Ex Parte Corcoran

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 21, 2010

11202399 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 21, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JAMES J. CORCORAN III
____________________

Appeal 2010-009271
Application 11/202,399
Patent 6,606,563 B2
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before MICHAEL W. O’NEILL, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and KEN B.
BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2010-009271
Application 11/202,399
Patent 6,606,563 B2

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
James J. Corcoran III (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-30 and 32-70 in reissue
application 11/202,399. The reissue application seeks to reissue U.S. Patent
6,606,563 B2, issued August 12, 2003, based on application 09/800,175,
filed March 6, 2001. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm-in-part.
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention pertains to a system to alert a vehicle
occupant that the vehicle is approaching or within a particular area. Spec.,
col. 1, ll. 6-8. Claim 45, reproduced below with underlining omitted, is
representative of the subject matter on appeal.
45. An alerting system for alerting an occupant of a vehicle
that the vehicle is in or approaching a zone of awareness, the
alerting system comprising:
a storage device located on a vehicle, said storage device
being configured to store location information for a plurality of
zones of awareness and said location information comprising
coordinates of endpoints of one or more line segments;
a positioning system located on the vehicle, said
positioning system being configured to determine the vehicle
location;
an alerting device located on the vehicle, said alerting
device being configured to generate an alert; and
a processor located on the vehicle, said processor being
configured to provide controlling input to the alerting device as
a function of said vehicle location and said location
information,
wherein each of the plurality of zones of awareness
comprise at least a length and a width dimension.
Appeal 2010-009271
Application 11/202,399
Patent 6,606,563 B2

3
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Einkauf US 5,841,443 Nov. 24, 1998
McIntyre US 6,178,363 B1 Jan. 23, 2001
Nakamura US 6,253,150 B1 Jun. 26, 2001
Block US 6,259,378 B1 Jul. 10, 2001

The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 45-64 and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Nakamura;
2. Claims 1-30 and 32-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Block and Nakamura;
3. Claims 65-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Block and Einkauf; and
4. Claim 69 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Block, Einkauf, and McIntyre.

ANALYSIS
1. Claims 45-64 and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Nakamura
Claims 45-53 and 70
Appellant argues claims 45-53 and 70 as a group. App. Br. 9, 13. We
select claim 45 as the representative claim, and claims 46-53 and 70 stand or
fall with claim 45. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Claim 45 recites, with emphasis added:
“a storage device located on a vehicle, said storage device being
configured to store location information for a plurality of zones
Appeal 2010-009271
Application 11/202,399
Patent 6,606,563 B2

4
of awareness and said location information comprising
coordinates of endpoints of one or more line segments …
wherein each of the plurality of zones of awareness comprise at
least a length and a width dimension.
Appellant’s Specification describes a zone of awareness as “generally
an area or geographic region of particular interest or hazard.” Spec., col. 5,
ll. 18-19.
The Examiner found that Nakamura discloses in Figure 7(a) a vehicle
approaching an intersection, which the Examiner considered to be a zone of
awareness with a length and a width. Ans. 4. Figure 7(a) of Nakamura is
reproduced below:

Figure 7(a) depicts the positions of a running “self vehicle when it
approaches a stop intersection C and passes the same.” Nakamura, col. 6, ll.
41-43; see also id., col. 2, ll. 31-34.
Appellant argues that Nakamura’s stored database coordinate values
representing intersections are not disclosed as being zones of awareness.
App. Br. 10; see id. at 11. This argument is not persuasive. As mentioned
above, Appellant’s claimed zones of awareness include areas of particular
interest or hazard. See Spec., col. 5, ll. 18-19. One of ordinary skill in the
art would recognize that the intersection of two roads, particularly one where
Appeal 2010-009271
Application 11/202,399
Patent 6,606,563 B2

5
the driver must stop before proceeding, is a potentially hazardous area and of
particular interest to a vehicle driver and, therefore, is a zone of awareness.
We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Nakamura’s
intersection is disclosed and depicted as a circle around a center point, and
that such a circle is not a zone of awareness with a width dimension and a
length dimension. App. Br. 11-12. We agree with, and adopt as our own,
the Examiner’s finding that the intersection depicted in Nakamura’s Figure
7(a) is not a circle but rather “is physically a location/area where two road[s]
or more intersect [and] [t]he circle shown in figure 7(a) only shows an
estimation of intersection area.” Ans. 16. The intersection is square or
rectangular in shape and thus has length and width dimensions.
Furthermore, even if we were to accept Appellant’s argument that
Nakamura discloses the intersection as only a circle, we would not be
persuaded of error. We construe the claim’s wherein clause, which recites
zones of awareness each comprising a length and a width dimension, as
requiring each zone to be of a two-dimensional shape, i.e., a shape having an
area, as opposed to a point or a line. A circle is a two-dimensional shape
with an area.
Appellant also asserts that Nakamura considers all stop positions as a
single point (apparently referring to the center point CP of the intersection)
and that Nakamura’s links interconnecting adjacent nodes are merely lines.
App. Br. 12-13. To the extent that Appellant argues that Nakamura
discloses only a zone of awareness in the form of a point or a line lacking
any area, we disagree, as we have found that Nakamura discloses a zone
having an area.
Appeal 2010-009271
Application 11/202,399
Patent 6,606,563 B2

