Ex Parte Cheatham et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

14057732 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2017)

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.
14/057,732 10/18/2013 Jesse R. Cheatham III 0713-035-001-000000 1239
44765 7590 03/02/2017
INTELLECTUAL VENTURES - ISF
ATTN: DOCKETING, ISF
3150- 139th Ave SE
Bldg. 4
Bellevue, WA 98005
EXAMINER
SWARTHOUT, BRENT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 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
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JESSE R. CHEATHAM III, WILLIAM D. DUNCAN,
RODERICK A. HYDE, NATHAN P. MYHRVOLD, and
LOWELL L. WOOD JR.
Appeal 2017-002716
Application 14/057,732
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 2, 6—8, 10, 12, 15—19, 21, 25—29, 31—
33, 75-79, 81, 85-88, 96, and 97. Claims 3-5, 9, 13, 14, 20, 22-24, 30, 34-
74, 80, 82—84, and 89-95 have been canceled. See App. Br. 31—35 (Claims
App’x). We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Elwha LLC. App.
Br. 4.
Appeal 2017-002716
Application 14/057,732
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants’ invention generally relates to a pedestrian warning device.
Spec. 2. The pedestrian warning device includes a radar detector for
detecting radar signals coming from the vehicle and an alarm for providing a
warning to the pedestrian. Id. Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as
follows:
1. A pedestrian warning device, comprising:
a radar detector configured to be worn or carried by a
pedestrian and to detect vehicle-detection radar signals
emanating from a vehicle;
an alarm configured to warn the pedestrian of the vehicle;
and
control means configured to issue a control directive
directly to a pedestrian vehicle under control of the pedestrian.
Rejections2
Claims 1, 2, 6-8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 26, 27, 86, 88, 96, and 97
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Klaus (US 6,731,202 Bl; issued May 4, 2004), Morse (US
5,111,210; issued May 5, 1992), Orazietti (US 4,725,840; issued Feb. 16,
1988), and Grimm et al. (US 8,253,589 B2; issued Aug. 28, 2012)
(“Grimm”). Final Act. 2—6, 8—9.
2 The rejection of claims 1, 2, 6—8, 10, 12, 15—19, 21, 25—29, 31—33, 75—79,
81, 85—88, 96, and 97 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, has been withdrawn. Ans. 4—5.
2
Appeal 2017-002716
Application 14/057,732
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Klaus, Morse, Orazietti, Grimm, and
Nagy (US 2014/0009310 Al; published Jan. 9, 2014). Final Act. 6.
Claims 17, 33, 75—79, and 81 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Klaus, Morse, Orazietti,
Grimm, and Lu et al. (US 2012/0008129 Al; published Jan. 12, 2012)
(“Lu”). Final Act. 6—7.
Claims 21 and 87 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Klaus, Morse, Orazietti, Grimm, and
Gindin (US 2013/0128046 Al; published May 23, 2013). Final Act. 7—8.
Claims 25 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Klaus, Morse, Orazietti, Grimm, and
Cemper (US 8,125,348 B2; issued Feb. 28, 2012). Final Act. 8.
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Klaus, Morse, Orazietti, Grimm, and
Abramson et al. (US 2013/0344859 Al; published Dec. 26, 2013)
(“Abramson”). Final Act. 9.
Claim 85 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Klaus, Morse, Orazietti, Grimm, Lu,
and Abramson. Final Act. 10.
Claim 32 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Klaus, Morse, Orazietti, Grimm, and
Maekawa et al. (US 2005/0200462 Al; published Sept. 15, 2005)
(“Maekawa”). Final Act. 10.
