Elwha LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 30, 2020

2020002002 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 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.
15/419,891 01/30/2017 Jeffrey A. Bowers 46076/314 1007
103746 7590 09/30/2020
Elwha LLC c/o Polsinelli PC
Kory D. Christensen
Three Embarcadero Center
Suite 2400
San Francisco, CA 94111
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, NGA X
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2020 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):
ISFDocketInbox@intven.com
USPT@polsinelli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFFREY A BOWERS, GEOFFREY F. DEANE, RODERICK A.
HYDE, NATHAN KUNDTZ, NATHAN P. MYHRVOLD, DAVID R.
SMITH, CLARENCE T. TEGREENE, and LOWELL L. WOOD, JR.
Appeal 2020-002002
Application 15/419,891
Technology Center 3600
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Elwha
LLC, which is wholly-owned by The Invention Science Fund II, LLC.
Appeal Br. 2.

Appeal 2020-002002
Application 15/419,891

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below.
1. A method comprising:
acquiring, at a first land vehicle, sensor data from a sensor
of a second land vehicle, wherein the sensor data includes data
of a kinematic relationship between the first land vehicle and the
object; and
generating, at the first land vehicle by a processor, a
collision detection model using the sensor data acquired from the
second land vehicle, wherein the collision detection model is a
kinematic object model of objects in the vicinity of the first land
vehicle for identifying object kinematics of the objects in the
vicinity of the first land vehicle.

Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD

EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS2
Claims 1, 2, 4–12, 14–17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Lutter. Final Act. 3–7.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Lutter and Avery. Id. at 8.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Lutter and Kalliske. Id. at 8–9.

2 Although claim 13 is listed as rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), it is
actually rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Final Act. 3, 8–9.
Name Reference Date
Takiguchi US 2002/0107649 A1 Aug. 8, 2002
Lutter US 2002/0198660 A1 Dec. 26, 2002
Kalliske US 2005/0269805 A1 Dec. 8, 2005
Avery US 2010/0214085 A1 Aug. 26, 2010
Shujian Chinese Pub. CN 202077142 U Dec. 14, 2011
Appeal 2020-002002
Application 15/419,891

3
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Lutter and Shujian. Id. at 9–10.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Lutter and Takiguchi. Id. at 10.
ANALYSIS
A. Claims 1, 2, 4–12, 14–17, and 20
Appellant argues pending claims 1, 2, 4–12, 14–17, and 20 as a group.
See Appeal Br. 6–10. We deem claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The Examiner rejected claim 1 as anticipated by the
teachings of Lutter. Final Act. 3–4. Lutter indisputably discloses the
claim 1 limitations of: (1) a first vehicle (Fig. 3, vehicle E) acquiring from a
second vehicle (Fig. 3, vehicle D) certain sensor data (Fig. 3, sensors 42)
that includes data of the kinematic state of an object (Fig. 3, vehicles A, B)
in the vicinity of the first vehicle, and (2) generating at the first vehicle, by
means of a processor, a collision detection model (¶¶ 26–28, Fig. 4, screen
displays 50, 52) using the sensor data acquired from the second vehicle.
Compare Final Act. 3–4, with Appeal Br. 6–8.
Appellant, in turn, contends that Lutter lacks the claim limitation
requiring that “the sensor data includes data of a kinematic relationship
between the first land vehicle and the object.” Appeal Br. 6–7. According
to Appellant, Lutter’s first vehicle does not receive sensor data “of its own
kinematic state” from the second vehicle, but instead receives sensor data of
“the kinematic state of the second vehicle.” Id. Appellant supports this
contention by pointing to Lutter’s disclosure that the second vehicle (Fig. 1,
vehicle 14A) sends “its kinematic state data 17 such as location, speed,
acceleration and direction” to the first vehicle (Fig. 1, vehicle 14B) without
Appeal 2020-002002
Application 15/419,891

