Ex Parte Cech et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 5, 2016

12213591 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/213,591 06/20/2008 Leonard Cech
22428 7590 08/09/2016
Foley & Lardner LLP
3000 K STREET N.W.
SUITE 600
WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109
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.
040675-1101 2507
EXAMINER
MANCHO, RONNIE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3664
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/09/2016 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):
ipdocketing@foley.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LEONARD CECH and STEPHEN V ACRON
Appeal2013-000746
Application 12/213,591
Technology Center 3600
Before DENISE M. POTHIER, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
IRVINE. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON i\.PPEi\L
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
Appeal2013-000746
Application 12/213,591
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed "to a system and method for providing a
warning or instructive message to a vehicle driver." Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A steering wheel system for a vehicle, comprising:
a display; and
a controller configured to receive vehicle parameters from
one or more vehicle sensors and receive geometric or
navigability characteristics of the road, the controller generating
a prediction of an effect of the vehicle parameters on the vehicle
with respect to the geometric or navigability characteristics of the
road, the controller configured to send a signal to the display
based on the prediction,
wherein the display is configured to display a
representation of the prediction based on the signal received from
the controller.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Maruyama US 2008/0143505 Al June 19, 2008
REJECTION
Claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Maruyama. Ans. 3.
OPINION
The propriety of the Examiner's rejection rests on our determination
as to whether the Examiner has properly interpreted the term "prediction" as
used in the claims. According to the Examiner:
2
Appeal2013-000746
Application 12/213,591
Appellant's ls i c] limitation, '"prediction" as taught in the
specification is not FOR[E]CASTING as the regular meaning
of the term applies. Instead the claimed 'prediction" as taught
by the specification is refer[ r Jing to data displayed to warn a
driver of excessive speed, excessive acceleration, excessive
braking, ... insufficient braking, understeer, or oversteer for an
approaching geometry, navigability, or condition of the road.
Ans. 9 (quoting Spec. i-f 31 1 ). The Examiner's "definition" is misleading
because it does not use the entire passage from which the asserted definition
is taken. As noted by the Appellants, the passage the Examiner appears to
rely on begins "[t]he prediction may include data to warn the driver." Spec.
i-f 31 (emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 2.
First, it is clear that the data relied on by the Examiner is but one thing
that the prediction may include and is not the prediction itself. Second, the
Specification makes clear that the displayed data to which the Examiner
refers is merely a representation of the prediction, but is also not the actual
prediction: "[ t ]he display is configured to display a representation of the
prediction based on the signal received from the controller." Spec. i-f 9
(emphasis added). Accordingly, the data, which the Examiner relies upon, is
merely the representation of the prediction that is displayed to the driver.
The Specification also makes it clear throughout that a predicted
vehicle state is juxtaposed with a current vehicle state such that it is clear
that, contrary to the Examiner's assertion, "prediction" does refer to the
usual/regular meaning of "forecasting." See, e.g., Spec. i-fi-119, 25-27.
Further, we agree with the Appellants that Maruyama is deficient because it
1 The Examiner refers to "sections" 3 61 and 3 21. Ans. 9. Because the
disclosure only includes thirty-eight paragraphs, we presume these
numerical references are typographical errors. We refer to the paragraph
numbers in the disclosure as originally submitted.
3
Appeal2013-000746
Application 12/213,591
"discloses displaying a current state, but not a predicted state." Reply. Br. 4
(citing Maruyama i-f 63). We conclude that the Examiner has taken a portion
of the Specification out of context without looking to the Specification as a
whole so as to assert an improper definition of "prediction" that
encompasses Maruyama's current state display data as opposed to a
predicted state as claimed.
Also, as for paragraphs 50 and 62 of Maruyama, which discuss lane
maintenance device 20, a lane deviation alarm device 22, and a park support
device 24, the Examiner has not provided a separate or sufficient
explanation related to how these devices necessarily include "generating a
prediction of an effect of the vehicle parameters on the vehicle" as recited.
Ans. 2, 9-11. Rather, the Examiner relies on the previously discussed
explanation of how "prediction" is allegedly defined in finding these
paragraphs in Maruyama disclose what is recited in claim 1. See Ans. 9-11.
Independent claims 15 and 22 include similar limitations of
"generating a prediction of an effect of the vehicle parameters on the vehicle
.... " Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-
22 as anticipated by Maruyama.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-22 is reversed.
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)(l )(iv).
REVERSED
4