3
Appeal 2017-002716
Application 14/057,732
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Klaus, Morse,
Orazietti, and Grimm teaches or suggests “control means configured to issue
a control directive directly to a pedestrian vehicle under control of the
pedestrian,” as recited in claim 1 ?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken and the
reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’
Appeal Brief. Final Act. 2—10; Ans. 5—7. We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellants contend the combination of Klaus, Morse, Orazietti, and
Grimm fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. App. Br. 16—20;
Reply Br. 2—5. In particular, Appellants contend “the cited references teach
communicating with a pedestrian, rather than issuing control directives
directly to a vehicle under the pedestrian’s control.” App. Br. 17.
Appellants further contend “[t]he Examiner has not identified any teaching
or suggestion of communicating directly with a pedestrian vehicle, rather
than communicating with a pedestrian” and “offered no reason why one of
ordinary skill in the art would want to notify a pedestrian vehicle, rather than
its operator, of a motor vehicle in the vicinity.” App. Br. 20. Appellants
contend Klaus’ teaching of transmitting a signal to a light or speaker
4
Appeal 2017-002716
Application 14/057,732
mounted on a handlebar of a bicycle (see Klaus, Fig. 3; 5:38—56) fails to
teach or suggest the disputed limitation because
One of ordinary skill in the art would normally construe “issue a
control directive directly to a pedestrian vehicle” to mean
directly instructing the vehicle, not to mean “displaying
instructions to a driver, who in turn controls the vehicle.” To
construe the phrase otherwise would effectively remove the word
“directly” from the claims.
Reply Br. 4.
We do not find Appellants’ contentions persuasive. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Klaus is directed to pedestrian warning system that
includes a radar detector configured to detect radar signals from a vehicle
and an alarm configured to warn pedestrian of potential collision with
vehicle. Final Act. 2 (citing Klaus 2:42—57). Klaus teaches that the radar
detector can be worn on a person’s back (Klaus 2:36—38) or mounted on a
seat post of a bicycle (Klaus, Fig. 3; 5:40-42). Klaus further teaches that the
radar detector initiates the alarm when a vehicle reaches a preset distance
from the pedestrian. Klaus 5:43 49. The Examiner finds, and we agree,
Klaus teaches that the alarm may be mounted to a handlebar of a bicycle.
Ans. 5 (citing Klaus, Fig. 3; 5:52—56). Grimm is directed to a vehicle-to-
pedestrian (V2P) communication system. Grimm 2:20—21. Grimm teaches
the V2P communication system includes “a vehicle system 12 and a
pedestrian system 14 each having communication devices that autonomously
communicate with one another for providing global positioning and other
safety-related information for making their presence heading, proximity, or
other positional-related information known to one another.” Grimm 2:21—
27. The V2P communication system includes a pedestrian system that
includes a pedestrian-based device and a warning device for providing a
5
Appeal 2017-002716
Application 14/057,732
warning to the pedestrian. Grimm 4:33—64. As found by the Examiner
(Ans. 6), Grimm teaches “[i]n the example of a bicyclist, the various devices
comprising the pedestrian-based device 60 and other supporting devices
could be integrated within the bicycle (e.g., by the manufacturer)”
(Grimm4:65—5:10 (emphasis added)). As such, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in finding the applied references teach or suggest the
disputed limitation.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1; and claims 2, 6—8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 26, 27, 86, 88, 96, and 97,
which recite corresponding limitations and are not separately argued with
particularity. See App. Br. 19-20.
Claims 17, 21, 25, 28, 29, 31—33, 75—79, 81, 85, and 87 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Klaus, Morse, Orazietti, Grimm, and
various additional references. Appellants argue the additional references
cited in the rejections do not cure the deficiencies of Klaus, Morse, Orazietti,
and Grimm discussed above with respect to claim 1. App. Br. 21—30. For
the reasons discussed supra, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 17, 21, 25, 28, 29, 31—33, 75—79, 81, 85, and 87.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 6—8, 10, 12, 15—
19, 21, 25-29, 31-33, 75-79, 81, 85-88, 96, and 97 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
6
Appeal 2017-002716
Application 14/057,732
AFFIRMED
7