets or messages originating from
different sources as being duplicates or redundant, regardless of the content
of the packet or message, and thus does not disclose comparing information
items from two or more messages to identify redundant messages originating
from at least two different transmitters. Appeal Br. 7–8. Appellant explains
that Chen checks for duplicate packets by comparing attributes in a packet
header generated for each packet, which includes a source identification and
sequence number for the packet. Id. at 7, citing Chen ¶¶ 54–56. As a result
of the checking of source identification to ascertain whether packages are
duplicates or redundant, according to Appellant, Chen will not identify as
duplicates any packets originating from different sources, regardless of
packet content, because the source identifier will be different for each. Id.
The Examiner acknowledges that “[i]f Chen’s only method of
eliminating redundant messages was looking at vehicle ID headers, then the
Applicant would be correct.” Ans. 17. The Examiner, however, asserts that
the Chen process for eliminating redundant message is “more complex” than
that. Id.
The Examiner, citing to paragraphs 59 and 60, and Figure 7, of Chen,
provides an interpretation of Chen in which a message header is used to
determine if a message is received from the same vehicle that created the
Appeal 2019-003155
Application 14/370,156

5
message, and, if so, and if the message header matches that of a previously
received message, the message is determined to be a duplicate, and is
processed accordingly. Ans. 17, citing Chen, Fig. 7, Step 720. According to
the Examiner, if the received message was not created by the vehicle from
which it is received, and is simply being passed along by that vehicle, “then
Chen ignores the vehicle ID in the header and checks the message itself,” to
identify whether it is a duplicate of a message already received. Id., citing
Chen, Fig. 7, Step 750. The Examiner additionally reproduces paragraphs
59 and 60 of Chen in support of the finding that “Chen will ignore the
vehicle header ID in certain situations. This way, it will identify a duplicate
message based on the substance of the message, instead of the message
header; even if the duplicate message comes from a different originating
vehicle.” Id. at 18.
Appellant responds that, contrary to the Examiner’s position, Chen
does not teach looking at the substance of the messages to determine if a
packet (message) is a duplicate. Reply Br. 2. Appellant points out that
paragraph 60 of Chen, relied on by the Examiner as detailing the message
redundancy check in the event that the message originated elsewhere than
the transmitting vehicle, in which the vehicle ID is then purportedly ignored,
sets forth that the vehicle receiving a message “checks the SPL to see if the
packet is a duplicate.”2 Id. at 3, quoting Chen ¶ 60. Appellant turns our
attention to paragraph 56 of Chen, which states that an SPL “consists of
SRC_ID, SEQ_NUM, and AC[K]_States, and Packet Cache. The
combination of the first two fields makes each packet unique so that
duplicates can be determined based on such a combination.” Id., quoting

2 “SPL” stands for “Switched Packet List.” Chen ¶ 55.
Appeal 2019-003155
Application 14/370,156

6
Chen ¶ 56. The field “SRC_ID” in the SPL is identified as being the source,
or vehicle, ID of the vehicle that originates the packet. Chen ¶ 55.
Contrary to the Examiner’s position that Chen, in the situation
described in paragraph 60, ignores the vehicle ID in checking for duplicate
packets, Chen quite clearly continues to use, in Step 750 of Figure 7, the
vehicle ID as part of a basis by which packets are determined to be
duplicates or not. As such, Appellant accurately describes that, in Chen’s
system, “regardless of the transmission path, messages from different origins
or sources will necessarily have different source identifications (SRC_ID),
and will not be determined to be duplicates,” regardless of the content or
information in the message itself. Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner further does not make clear how Chen can be
interpreted such that Chen would be seen as checking the “message itself” in
determining duplication or redundancy between or among messages. Ans.
17–18. In referencing Step 750 in Figure 7 of Chen, the Examiner appears
to rely on the checking of a message against the SPL of the vehicle as
somehow comparing the substance of the messages to determine
redundancy. However, we, like Appellant, do not understand that the
information contained in the packet or message of Chen is included in the
SPL, and is therefore not used to determine whether or not a packet is a
duplicate of one already received. Reply Br. 3.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 as being
unpatentable over Chen and Han. Independent system claim 13 is similar in
scope insofar as the rejection based on Chen is involved, and the rejection is
not sustained as to claim 13, either. Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 14 depend
Appeal 2019-003155
Application 14/370,156

7
either directly or indirectly from one of claims 1 and 13, and the rejection is
not sustained as to those claims as well.

Claims 10 and 11--§ 103--Chen/Bonar
In rejecting independent claim 10, the Examiner relies on Chen in
essentially the same manner as for claims 1 and 13, and relies on Bonar for a
teaching of the claimed criteria by which one of at least two redundant
messages is chosen for further processing. Final Act. 13–15. The
Examiner’s findings as to the Chen disclosure are deficient for the same
reasons identified in the rejection of claim 1 in the preceding section. Bonar
is not relied on to cure the deficiencies of Chen. The rejection of claims 10
and 11 is therefore not sustained.

DECISION
The rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 are reversed.

CONCLUSION

In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 5,
7, 8, 13,
14
103 Chen, Han 1, 2, 4, 5, 7,
8, 13, 14
10, 11 103 Chen, Bonar 10, 11
Appeal 2019-003155
Application 14/370,156

8
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
Overall
Outcome

1, 2, 4, 5, 7,
8, 10, 11,
13, 14

REVERSED