10959497 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 22, 2013)

Ex Parte Colley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 22, 2013

10959497 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 22, 2013)

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. 10/959,497 10/05/2004 Jaime B. Colley 70004.306 3651 96997 7590 11/22/2013 Haynes And Boone, LLP IP Section 2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75219 EXAMINER MANCHO, RONNIE M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3664 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/22/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JAIME B. COLLEY and LARS BOERYD ____________ Appeal 2012-001899 Application 10/959,497 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before EDWARD A. BROWN, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-001899 Application 10/959,497 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Jaime B. Colley and Lars Boeryd (“Appellants”) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 38 and 39. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claimed Subject Matter Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal. Claim 1 is representative of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below. 1. A method for providing data to a receiver for aiding in vehicle location, comprising: receiving vehicle data on a vehicle OBD-II data bus, the vehicle data being provided by vehicle sensors including individual wheel speed sensors; collecting the vehicle data from the vehicle OBD-II data bus by means of a data interface; determining a dead-reckoning-derived position for the vehicle using the collected vehicle data; determining a Satellite Positioning System (SPS)-derived position for the vehicle using an SPS receiver; comparing the SPS-derived position with the dead- reckoning-derived position; and calibrating the vehicle sensors by determining scale factors to be applied to the vehicle data responsive to the comparison of the SPS-derived position with the dead reckoning-derived position. App. Br. 6, Claims App’x. References The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references: Ito US 6,407,701 B1 Jun. 18, 2002 Fuller US 2003/0212481 A1 Nov. 13, 2003 Ishigami US 2003/0163255 A1 Aug. 28, 2003 Appeal 2012-001899 Application 10/959,497 3 Rejection Appellants seek review of the following rejection: I. Claims 1, 3-5, 38, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ito, Fuller, and Ishigami. SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. OPINION The Examiner concluded that the combination of Ito, Fuller, and Ishigami would have rendered obvious the subject matter of claims 1, 3-5, 38, and 39 to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Ans. 4-6. The Examiner found that Ito discloses the elements of the claims except that Ito does “not particularly mention an OBD-II data bus.” Id. at 4. The Examiner found that Fuller “teaches of a system wherein vehicle data is received on a vehicle OBD-II data bus, the vehicle data being provided by vehicle sensors, wherein the vehicle data is collected from the OBD-II data bus by means of a data interface.” Id. The Examiner determined that “the bus disclosed by Ito is a bus that includes all buses known in the art, since Ito provides no express teaching to eliminate any buses known in the art.” Id. The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to “modify Ito as taught by Fuller for the purpose of meeting SAE requirements.” Id. (citing Fuller, paras. [0017], [0019]). Appellants raise several arguments in response to this rejection, including that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated by Fuller to modify Ito “for the purpose of meeting SAE requirements.” App. Br. 5. In particular, Appellants contend that Fuller “has absolutely Appeal 2012-001899 Application 10/959,497 4 nothing to do with exploiting the OBD-II bus to obtain dead reckoning data to aid satellite-based navigation as recited in claim 1.” Id. at 4; see also Reply Br. 5. We agree with Appellants that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been prompted “for the purpose of meeting SAE requirements” to modify Ito in light of Fuller, as found by the Examiner. See Ans. 4. Ito pertains to a “GPS . . . receiver which provides evaluation values for evaluating accuracy of data obtained by GPS measurement . . . .” Ito, col. 1, ll. 6-8. Ito has nothing to do with SAE requirements, which, as Appellants explain, refer to the “Society of Automotive Engineers” standards pertaining to “emission system diagnostic capability.” App. Br. 5. While we acknowledge that the Examiner found that Ito discloses a method with very similar steps as those presented in claim 1, the Examiner’s rationale for the proposed combination with Fuller lacks a rational underpinning because the Examiner has not sufficiently explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted by the SAE requirements, pertaining to emissions, to use the OBD-II data bus of Fuller in the method of Ito.1 Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection. 1 The Examiner’s reference to Canadian Patent No. CA 2372900 does not cure this deficiency in the rejection as this patent is not applied in the rejection. Similarly, the Examiner’s reference to other patents that are not of record does not cure the deficiency. We limit our decision to the modification of Ito in view Fuller as set forth in the rejection before us. Appeal 2012-001899 Application 10/959,497 5 DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 38, and 39. REVERSED mls