Ex Parte 6,324,463 B1 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2015

90012841 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
90/012,841 04/15/2013
27571 7590 12/29/2015
Ascenda Law Group, PC
333 W San Carlos St.
Suite 200
San Jose, CA 95110
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
6,324,463 Bl
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.
5034-RX841 4526
EXAMINER
SAGER, MARK ALAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
12/29/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Appellant, Patent Owner
Appeal2015-006920
Reexamination Control 90/012,841
Patent No. US 6,324,463 B 1
Technology Center 3900
Decided: [mailing date]
Before JAMES T. MOORE, MARC S. HOFF, and
JOSIAH C. COCKS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
2, 3, and 37-57. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306.
We affirm-in-part.
The '463 patent issued to Patel on November 27, 2001, and is
assigned to Cruise Control Technologies LLC. The '463 patent is a system
for indicating the operational status and parameters of a cruise control
system. The system stores and recalls a preset speed for the cruise control
Appeal2015-006920
Reexamination Control 90/012,841
Patent No. 6,324,463 B 1
system, and indicates this preset speed to the operator, along with indication
whether the cruise control system is engaged. Embodiments are included for
use with vehicles with digital or analog speedometers (Abstract).
Claim 2 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
2. A cruise control system for a variable speed vehicle controlled by a
human operator, comprising:
(a) a speed controller for automatically maintaining the vehicle at a
substantially constant cruising speed selected by the operator;
(b) a cruise control enable switch associated with the controller for
enabling and disabling the controller;
( c) a set speed input in communication with the controller for
selecting the cruising speed of the vehicle when the controller is enabled;
( d) a memory that stores information representative of the selected
cruising speed;
and
( e) a feedback system that substantially continuously communicates
the selected cruising speed information to the operator of the vehicle until
either the operator selects a subsequent cruising speed or the controller is
disabled.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Tomecek
Masuda
Suzuki
us 4, 132,284
us 4,796,716
us 5,949,346
2
Jan.2, 1979
Jan. 10, 1989
Sep. 7, 1999
Appeal2015-006920
Reexamination Control 90/012,841
Patent No. 6,324,463 B 1
M. J. Richardson et al., "Design of the Driver Interface for Autonomous
Intelligent Cruise Control," Colloquium on Design of the Driver Interface,
January 19, 1996.
H. Winner et al., "Adaptive Cruise Control: System Aspects and
Development Trends," SAE Technical Paper Series 961010, International
Congress & Exposition, Detroit, Michigan, February 26-29, 1996.
"Intelligent Cruise Control Operational Test," U.S. Department of
Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
August 1997.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to Appellants' Brief
("App. Br.," filed March 12, 2015) and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.,"
filed April 21, 2015) for their respective details.
REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 2, 3, 39-45, 54, 55, and 57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the Background of the Invention section
of the '463 Patent ("'463 Background") and the NHTSA Report
("NHTSA").
2. Claims 3, 37, 38, 41, 46-53, and 56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over '463 Background, NHTSA, and Suzuki.
3. Claims 2, 3, 39-45, 54, 55, and 57 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tomecek and NHTSA.
4. Claims 3, 37, 38, 41, 46-53, and 56 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tomecek, NHTSA, and Suzuki.
3
Appeal2015-006920
Reexamination Control 90/012,841
Patent No. 6,324,463 B 1
5. Claims 2, 39-45, 54, 55, and 57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tomecek and Masuda.
6. Claims 2, 39-45, 47, 48, 54, 55, and 57 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tomecek and Winner.
7. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tomecek and Richardson.
8. Claims 39-45, 52, 53, and 57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement.
ISSUES
Appellants present numerous arguments on appeal. The most
pertinent arguments may be summarized by the following issues:
1. Does the combination of Tomecek and NHTSA disclose or suggest
a cruise control system including a feedback system that substantially
continuously communicates the selected cruising speed information to the
operator of the vehicle until either the operator selects a subsequent cruising
speed or the controller is disabled?
