Ex Parte Breed et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 26, 2012

11502039 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/502,039 08/10/2006 David S. Breed ATI-138 9637
22846 7590 03/27/2012
BRIAN ROFFE, ESQ
8170 McCormick Boulevard, Suite 223
Skokie, IL 60076-2914
EXAMINER
LABBEES, EDNY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DAVID S. BREED, RAY PIIRAINEN, WENDELL C.
JOHNSON, and WILBUR E. DUVALL
____________

Appeal 2011-000133
Application 11/502,039
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, SCOTT R. BOALICK, and CARL W.
WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-24, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2011-000133
Application 11/502,039

2
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Apr. 13, 2010), the Answer (mailed June.
10, 2010, and the Reply Brief (filed Jun. 23, 2010) for the respective details.
We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a security system for a vehicle and
includes at least one optical image receiving unit which receives optical
images of a compartment of the vehicle. A processor is arranged on the
vehicle to analyze the received images and whether an atypical situation
relating to an occupant in the compartment of the vehicle is present. A
security system coupled to the processor undertakes an action to maintain or
safeguard the well-being of the occupant. See generally Spec. 3:2-19.

Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. A vehicle including a security system operative when the
vehicle is stationary, comprising:
at least one optical image receiving unit arranged on the vehicle to
receive optical images of a compartment of the vehicle;
a processor arranged on the vehicle to analyze the images received by
said at least one receiving unit or data derived therefrom and determine
whether an atypical situation relating to an occupant in said compartment of
Appeal 2011-000133
Application 11/502,039

3
the vehicle or the vehicle itself is present such that the determination of the
presence of the atypical situation occurs on the vehicle; and
a security system coupled to said processor that reacts to the
determination of the atypical situation by said processor and undertakes an
action to maintain or safeguard the well-being of the occupant or the security
of the vehicle.

The Examiner’s Rejections

The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art references:
Ishikawa US 4,625,329 Nov. 25, 1986
Johnson US 5,557,254 Sep. 17, 1996
McCarthy US 6,480,103 B1 Nov. 12, 2002
(filed Jan. 18, 2000)

Claims 1, 2, and 5-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Johnson in view of Ishikawa.
Claims 3, 4, and 13-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Ishikawa and McCarthy.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, and 8-10
Appellants argue, with respect to the obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1, that the Examiner has not provided a proper basis for
the proposed combination of Johnson with Ishikawa. According to
Appellants, i) Ishikawa’s analysis is not equivalent to the analysis performed
by Johnson, ii) Ishikawa’s vehicle on-board processing is diametrically
Appeal 2011-000133
Application 11/502,039

4
opposite to the remote analysis teachings of Johnson, and iii) there is no
“atypical” situation in Ishikawa (App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 1).
We do not find Appellants’ arguments convincing of any error in the
Examiner’s stated position. Initially, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 13)
that Johnson, not Ishikawa, was cited for teaching the type of image
processing claimed. Nonetheless, we find that both Johnson (col. 6, ll. 36-
38) and Ishikawa (col. 2, ll. 54-55) teach the use of pattern recognition
image processing techniques for identifying characteristics of an occupant of
a vehicle.
Similarly, we agree with the Examiner that, contrary to Appellants’
contentions, there is nothing in the disclosure of Johnson which would
indicate that any of the remote image processing analysis could not be
performed onboard the vehicle. It is noteworthy that Johnson in fact
discloses that the onboard CPU 401 performs a processing operation on the
digital image signals received from camera 233 before they are transmitted
to the central monitoring station 103 (Fig. 4A; col. 8, ll. 46-55).
Lastly, as with the particular claimed image analysis feature, Ishikawa
was not relied upon to provide a teaching of the recognition of an “atypical”
vehicle occupant situation since Johnson already provides such a teaching as
pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 13). Nonetheless, we find that Ishikawa
also discloses the determination of an “atypical” situation in the form of a
detection of possible driver incapacitation (col. 1, l. 65-col. 2, l. 2).
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as dependent claims 2 and 8-10, not separately
argued by Appellants, is sustained.
Appeal 2011-000133
Application 11/502,039

5
Claims 5-7, 11, and 12
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection, based on the
combination of Johnson and Ishikawa, of dependent claims 5, 7, 11, and 12.
With respect to claim 5, we find unpersuasive Appellants’ argument (App.
Br. 11-12; reply Br. 1-2) that the Examiner’s proposed modification of
Johnson to incorporate Ishikawa’s onboard image processing teachings
would not be obvious since such an incorporation would make Johnson’s
existing telecommunication unit 211, which is used to transmit images for
remote analysis, superfluous. Contrary to Appellants’ contention, we find
that Johnson’s telecommunication unit 211 is not used solely for
transmitting images for analysis. For example, the handset of the telephone
211 can be used for entering user commands and codes to the control and
communications unit 201 (col. 5, ll. 1-21).
With respect to dependent claim 7, we also find no error in the
Examiner’s determination that the use of a pattern recognition algorithm in
Johnson to determine whether a vehicle driver is an authorized driver would
necessarily involve the training of such algorithm to recognize authorized
driver characteristics (Ans. 15). We further agree with the Examiner (Ans.
15-16) that the atypical vehicle situation detection teachings of Johnson as
modified with Ishikawa’s onboard image processing teachings would
necessarily result in the transmission of images along with a determination
of an atypical situation as set forth in dependent claim 11. With respect to
dependent claim 12, we similarly agree with the Examiner (Ans. 16) that the
combination resulting from the collective teachings of Johnson and Ishikawa
would necessarily include a memory associated with an onboard processor
Appeal 2011-000133
Application 11/502,039

6
for use, for example, in the pattern recognition algorithm driver
authorization feature of Johnson.

Claims 3, 4, and 13-24
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent
claims 2, 4, and 13-24 in which McCarthy is applied to the combination of
Johnson and Ishikawa. Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 13) are directed
solely to dependent claim 23 which is directed to the types of vehicles
normally occupied by a human occupant such as, for example, an
automobile.
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 7) that McCarthy is cumulative to
what is already disclosed by Johnson and Ishikawa and is not necessary for a
proper rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appellants’ Reply
Brief does not challenge the Examiner’s position. Accordingly, we do not
reach the merits of Appellants’ contention that McCarthy is an invalid
reference since its earliest effective date is after Appellants’ earliest priority
date.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner did not
err in rejecting claims 1-24 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2011-000133
Application 11/502,039

7
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)(2010).

AFFIRMED

rwk