Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2017

13744573 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 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.
13/744,573 01/18/2013 Yifan Chen 83244994 1148
28395 7590 03/31/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER TRIVEDI, ATUL
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3667
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2017 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):
docketing @brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YIFAN CHEN, KWAKU O. PRAKAH-ASANTE,
JAMES STEWART RANKIN, and BASAVARAJ TONSHAL
Appeal 2015-005625
Application 13/744,573
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1, 6—8, 13, 14, and 19 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Huang (US 2010/0087987 Al, pub. Apr. 8, 2010) and Duddle
(US 2011/0106370 Al, pub. May 5, 2011). We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2015-005625
Application 13/744,573
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to a method and apparatus for
identifying the driver of a motor vehicle. Spec. 11. Claim 1, reproduced
below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.1
1. A system comprising:
a processor configured to:
record data relating to drive style after a vehicle is in
motion;
compare the drive style to drive styles associated with
currently stored driver profiles; and
verify the driver as a previously stored primary vehicle
driver based at least in part on the comparison.
OPINION
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Huang discloses the invention, substantially
as claimed, except for recording drive style data after a vehicle is in motion.
Final Action 2—3. The Examiner relies on Duddle as teaching recording
drive style data after a vehicle is in motion. Id. at 3. The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to adapt the data collection system of Huang
to collect drive style data after the vehicle is in motion, as taught by Duddle.
Id. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have done this “to adapt the handling responses of the vehicle to particular
drivers.” Id.
1 For purposes of this decision, we interpret “verify the driver as a
previously stored primary vehicle driver’'' to simply mean identify who the
driver is.
2
Appeal 2015-005625
Application 13/744,573
Appellants traverse the Examiner’s rejection by arguing that Huang
does not disclose collecting drive style data after a vehicle is in motion, a
point already conceded by the Examiner. Appeal Br. 5. Appellants draw a
distinction between identifying a driver based on data collected while a
driver is configuring a vehicle with personal settings before placing the
vehicle in motion and identifying a driver based on data collected from the
manner in which the vehicle is driven after it is placed in motion. Id.; see
also Spec. 1 56 (describing driving style verifiers based on behavior such as
braking habits and acceleration habits). Appellants acknowledge that
Duddle discloses collecting data relating to drive style. However,
Appellants argue that Duddle does not teach the use of drive style data to
identify the driver. Id. at 5—6.
In response, the Examiner acknowledges that Huang does not identify
the driver by comparing the present driver style with stored profile data.
Ans. 2. The Examiner notes, however, that Huang teaches identifying a
driver based on selection of two-wheel or four-wheel drive. Id. (citing
Huang 116). Paragraph 16 of Huang states, in pertinent part, as follows:
The HV1 50 itself can be adapted to house or include various
control switches, knobs, buttons, touch-screen interfaces, voice-
recognition interfaces, or other suitably configured input
devices allowing the manual selection of preferred settings for
each of the various vehicle systems. In addition to the vehicle
systems listed above, additional exemplary vehicle systems can
include . . .four-wheel/two-wheel drive mode setting controls.
Huang 116 (emphasis added). Given the context in which it appears, the
reference to selection of two- or four-wheel drive is best understood as a
configuration of the vehicle before it is placed in motion, rather than an
aspect of “drive style” while the vehicle is being driven.
3
Appeal 2015-005625
Application 13/744,573
Furthermore, the Examiner states that “Huang teaches that the vehicle
may enable certain enhanced functionalities, based on recognized driving
style and skill of an authorized driver.” Ans. 2 (citing Huang 139).
Paragraph 39 of Huang states, in pertinent part, as follows:
The identity of a driver such as driver 12 of FIG. 1 can be used
to enable enhanced functionality of the vehicle 10. For
example, the driver ID information can be used in conjunction
with a driver profile management system to provide automatic
setting adjustment and/or vehicle control adaptation. Various
degrees of autonomous system and/or driving control can be
enabled depending on the particular driving style and skill of
each authorized driver of the vehicle 10.
Id. ^ 39 (emphasis added). Given the context in which “particular driving
style” appears, it is best understood as an aspect of preferred vehicle
configuration that is selected before the vehicle is placed in motion, rather
than collection of data relating to “drive style” while the vehicle is being
driven. It is unclear to us what the Examiner means by stating that enhanced
functionalities are enabled based on “recognized” driving style. Ans. 2. To
the extent that the Examiner infers that drive style data is collected and then
“recognized” while the vehicle is in motion, we do not agree that Huang
accomplishes this.2
We agree with Appellants that Duddle does not cure the deficiencies
of Huang with respect to collecting drive style data while the vehicle is in
2 For example, it may be that a vehicle has the capability of being configured
for a plurality of suspensions settings, such that one driver may select a high
performance or “sport” suspension setting another driver may select a
different setting. See Huang ]f 7. We interpret paragraph 39 of Huang as
providing for the driver to make such a selection before the vehicle is placed
in motion as opposed to automatically reconfiguring the suspension setting
while the vehicle is in motion based on the manner in which the vehicle is
being driven.