2. Does the combination of Tomecek and NHTSA disclose or suggest
that after braking of the vehicle, the memory stores the information
representative of the selected cruising speed?
3. Does the combination of Tomecek and NHTSA disclose or suggest
substantially continuously communicating the selected cruising speed
information to a display?
4
Appeal2015-006920
Reexamination Control 90/012,841
Patent No. 6,324,463 B 1
4. Does the combination of Tomecek and NHTSA disclose or suggest
displaying visual information indicative of the selected cruising speed
information in a first format after braking of the vehicle, and in a second
format when the speed controller is enabled?
5. Does the combination of Tomecek, NHTSA, and Suzuki disclose or
suggest a cruise control system comprising a plurality of individual visual
indicators, each associated with a corresponding one of the speed markers on
the speed dial of an analog speedometer?
ANALYSIS
CLAIM 2 OVER TOMECEK AND NHTSA
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that T omecek does not
disclose a speed controller (App. Br. 22). We agree with the Examiner that
Tomecek, by its own terms, discloses an electronic cruise control system,
that adjusts and maintains cruising speed for automobiles (Abstract).
Tomecek's invention "allow[s] the operator to set and maintain a desired
cruising speed without the need for modifying the accelerator position as
power demands on the engine vary" (col. 1, 11. 8-11 ).
Appellants' argument that Tomecek does not disclose a feedback
system "that substantially continuously communicates the selected cruising
speed information" is also not persuasive. Contrary to Appellants'
contention, the claim does not require "a numerical value representative of
the cruising speed" (see App. Br. 24). We agree with the Examiner that
Tomecek's LED communicates "selected cruising speed information," to
wit, the operation status of the cruise control enable switch/speed controller
5
Appeal2015-006920
Reexamination Control 90/012,841
Patent No. 6,324,463 B 1
(Ans. 88). We further agree with the Examiner that NHTSA communicates
selected cruising speed as a numerical value - specifically, the "55 Set
Speed" display illustrated in Figure 13 (Ans. 89; NHTSA p. 28).
We do not agree with Appellants' contention that Tomecek constitutes
nonanalogous art (App. Br. 24). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that
Tomecek is a cruise control system, which is the same field of endeavor as
Appellants' invention. We further agree that Tomecek's speed control
mechanism, and visual feedback, are reasonably pertinent to the problem
faced by Appellants (Ans. 90).
Similarly, we do not agree with Appellants that there is no motivation
to combine Tomecek with NHTSA (App. Br. 26-27). Both references have
to do with cruise control systems with visual feedback. We agree with the
Examiner that Tomecek lacks numerical feedback of the set cruising speed;
that NHTSA supplies a teaching of providing such numerical feedback; and
that NHTSA suggests that providing such numerical feedback enhances the
driver's convenience and safety (Ans. 92).
We conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 2 under
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Tomecek and NHTSA. We sustain the
Examiner's rejection.
REJECTION OF CLAIM 3 OVER TOMECEK AND NHTSA
Appellants' arguments with respect to claim 3 are not persuasive. We
do not agree with Appellants that the man-machine interface disclosed in
NHTSA is entirely analog (App. Br. 39). Rather, we agree with the
Examiner's finding that NHTSA discloses a digital display, i.e. the "55 Set
6
Appeal2015-006920
Reexamination Control 90/012,841
Patent No. 6,324,463 B 1
Speed" display discussed supra (Ans. 115). We sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 3.
REJECTION OF CLAIM 39 OVER TOMECEK AND NHTSA
We do not agree with Appellants that the combination of Tomecek
and NHTSA fails to disclose that 'after braking of the vehicle, the memory
stores the information representative of the selected cruising speed" (App.
Br. 39-40). We agree with the Examiner that Tomecek discloses a "resume"
cruise control function (as is known in the prior art) in which, "by
momentarily depressing the button 32, the operator can cause the control to
resume the previously set speed" (col. 4, 11. 63---65). We, thus, agree with the
Examiner that Tomecek discloses a memory that retains the set speed
information (see Ans. 118).
We conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 39 under
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Tomecek and NHTSA. We sustain the
Examiner's rejection.
