Ex Parte Cunningham

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 21, 2016

13311093 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/3ll,093 12/05/2011 Thomas W. Cunningham
45191 7590 10/25/2016
HERBERT L. ALLEN
ALLEN, DYER, DOPPELT, MILBRATH & GILCHRIST, P.A.
255 SOUTH ORANGE A VENUE, SUITE 1401
P. 0. BOX 3791
ORLANDO, FL 32802-3791
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.
Oll4270 6756
EXAMINER
SENF!, BEHROOZ M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/25/2016 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):
Skemraj@addmg.com
jlong@addmg.com
nmacdonald@addmg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS W. CUNNINGHAM
Appeal2016-007768
Application 13/311,093
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, AMBER L. HAGY, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 22-24, which are all of the pending claims. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
Appeal2016-007768
Application 13/311,093
Introduction
According to Appellant, "[ t ]he present invention relates to traffic
signals for controlling the flow of vehicles and pedestrians and the use
thereof." (Spec. i-f 2.)
Exemplary Claim
Claims 22-24 are pending in this application, and claim 22 is
independent. Claim 22, reproduced below with the disputed limitation
italicized, is exemplary of the claimed subject matter:
22. A traffic signal system for an intersection, the traffic signal
system comprising:
a plurality of traffic signals directed to a plurality of lanes
approaching the intersection from a plurality of directions, the
plurality of lanes including a plurality of lanes approaching the
intersection from the same direction; and
at least one controller configured to operate the traffic
signals;
wherein the controller is configured to change general
conditions of the traffic signals to facilitate passage of an
emergency vehicle, and when the plurality of lanes approaching
the intersection from the same direction are in a direction of
emergency vehicle travel, to maintain or change the general
condition of only a portion of such traffic signals to green to
facilitate the passage of the emergency vehicle; and
wherein the controller is configured to communicate with
a control device carried by the emergency vehicle, the control
device allowing a user to specif); which of the plurality of travel
lanes in the direction of emergency vehicle travel are to have the
traffic signals maintained or changed to green.
2
Appeal2016-007768
Application 13/311,093
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Smith et al.
Lim et al.
Ginsberg et al.
us 4,775,865
US 2010/0141477 Al
US 2012/0274481 Al
REJECTION
Oct. 4, 1988
June 10, 2010
Nov. 1, 2012
Claims 22-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Smith, Lim, and Ginsberg. (Final Act. 3-5.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner erred. We concur with Appellant's contention
that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Smith, Lim, and
Ginsberg teaches or suggests "wherein the controller is configured to
communicate with a control device carried by the emergency vehicle, the
control device allowing a user to specify which of the plurality of travel
lanes in the direction of emergency vehicle travel are to have the traffic
signals maintained or changed to green," as recited in claim 22. The
Examiner acknowledges that the combination of Smith and Lim "fails to
explicitly indicate the control device allowing a user to specif); which of the
plurality of travel lanes . .. e.g., location, in the direction of emergency
vehicle travel are to have the traffic signals maintained or changed to green,
e.g., user interaction." (Ans. 4 (emphasis added).) The Examiner cites
Ginsberg as teaching "the use of user device to specify the location and
direction and control the traffic light operation." (Id.) The Examiner then
3
Appeal2016-007768
Application 13/311,093
finds that the combination of "Lim and Ginsberg, as a whole," would have
rendered it "obvious to one skilled in the art at the time ... the invention
was made to modify the manual control input module of Lim, in accordance
with the teaching of Ginsberg, for the purpose of user interaction, as
suggested by Ginsberg." (Id.)
As Appellant correctly argues, however, the Examiner has not found
the prior art teaches or suggests "allowing a user to specify which of the
plurality of travel lanes in the direction of emergency vehicle travel are to
have the traffic signals maintained or changed to green," as recited in the
claims. Although we agree each of the cited references teaches or suggests
altering the cycle of traffic lights, as needed, to allow an emergency vehicle
to pass, the Examiner has made no findings that any of the references, alone
or in combination, teaches specifying which lane, out of a plurality of
available lanes of travel in the direction of an emergency vehicle, is to have
the traffic signal maintained or changed to green, as required by the claims.
The Examiner acknowledges as much with regard to the Smith and Lim
references (e.g., Ans. 4 ), but makes no findings that Ginsberg makes up for
that deficiency.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 22, or the rejections of the dependent claims.
4
Appeal2016-007768
Application 13/311,093
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision to reject claims 22-24
is reversed.
REVERSED
5