6
We affirm the rejection of claim 45 as anticipated by Nakamura.
Claims 46-53 and 70 fall with claim 45.

Claims 54-64
Appellant argues claims 54-64 as a group. App. Br. 13. We select
claim 54 as the representative claim, and claims 55-64 stand or fall with
claim 54. Claim 54 recites a method comprising the step of storing
information pertaining to a zone of awareness “wherein the zones of
awareness comprise at least a length and a width dimension.”
Appellant repeats the same arguments addressed above in the context
of claim 45. See App. Br. 13-17. Those arguments are not persuasive as
applied to claim 54 either. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 54
and claims 55-64, which fall therewith, as anticipated by Nakamura.

2. Claims 1-30 and 32-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Block and Nakamura
The Examiner found that Block discloses a zone of awareness in the
form of an airport runway and a system for alerting a pilot or flight crew
when the aircraft is approaching the runway. Ans. 8 (citing Block, col. 5,
l. 59 – col. 6, l. 12 and fig. 1); id. at 19-20 (citing Block, col. 2, ll. 32-36);
see also id. at 11-12 (addressing claims 29 and 30). Based on these findings,
the Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to combine Block’s
alerting system with Nakamura’s road vehicle system “because it does no
more than yield predictable results of generating warning message to flight
crews when the aircraft is approaching a runway at an airport ….” Id. at 9
(regarding independent claims 1, 19, and 32); see also id. at 12 (similarly
Appeal 2010-009271
Application 11/202,399
Patent 6,606,563 B2

7
maintaining, regarding claims 29 and 30, that the proposed combination
“does no more than yield predictable result of accurately determining the
position of a given runway at an airport”).
We agree with Appellant (App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 7) that the cited
portions of Block do not support the Examiner’s findings. Block discloses a
database of obstacles and that the data may be displayed so as to alert the
pilot of the possibility of hitting an obstacle. Block, col. 5, l. 59 – col. 6,
l. 4. The next paragraph of Block refers to other database information such
as airport location and runway data. Id., col. 6, ll. 5-6. Thus, Block does not
appear to consider a runway to be an obstacle to be avoided, and,
accordingly, this portion of Block does not support the finding of alerting
based on an airport. Similarly, the cited portion of column 2 does not
disclose warning the pilot upon approach, but rather simply states that the
pilot, when approaching the runway and within visible range, may turn off
the rearward view and navigational aids not associated with the approach.
See id., col. 2, ll. 33-36.
As the reasoning supporting the Examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness is premised on erroneous findings, we cannot sustain the
rejection of claims 1-30 and 32-44 as obvious in light of Block and
Nakamura.

3. Claims 65-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Block and Einkauf
Independent claim 65 recites “a polygon which represents the
perimeter of the runway and which is derived from the runway information.”
Appeal 2010-009271
Application 11/202,399
Patent 6,606,563 B2

8
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s proposed combination of references
lacks this feature. App. Br. 24. We agree.
The Examiner found that Block discloses most of the features of
independent claim 65 except for the recited polygon representing the runway
perimeter feature. Ans. 13-14. The Examiner further found that “Einkauf
discloses a system/method that performs an iterative operation that
subdivides selected polygons including the teaching of ‘each polygon stored
in display list memory of a graphic accelerator of graphic subsystem [sic,
“graphics accelerator or graphics subsystem”].’” Ans. 14 (citing Einkauf,
Abst.). The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to modify
Block’s system and method “to include the polygon stored in memory as
taught by Einkauf in order to determine the texels values of the image at
each pixel within the boundary of the polygon.” Id.
Einkauf’s disclosure pertains to computer graphics texture mapping,
and specifically to the subdivision of polygons into smaller polygons to limit
artifact creation during rendering/texture mapping processes. Einkauf, col.
1, ll. 1-12; col. 2, l. 65 - col. 3, l. 10. While we recognize that Einkauf does
disclose a polygon, the Examiner has not adequately articulated how the
proposed modification results in Appellant’s recited polygon representing
the runway and derived from runway information. As such, we cannot
sustain the rejection of claim 65 and its dependent claims 66-68 as obvious
in light of Block and Einkauf.

Appeal 2010-009271
Application 11/202,399
Patent 6,606,563 B2

9
4. Claim 69 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Block, Einkauf, and McIntyre
Claim 69 depends indirectly from claim 65. The Examiner does not
appear to rely on McIntyre in any way that cures the deficiency of the
rejection of claim 65 based on Block and Einkauf. See Ans. 14-15.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 69 as obvious in light
of Block, Einkauf and McIntyre.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-30, 32-44, and 65-69
is reversed. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 45-64 and 70 is
affirmed.
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)(1)(iv) (2007).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

mls

HONEYWELL/BLG
PATENT SERVICES
101 COLUMBIA ROAD
PO BOX 2245
MORRISTOWN, NJ 07962-2245