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 40 AND 41 OVER TOMECEK AND NHTSA
We are not persuaded by Appellants' contention that T omecek and
NHTSA fail to disclose a display that continuously displays the selected
cruising speed information (App. Br. 40). As discussed supra, NHTSA
discloses a cruise control system including a driver interface having a
"feedback" digital display of the set speed (NHTSA p. 28, Fig. 13). We
agree with the Examiner that NHTSA, in combination with Tomecek's
teaching of a cruise control "resume" function, would have suggested to the
7
Appeal2015-006920
Reexamination Control 90/012,841
Patent No. 6,324,463 B 1
skilled artisan substantially continuously communicating that "set speed" to
a display, even after braking of the vehicle (Ans. 120).
We conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 40 under
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Tomecek and NHTSA. We sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 40, as well as claim 41 not separately argued
with particularity.
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 42 AND 43 OVER TOMECEK AND NHTSA
We do not agree with Appellants that the combination of Tomecek
and NHTSA fails to disclose the limitations of claim 42 (App. Br. 40-41 ).
NHTSA discloses providing the driver with feedback about its operating
status -- specifically what the set speed is (Fig. 13) and what its activation
state is (NHTSA p. 18; see Ans. 120). As discussed supra with respect to
claim 40, the combination of references suggests communicating the cruise
control set speed as a numerical value even after braking of the vehicle (Ans.
122). We sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of claim 42, as well as
claim 43 not separately argued with particularity, over Tomecek and
NHTSA.
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 44 AND 57 OVER TOMECEK AND NHTSA
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments regarding claim 44
(App. Br. 41 ). As we have discussed supra, NHTSA discloses visual
information indicative of the operation status of the speed controller, and
both Tomecek and NHTSA disclose displaying the visual information
8
Appeal2015-006920
Reexamination Control 90/012,841
Patent No. 6,324,463 B 1
indicative of the selected cruising speed (Ans. 121). We sustain the
Examiner's§ 103 rejection of claim 44.
Claim 57 differs from claim 44 only in that the first display is
indicative of the operation status of the "cruise control enable switch." We,
thus, sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 57 for the same reasons given with
respect to claim 44.
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 45 AND 55
Claim 45 recites a "first format after braking of the vehicle," and a
"second format when the speed controller is enabled." We do not agree with
the Examiner's claim construction that nothing in the claim requires that the
two formats be different (see Ans. 29). Such a construction would render
meaningless the "second format" claimed.
We agree with Appellants that NHTSA and Tomecek fail to disclose
two visual display formats distinguished by a temporal limitation, as is
claimed (App. Br. 42). As a result, we do not sustain the Examiner's§ 103
rejection of claim 45 over Tomecek and NHTSA.
Claim 55 recites similar limitations concerning displaying cruising
speed information in a first format and a second format. We do not sustain
the rejection of claim 55 as being obvious over Tomecek and NHTSA, for
the same reasons given with respect to claim 45.
Claims 45 and 55, inter alia, also stand rejected over the Background
of the Invention of the '463 Patent in combination with NHTSA; over
Tomecek and Masuda; and over Tomecek and Winner. In each of these
rejections, the Examiner again reasons that the claims do not require the first
9
Appeal2015-006920
Reexamination Control 90/012,841
Patent No. 6,324,463 B 1
and second formats to be different. As explained supra, such reasoning is
erroneous because it would render a portion of the claim (the "second
format") meaningless. We have reviewed the '463 Patent, Masuda, and
Winner, and we find that these references each fail to disclose the claimed
two visual display formats distinguished by a temporal limitation.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 45 and 55 over
'463 Background and NHTSA, or over Tomecek and Masuda, or over
Tomecek and Winner.