4
Appeal 2015-005625
Application 13/744,573
motion, for purposes of identifying the driver. Paragraphs 229 through 231
of Duddle are particularly instructive on this issue.
In other embodiments more than one person may be
insured to drive the same vehicle, and an identification means
or device may be required to determine which person is driving
the vehicle at a given time/for a given journey, and therefore
with whom the recorded data should be associated.
The identification means may be a magnetic
identification key, for example a dallas key, that can be placed
adjacent to a reader when a new driver starts to drive the
vehicle. Alternatively, a driver may identify themselves to the
system at the start of each journey, or each time the engine is
started. The driver may also identify themselves at the end of
each journey.
In other embodiments, a smart card in combination with
a smart card reader may be used to identify the driver.
Duddle 229-231. Thus, although Duddle collects driving style data for
purposes of (for example) setting insurance premiums (13), it uses methods
other than analysis of driving style to identify who is actually driving the
vehicle. Id. H 229-231. Thus, neither Huang nor Duddle discloses how to
identify one of a plurality of drivers for a vehicle by analyzing the driving
style of a driver while the vehicle is in motion and comparing it with a stored
profile, as required by the claim. While neither reference, taken in isolation,
provides such a teaching, the question remains whether such a teaching is
suggested by the combination of Huang and Duddle.
The obviousness analysis requires, among other things, an analysis of
the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention as well as the
level of ordinary skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
383 U.S. 1, 17—18 (1966). In doing so:
Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated
teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to
5
Appeal 2015-005625
Application 13/744,573
the design community or present in the marketplace; and the
background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary
skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an
apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion
claimed by the patent at issue.
KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). As part of the
analysis, the Examiner must analyze whether a person of ordinary skill in the
art could bridge the technological gap between the prior art and the claimed
invention through the exercise of mere ordinary creativity. Id. at 423.
In the instant case, Huang’s vehicle engages in adaptive learning of a
driver’s preferred vehicle settings such as seat position, mirror position,
pedal position, steering wheel position suspension settings, climate control
settings, etc. Huang H 6, 7. This information is used to generate a
historical driver profile that can be used to identity the driver. Id. H 5, 6.
Finally, once the driver is identified, automatic control actions are taken to
adjust vehicle settings for that particular driver. Id. 1 6. Duddle, on the
other hand, collects drive style data, but that data is not used to identify the
driver. See Duddle ]Hf 229—231. What is missing from the Examiner’s
rejection is adequate analysis and technical reasoning as to how and/or why
a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to collect
drive style data while the vehicle is in motion and then use it to identify who
is driving the vehicle.3 It is one thing to collect drive style data to determine
whether a previously identified driver is a good or bad insurance risk and
3 This is somewhat of a close case because Duddle is capable of using
driving style data to differentiate between whether one driver of a vehicle is
a good insurance risk while another driver is a bad insurance risk. See
Duddle 1232. The rejection, however, fails to adequately explain how
Duddle could be used to identify a driver while the vehicle is in motion.
6
Appeal 2015-005625
Application 13/744,573
then charge insurance premiums accordingly. It a different matter, however,
to use drive style data to identify who is actually driving the vehicle.
The Examiner’s rejection lacks sufficient analysis and technical
reasoning to explain how and/or why a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have taken drive style data while the vehicle is in motion, use it to
identify the driver, and then adjust vehicle settings accordingly. In view of
the foregoing discussion, we do not sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability
rejection of claim 1.
Claims 8 and 14
Claims 8 and 14 are independent claims. Claims App. Both claims
share common claim elements with claim 1 directed to collecting drive style
data after a vehicle is in motion, comparing the data to stored profiles, and
verifying the identity of a driver. Id. The Examiner’s rejection of these
claims suffers from the same infirmity that was identified above with respect
to claim 1. Thus, for essentially the same reasons expressed above in
connection with claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 14.
Claims 6, 7, 13, and 19
These claims depend from either claim 1, 8, or 14. Claims App. We
do not sustain the rejection of these claims for the same reasons expressed
above with respect to claims 1, 8, or 14.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 6—8, 13, 14, and 19 is
reversed.
REVERSED
7