Ex Parte DuHadway et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 23, 2016

13153137 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2016)

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.
13/153,137 06/03/2011 Charles DuHadway 1576-0771 8355
10800 7590 06/23/2016
Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
Indianapolis, IN 46204
EXAMINER
SMITH, ISAAC G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/23/2016 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 CHARLES DUHADWAY, JAN BECKER, and
BENJAMIN PITZER
____________

Appeal 2014-005241
Application 13/153,137
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, LISA M. GUIJT, and ERIC C. JESCHKE,
Administrative Patent Judges.

JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charles DuHadway et al. (Appellants)1 seek review, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a), of the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–19. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Appellants identify Robert Bosch GmbH as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2014-005241
Application 13/153,137

2
BACKGROUND
The disclosed subject matter “relates to vehicle localization systems
and more specifically to vehicle localization systems incorporating a global
positioning system (GPS) receiver.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1 and 12 are
independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below, with emphasis added:
1. A localization system within a vehicle
comprising:
a global position system (GPS) receiver;
a radar sensor;
a data storage device including program
instructions stored therein;
a symbolic map stored within the data storage
device; and
a controller operatively coupled to the data
storage device, the GPS receiver, and the radar
sensor, the controller configured to execute the
program instructions to
analyze data from the GPS receiver,
data from the radar sensor, and data from the
stored symbolic map, and
determine a probabilistic vehicle
location based upon the analysis.

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Gotoh (US 2007/0208507 A1, published Sept.
6, 2007) and Zavoli (US 2009/0228204 A1, published Sept. 10, 2009).
2. Claims 3–5, 7, 11, 14–16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Gotoh, Zavoli, and Ernst (US 7,102,496 B1,
issued Sept. 5, 2006).
Appeal 2014-005241
Application 13/153,137

3
3. Claims 6, 8, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gotoh, Zavoli, Ernst, and Tan (US 2009/0067675 A1,
published Mar. 12, 2009).

DISCUSSION
Rejection 1 – The rejection of claims 1, 2, 9, 10,
12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
A. Independent Claim 1 (and Dependent Claims 2, 9, and 10)
Claim 1 recites, among other limitations, a controller configured to
execute instructions to “analyze data from [a] GPS receiver, data from [a]
radar sensor, and data from [a] stored symbolic map” and “determine a
probabilistic vehicle location based upon the analysis.” Appeal Br. 33
(Claims App.). The Examiner found that Zavoli
teaches determining a position of a vehicle using dead-
reckoning, where “an estimate of the positional error of the
current dead reckoned position can be computed along with the
position itself. This error estimate in turn defines a spatial area
within which the vehicle is likely to be, within a certain
probability.”
Final Act. 6 (dated June 7, 2013) (quoting Zavoli ¶ 8).
Appellants argue that this finding shows the Examiner views a
“probabilistic vehicle location” as “simply an estimated position and an error
envelope.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellants contend that claim 1 “requires not
only a location and error envelope” but also “an analysis of the likelihood of
a location within the error envelope being the actual location of the vehicle.”
Id. According to Appellants, “[t]here is no indication in Zavoli that any
single location within the Zavoli envelope is more likely than any other
location within the Zavoli envelope to be the actual location.” Id.
Appeal 2014-005241
Application 13/153,137

4
The Examiner responds that “Zavoli teaches determining a vehicle is
within an area ‘within a certain probability’ (Zavoli[ ¶ 8]) and calculating an
estimate of ‘positional location accuracy’ for a vehicle as a ‘contour of equal
probability (CEP)’ (Zavoli[ ¶ 49]).” Ans. 22–23 (emphasis omitted).
We agree with Appellants that the record does not support the finding
that Zavoli discloses the step of “determin[ing] a probabilistic vehicle
location based upon the analysis.” As noted by Appellants (Appeal Br. 6),
the Specification explicitly defines “probabilistic vehicle location” as “a
location within an error envelope of a calculated GPS location which is most
likely to be the actual vehicle location.” Spec. ¶ 35.
Paragraph 8 of Zavoli describes a “spatial area within which the
vehicle is likely to be, within a certain probability,” which satisfies the
“error envelope of a calculated GPS location” set forth in the definition.
Zavoli ¶ 8 (emphasis added). Paragraph 8 then describes how, using certain
data in the context of the disclosed “map matching technique,” “it can be
inferred with some probability that the vehicle must be on that section of the
road” and that “[t]his [inference] allows the navigation system to make any
necessary corrections to eliminate any accumulated error” in the estimated
vehicle position. Id. (emphasis added); see also id. (discussing how “the
navigation system merely estimates the position and heading of the vehicle
and then seeks to compare those estimates to the position and heading of
known road segments”).
Although Zavoli suggests that the corrected location estimate is more
likely the actual vehicle location than the locations in the disclosed “spatial
area,” the Examiner has not shown (1) that the corrected location estimate is
necessarily “within” the identified “error envelope” (i.e., the disclosed
Appeal 2014-005241
Application 13/153,137

5
“spatial area”) as required by the limitation at issue and (2) that the corrected
location estimate is necessarily the “most likely” location within the error
envelope “to be the actual vehicle location,” as also required. Appeal Br. 33
(Claims App.) (emphasis added). Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 1, or the rejection of claims 2, 9, and 10, which depend from claim 1.
B. Independent Claim 12 (and Dependent Claim 13)
Claim 12 recites, among other limitations, “determining a
probabilistic vehicle location based upon the analysis of the projected first
location.” Appeal Br. 36 (Claims App.). For this limitation, the Examiner
relies on paragraph 8 of Zavoli. See Final Act. 12.
Appellants argue that Zavoli does not disclose this limitation because
“[a]s discussed above with respect to claim 1, there is no indication in Zavoli
that any single location within the Zavoli error envelope is more likely than
any other location within the Zavoli envelope to be the actual location.”
Appeal Br. 14. In response, the Examiner relies on the same positions taken
regarding claim 1. See Ans. 26. For the same reasons discussed above (see
supra § A), we also do not sustain the rejection of claim 12, or the rejection
of claim 13, which depends from claim 12.
Rejections 2 and 3 – The rejection of claims 3–8,
11, and 14–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 3–8 and 11 depend from claim 1, and claims 14–19 depend
from claim 12. Appeal Br. 33–35, 36–38 (Claims App.). The Examiner’s
reliance on Ernst (Rejections 2 and 3) and Tan (Rejection 3) does not
remedy the deficiencies in the combined teachings of Gotoh and Zavoli,
discussed above (see supra Rejection 1, § A). Thus, for the reasons above,
we do not sustain the rejections of claims 3–8, 11, and 14–19.
Appeal 2014-005241
Application 13/153,137

6
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision to reject claims 1–19.

REVERSED