REJECTION OF CLAIM 54 OVER TOMECEK AND NHTSA
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that T omecek and
NHTSA fail to disclose "visual information indicative of an operation status
of the speed controller" or "of the selected cruising speed information"
(App. Br. 42). As discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner's finding
that the LED of Tomecek displays visual information indicative of the
selected cruising speed information, according to the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the phrase (Ans. 28). We further agree with the Examiner
that NHTSA discloses providing the driver "with feedback about its
operating status," including what the set speed is and what its activation state
is, thus disclosing a feedback system to display the operation status of the
system and display the operator set speed (Ans. 28). Therefore, we find that
the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 54 over Tomecek and NHTSA,
and we sustain the rejection.
10
Appeal2015-006920
Reexamination Control 90/012,841
Patent No. 6,324,463 B 1
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 37 AND 38 OVER TOMECEK, NHTSA, AND SUZUKI
We are not persuaded that Suzuki constitutes nonanalogous art, as
Appellants argue (App. Br. 44). At a minimum, Suzuki is reasonably
pertinent to the problem faced by the invention, being directed to presenting
automotive speed information visually to a driver.
Appellants' argument that Suzuki lacks a digital speedometer "in
addition to the digital display of the feedback system" (App. Br. 44) is not
persuasive of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that
Suzuki discloses that analog and digital speedometers are known (Ans. 116).
We agree with the Examiner's conclusion that it would have been obvious to
substitute one known speedometer for another (Ans. 116-117).
Accordingly, we sustain the§ 103 rejection of claims 37 and 38 over
Tomecek, NHTSA, and Suzuki.
REJECTION OF CLAIM 46 OVER TOMECEK, NHTSA, AND SUZUKI
Appellants' argument that Suzuki does not disclose a second display
"displaying visual information indicative of the selected cruising speed
information for only a fixed interval of time," because the flashing LEDs of
Suzuki flash for the variable interval of time that a vehicle exceeds the speed
limit (App. Br. 45), is not persuasive to show Examiner error. The Examiner
relies on Suzuki for its disclosure of flashing a light, at a particular ("fixed")
frequency, which corresponds to the broadest reasonable interpretation of
the claimed "fixed interval of time" (Ans. 125). We sustain the Examiner's
§ 103 rejection.
11
Appeal2015-006920
Reexamination Control 90/012,841
Patent No. 6,324,463 B 1
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 4 7 AND 48 OVER TOMECEK, NHTSA, AND SUZUKI
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner
erred because Suzuki does not discuss an analog speedometer as particularly
claimed (App. Br. 46). We agree with the Examiner that NHTSA, rather
than Suzuki, is relied upon for a teaching of an analog speedometer per se
(Ans. 126). As the Examiner points out, Suzuki suggests a plurality of
visual indicators, each associated with a corresponding one of the speed
markers, each operable between on and off, each of the individual visual
indicators comprising LEDs, and detects position of speed indicating needle
(Ans. 127). We sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of claim 47, and of
claim 48 not separately argued with particularity.
REJECTION OF CLAIM 49 OVER TOMECEK, NHTSA, AND SUZUKI
We do not agree with Appellants that the Examiner's combination
lacks a teaching of a memory storing a position of a speed indicating needle
(App. Br. 4 7). We agree with the Examiner that NHTSA, rather than
Suzuki, is relied upon for the teaching of an analog speedometer per se.
Suzuki further teaches detecting the position of the speed indicating needle,
as claimed (col. 15, 11. 53-55; col. 16, 11. 20-23). We agree with the
Examiner's conclusion that it would have been obvious to substitute a
known analog speedometer for a known digital one, such as used in
NHTSA. Storing information indicative of the position of the speed
indicating needle is equivalent to storing information indicative of the
vehicle's speed, which is done in Tomecek and NHTSA when the cruise
control set speed button is pressed. We, therefore, find that Tomecek,
12
Appeal2015-006920
Reexamination Control 90/012,841
Patent No. 6,324,463 B 1
NHTSA, and Suzuki together disclose all the elements of claim 49, and we
sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejection.
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 50-53 OVER TOMECEK, NHTSA, AND SUZUKI
We do not agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred because
Suzuki does not discuss or suggest an analog speedometer having a speed
dial with speed markers and a rotating speed indicating needle. The
Examiner relies on NHTSA, rather than Suzuki, for disclosure of such an
analog speedometer (Ans. 30-31; NHTSA Fig. 8). We find no error in the
Examiner's reasoning and we sustain the§ 103 rejection of claim 50, as well
as claims 51-5 3 not separately argued with particularity.