4
sensing or transmitting any data relating to the kinematic state of the first
vehicle. Id. at 7.
We disagree, as Appellant appears to ignore Lutter’s disclosure as a
whole. First, Appellant disregards that Lutter is an “inter-vehicle
communication system” that “allows vehicles to effectively see around
corners and other obstructions by sharing sensor information between
different vehicles.” Lutter ¶ 28; see also id. ¶ 35 (“The kinematic state data
92 for each vehicle A, B, and C is broadcast to the other vehicles in the same
vicinity.”). Focusing on Figure 3 in particular, the Examiner persuasively
explains that sensors 42 on Lutter’s vehicle D (the second vehicle) detect not
only the movement of vehicles A, B entering the intersection (the collision
objects), but also movement of vehicle E behind it (the first vehicle). See
Exr. Ans. 3–4 (citing Lutter ¶¶ 24–25, Fig. 3). In order to warn other
vehicles of a potential collision, Lutter’s vehicle D (the second vehicle)
transmits that sensor data, via transceiver 48, to Lutter’s vehicle E (the first
vehicle). Lutter ¶¶ 23–25.
Moreover, in satisfying the “acquiring” limitation as claimed, Lutter
expressly discloses that the transmitted sensor data includes the kinematic
state of all vehicles in relation to vehicle D (the second vehicle), including
the kinematic state of both the vehicle behind it, i.e., Lutter’s vehicle E (first
vehicle) and the vehicles at its sides, i.e., vehicles A, B (the collision
objects) —
Vehicle D [second vehicle] includes multiple sensors 42 that
sense objects in front, such as vehicle C, in the rear, such as
vehicle E [the first vehicle], or on the sides, such as vehicles A
and B. A processor in vehicle D (not shown) processes the
sensor data and identifies the speed direction and position of
vehicles A and B [the collision objects]. A transceiver 48 in
Appeal 2020-002002
Application 15/419,891

5
vehicle D [the second vehicle] transmits the data identifying
vehicles A and B to vehicle E [the first vehicle].

Lutter ¶ 24 (emphases added). In that manner, vehicle E is “notified about
oncoming vehicles A and B,” thus, extending the “sensing range[]” of
vehicle E “by receiving the sensing information from vehicle D.” Id. ¶ 25.
Those disclosures support that the data transmitted from Lutter’s
second vehicle (vehicle D) to the first vehicle (vehicle E) includes not only
sensor data about the collision objects at its sides (vehicles A, B) but also
sensor data about the very vehicle at its rear (vehicle E) that is being warned
of a potential collision. In other words, while it is true that Lutter’s second
vehicle (vehicle D) transmits sensor data of its own kinematic state to the
first vehicle (as Appellant argues), it is also true that Lutter’s second vehicle
(vehicle D) senses and transmits data of the kinematic state of the first
vehicle behind it (vehicle E) relative to the oncoming objects (vehicles A,
B). Indeed, Lutter shows as much in screens 50 and 52 of Figure 4, which
depict the sensor data transmitted from vehicle D and received by vehicle E
as including “motion vector[s]” of all surrounding vehicles, including
vehicle E (the first vehicle). Lutter ¶ 26, Fig. 4. And because the motion
vectors shown on the screens indicate a kinematic relationship between
vehicle E (the first vehicle) and vehicles A and B (the potential collision
objects), we are persuaded that Lutter anticipates the method as claimed,
including the full extent of the “acquiring” step. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as the claims not argued separately.
B. Claims 3, 13, 18, and 19
The Examiner rejected dependent claims 3, 13, 18, 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lutter and additional prior art that
Appeal 2020-002002
Application 15/419,891

6
includes Avery, Kalliske, Shujian, and Takiguchi. Final Act. 8–10. To
refute the rejection of these claims, Appellant relies on the arguments it
presented with respect to claim 1 and argues that the additional prior art used
to reject these claims “does not cure the deficiencies of Lutter.” Appeal Br.
10–12. For the same reasons provided above in our analysis of the rejection
of claim 1, we do not find these arguments persuasive. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 3, 13, 18, 19.
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1–20.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–12,
14–17, 20
102(b) Lutter 1, 2, 4–12,
14–17, 20

3 103(a) Lutter, Avery 3
13 103(a) Lutter, Kalliske 13
18 103(a) Lutter, Shujian 18
19 103(a) Lutter, Takiguchi 19
Overall
Outcome
1–20
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED