Ex Parte Bonanni et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 25, 2016

11998103 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111998, 103 11/27/2007
6147 7590 08/29/2016
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
GLOBAL RESEARCH
ONE RESEARCH CIRCLE
BLDG. Kl-3A59
NISKAYUNA, NY 12309
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Pierino Gianni Bonanni
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.
226276-1 5006
EXAMINER
REFAI, RAMSEY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3687
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2016 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):
haeckl@ge.com
gpo.mail@ge.com
Lori.e.rooney@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PIERINO GIANNI BONANNI, DAVID SO KEUNG CHAN,
HARRY KIRK MATHEWS, and PRAMOD VACHHANI
Appeal2014-007655 1
Application 11/998, 1032
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, JAMES A. WORTH, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
WORTH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-16, 19, and 21-33. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision refers to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed
Jan. 16, 2014) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed July 3, 2014), and the
Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Aug. 23, 2013) and
Answer ("Ans.," mailed May 7, 2014).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is General Electric
Company (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal2014-007655
Application 11/998, 103
Introduction
Appellants' disclosure relates to "a system and method for accurately
and timely determining location/distance information for vehicles on a
route" (Spec. i-f 1 ).
Claims 1, 15, and 28 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 15,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
15. A method of determining real time location of a
vehicle along a route, the method comprising:
providing a location determination system (LDS)
comprising a computer or processor, a GPS processing module,
speed bias based speed integration module, and a Kalman filter
based estimator;
programming the computer or processor to measure GPS
information via the GPS processing module, and measuring the
GPS information via the GPS processing module associated
with the vehicle;
programming the computer or processor to measure
speed information via the speed bias based speed integration
module and measuring the speed information via the speed bias
based speed integration module associated with the vehicle;
estimating real time distance of the vehicle along the
route solely in response to both the GPS information and the
vehicle speed information via the Kalman filter based estimator;
and
intermittently communicating a corrected value of speed
bias to the speed bias based speed integration module and
resetting the speed bias based speed integration module in
response to both the corrected value of speed bias and
predetermined critical milepost data that is distinct and
independent of the GPS information and the vehicle speed
information, such that the estimated real time distance is robust
to cumulative errors and disturbances associated with both the
GPS information and vehicle speed information to ensure the
estimated real time location information is accurate.
(Appeal Br., Claims App.)
2
Appeal2014-007655
Application 11/998, 103
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner maintains, and the Appellants appeal, the following
rejection:
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-16, 19, and 21-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sennott (US 5,390,125, iss. Feb. 14,
1995) and Kane (US 7,096,096 B2, iss. Aug. 22, 2006).
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 15 and its dependent claims
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that Sennott and
Kane fail to disclose "communicating a corrected value of speed
bias," as recited by independent claim 15, i.e.,
intermittently communicating a corrected value of speed bias to
the speed bias based speed integration module and resetting the
speed bias based speed integration module in response to both
the corrected value of speed bias and predetermined critical
milepost data that is distinct and independent of the GPS
information and the vehicle speed information ....
(Appeal Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 4).
The Examiner relies on a combination of Sennott (column 27, column
31, column 32 & Figs. 11, 12, 12A, 31, and 35) and Kane (col. 2, 11. 20-25,
col. 2, 11. 49-54, col. 5, 11. 56-63, col. 6, 11. 53-58, claim 12) (Final Act. 4, 8
Ans. 3--4 ). The Examiner determines that, although Sennott fails to
explicitly disclose resetting [the VPS Kalman filter] in response to
predetermined milepost data, it would have been obvious to combine
Sennott's teaching of resetting in response to position information with
Kane's teaching of determining speed based on location reports (Final Act.
4; Ans. 3--4).
3
Appeal2014-007655
Application 11/998, 103
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument because the claim requires
communication of a corrected value of "speed bias" information rather
communication of speed information. The claim language differentiates
between "vehicle speed information" and "speed bias." This difference is
further borne out by the Specification, which defines "speed bias" as "the
multiplicative bias which increases or decreases with speed" and provides
such examples for sources thereof as "wheel slippage, incorrectly entered
wheel diameter or change in the value due to wear" (Spec. i-f 30 & Figs. 1, 2,
and 4). Thus, the difference between "speed" and "speed bias" is set forth in
both the claim language and the Specification.
We have reviewed the portions of Sennott and Kane relied on by the
Examiner and do not find a disclosure of the recited "speed bias." With
respect to Sennott, it appears that the Examiner is relying on Sennott' s
disclosure that VPS Kalman 1202 is reset by position information (col. 31,
11. 23-24). The VPS Kalman filter filters IRU accelerometer and gyroscopic
information (col. 31, 11. 7-24, col. 4, 3-15, col. 14, 7-19). The output 1210
of the VPS Kalman filter is a second position estimate (SPE) (col. 32, 11.
19-20). To the extent that the Examiner is relying on the output of the
weighted combiner 1206, this output contains time, position, velocity, yaw,
pitch, and roll information (col. 31, 11. 46-49) (see Ans. 3). Other portions
of Sennott (not relied on by the Examiner) discuss position bias and clock
bias. The portions of Kane relied on by the Examiner determine (and reset)
position and speed. As such, neither Sennott nor Kane disclose
communication of a corrected "speed bias." To the extent that the Examiner
may be suggesting that Kane's determination of speed information would
4
Appeal2014-007655
Application 11/998, 103
inherently result in a corrected speed bias, or communication thereof, the
Examiner does not make such a finding.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under§ 103(a)
of independent claim 15 and its dependent claims.
Independent claims 1and28 and their dependent claims
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that Sennott and Kane fail
to disclose "a critical milepost module comprising a database of identifying
entries," as recited by independent claims 1 and 28 (see Appeal Br. 12).
Kane (col. 2, 11. 20-29, col. 5, 11. 56-63) discloses that latitude and longitude
position information may be translated to train position information relative
to track numbers or landmarks such as mileposts. Kane (col. 6, 11. 53-58,
claim 12) also discloses that speed may be calculated from successive
position reports. Thus, although Kane discloses obtaining position
information from a GPS receiver in the end of train (EOT) unit (see col. 1, 11.
57-65) and obtaining information from mileposts, Kane does not disclose a
"database of identifying entries" already onboard corresponding to the
milepost information. The Examiner does not rely on teachings of Sennott
to remedy this deficiency.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under§ 103(a)
of independent claims 1 and 28 and their dependent claims.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-16, 19, and
21-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
5