REJECTION OF CLAIM 56
We agree with Appellants that NHTSA and Suzuki (as well as
Tomecek) do not disclose the claimed "array of logic gates" (App. Br. 47).
We have reviewed the sections of Suzuki relied upon by the Examiner (see
Ans. 32: Suzuki cols. 8-9, 12-13, and 22), and we find no evidence of
record supporting a finding of a disclosure of an array of logic gates. On the
record before us, we find that the combination of Tomecek, NHTSA, and
Suzuki fails to disclose all the elements of claim 56, and we do not sustain
the Examiner's§ 103 rejection.
Claim 56, inter alia, also stands rejected over the Background of the
Invention of the '463 Patent in combination with NHTSA and Suzuki. The
Examiner again reasons that Suzuki discloses the claimed array of logic
gates. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 56 over '463
13
Appeal2015-006920
Reexamination Control 90/012,841
Patent No. 6,324,463 B 1
Background, NHTSA, and Suzuki, for the same reasons given with respect
to the rejection over Tomecek, NHTSA, and Suzuki.
§ 112, FIRST PARAGRAPH REJECTION OF CLAIMS 39-45, 52, 53, 57
We do not agree with the Examiner that the originally filed
specification and claims lack support for "after braking of the vehicle, the
memory stores the information representative of the selected cruising
speed," recited in claims 39 and 52. We agree with Appellants that support
may be found in claim 18 as filed ("upon braking the vehicle, discontinuing
maintaining the vehicle speed at substantially the preset speed while keeping
data corresponding to the preset speed in a memory device"), and col. 3:63 -
col. 4:3 (App. Br. 64). We do not sustain the Examiner's § 112 rejection of
claims 39-45, 52, 53, and 57.
OTHER REJECTIONS NOT SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSED
In affirming the rejected claims on appeal on these grounds, we
decline to address the merits of additional grounds of rejection appealed by
the Patent Owner. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed.
Cir. 1984) (having decided a single dispositive issue, the ITC was not
required to review other matters decided by the presiding officer).
Therefore, unless specifically mentioned, we need not reach the rejections
over '463 Background and NHTSA; over '463 Background, NHTSA, and
Suzuki; over Tomecek and Masuda; over Tomecek and Winner; or over
Tomecek and Richardson.
14
Appeal2015-006920
Reexamination Control 90/012,841
Patent No. 6,324,463 B 1
CONCLUSIONS
1. The combination of Tomecek and NHTSA discloses a cruise
control system including a feedback system that substantially continuously
communicates the selected cruising speed information to the operator of the
vehicle until either the operator selects a subsequent cruising speed or the
controller is disabled.
2. The combination of Tomecek and NHTSA discloses that after
braking of the vehicle, the memory stores the information representative of
the selected cruising speed.
3. The combination of Tomecek and NHTSA discloses substantially
continuously communicating the selected cruising speed information to a
display.
4. The combination of Tomecek and NHTSA does not disclose or
suggest displaying visual information indicative of the selected cruising
speed information in a first format after braking of the vehicle, and in a
second format when the speed controller is enabled.
5. The combination of Tomecek, NHTSA, and Suzuki suggests a
cruise control system comprising a plurality of individual visual indicators,
each associated with a corresponding one of the speed markers on the speed
dial of an analog speedometer.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 2, 3, 37--44, 46-54, and 57 is
affirmed. The Examiner's decision to reject claims 45, 55, and 56 is
reversed.
15
Appeal2015-006920
Reexamination Control 90/012,841
Patent No. 6,324,463 B 1
Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
dw
PATENT OWNER:
ASCENDA LAW GROUP, PC
333 W SAN CARLOS ST.
SUITE 200
SAN JOSE, CA 95110
THIRD PARTY REQUESTER:
KENYON & KENYON LLP
ONE BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10004
16