Ex Parte Duncan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 11, 2018

14054613 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/054,613 10/15/2013 William D. Duncan
103600 7590 06/13/2018
Foley & Lardner LLP
3000 K STREET N.W.
SUITE 600
WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109
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.
103315-0221
(0413-035-002
CONFIRMATION NO.
7112
EXAMINER
LANG, MICHAEL DEAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/13/2018 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):
ipdocketing@foley.com
ISFDocketlnbox@intven.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM D. DUNCAN, RODERICK A. HYDE,
JORDIN T. KARE, STEPHEN L. MALASKA, NATHAN P.
MYHRVOLD, ROBERT C. PETROSKI, THOMAS A. WEA VER, and
LOWELL L. WOOD JR.
Appeal 2018-004948
Application 14/054,613 1
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 137, 139--146, 148, 149,234, and 235 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beck (US 2004/0167682 Al;
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Elwha LLC, which, according to the Appeal
Brief, is the real party in interest and an affiliate of Intellectual Ventures
Management, LLC. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-004948
Application 14/054,613
published Aug. 26, 2004) and Ward (US 2005/0195096 Al; published Sept.
8, 2005). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 137 is the sole independent claim, with claims 139--146, 148,
149, 234, and 235 depending therefrom. Claim 137 is reproduced below:
13 7. A motor vehicle system, comprising:
a motor vehicle including an aircraft support portion;
an actively propelled unmanned aircraft configured to be
selectively supported on the aircraft support portion;
a computer vehicle control system configured to actively
control operation of a driving system of the motor vehicle in real-
time while the aircraft is airborne and acquiring data, the
computer vehicle control system configured to control operation
of the driving system by using data acquired by the aircraft in
real-time, the computer vehicle control system configured to
generate a travel route of the vehicle; and
an aircraft control system configured to receive the travel
route of the vehicle from the computer vehicle control system
and to cause the aircraft to be propelled according to the travel
route of the vehicle.
OPINION
As seen above, claim 13 7 recites a motor vehicle system including a
motor vehicle, an unmanned aircraft, a computer vehicle control system, and
an aircraft control system. The computer vehicle control system is
configured to "generate a travel route of the vehicle" and the aircraft control
system is configured to receive that travel route and cause the aircraft to be
propelled according to that travel route.
2
Appeal 2018-004948
Application 14/054,613
The Examiner cites Beck as teaching the motor vehicle and unmanned
aircraft, but acknowledges that Beck fails to teach the computer vehicle
control system or the aircraft control system. Final Act. 3. The Examiner
cites Ward as teaching the computer vehicle control system and the aircraft
control system, and reasons that "it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the filing of the invention to modify Beck in view
of Ward in order to improve situational awareness when controlling a motor
vehicle." Id. (citing Ward ,r,r 47-71). In the Answer, "the examiner relies
on Paragraphs [0112], [0113], and [0117] for further clarification" regarding
Ward's asserted teaching of the aircraft control system. Ans. 3.
Appellant disputes the Examiner's findings related to Ward teaching
an aircraft control system configured to receive a vehicle's travel route and
cause the aircraft to be propelled according to that travel route. App. Br. 8-
11; Reply 2--4. Appellant contends that "Ward merely discloses that a
satellite, aircraft, or an airborne vehicle (i.e., the overhead platform) can
acquire overhead imagery data" (Reply Br. 3 (citing Ward ,r 47)), and notes
the Examiner's explanation from the Answer indicating that "Ward discloses
that 'the ground vehicle then plans a route' after receiving fresh overhead
imagery data acquired by an aerial vehicle" (id. (quoting Ans. 3)). We agree
that Ward does not teach the features of the aircraft control system recited in
the claim.
Claim 137 expressly requires "an aircraft control system configured to
receive the travel route of the vehicle from the computer vehicle control
system and to cause the aircraft to be propelled according to the travel route
of the vehicle." That travel route is a specific predetermined route for the
motor vehicle from the vehicle control system. To the extent there is any
3
Appeal 2018-004948
Application 14/054,613
dispute regarding the scope of claim 137 in connection with the aircraft
"be[ing] propelled according to the travel route of the vehicle," we note that
paragraph 50 of the Specification provides further insight into the meaning
of that limitation. For example, paragraph 50 distinguishes that "travel
route" from just "a current direction of travel of [the] vehicle," as well as
from "a route customized by a driver and/or other user" and "travel directly
to/from desired destinations ... which may vary from a driving route."
Ward describes a system including a ground vehicle that receives
overhead imagery data from an overhead platform, such as a satellite or an
airborne vehicle. Ward ,r 47. There is nothing in paragraphs 47-71 of Ward
( cited by the Examiner in the Final Office Action as noted above) that
describes with any particularity how the route of the overhead platform is
determined, let alone that it is "propelled according to the travel route of the
[motor] vehicle," as required by the claim. Indeed, rather than explaining
where such a teaching exists in those paragraphs, as noted above, the
Examiner points to additional paragraphs 112, 113, and 117 when
responding to Appellant's contentions in the Answer. Ans. 3. Those
additional portions of Ward also fail to teach the overhead platform is
"propelled according to the travel route of the [motor] vehicle."
Ward explains that "in operation, the overhead imagery data is
acquired by the overhead platform ... and transmitted to the data processing
facility." Ward ,r 109. After that data is received, the ground vehicle is
deployed. Id. ,r 110. "[T]he deployment may take several hours to several
days" and "[i]n conventional practice, more recent, or 'fresher,' data may be
available, but the ground vehicle 100 has no access to it and so operates on
stale data." Id. ,r 111. Ward explains that "[t]he present invention ...
4
Appeal 2018-004948
Application 14/054,613
communicate[s] the fresh data to the ground vehicle." Id. ,r 112. This
"change data" is then used to plan a route for the ground vehicle. Id.
,r,r 113-117.
We do not read this discussion from Ward as supporting the
Examiner's position. Rather, Ward appears to operate its overhead platform
(e.g., the aircraft) over a predetermined area, independent of the particular
route of the ground vehicle, to determine and update the route of the ground
vehicle. The operation of the aircraft in Ward is similar to that of a satellite.
In fact, the ground vehicle has not yet been deployed when the overhead
platform is travelling along its route. See Ward ,r,r 109-111. Based on the
cited portions of Ward and the explanation provided by the Examiner, the
Examiner has not supported by a preponderance of the evidence that Ward
teaches or suggests changing that route of the overhead platform based on
the route of the ground vehicle to obtain "fresh data." Indeed, in order to
generate the "change data" discussed in Ward, it seems more likely that the
route of the overhead platform after deployment of the ground vehicle is the
same as the route before deployment of the ground vehicle in order to be
able to compare the data. For example, the route of the overhead platform in
Ward could be similar to the "travel directly to/from desired destinations"
discussed in paragraph 50 of the Specification noted above, which is
distinguished from the driving route of the ground vehicle in the
Specification.
Accordingly, the Examiner has failed to establish that claims 137,
139-146, 148, 149, 234, and 235 are unpatentable over the combined
teachings of Beck and Ward.
5
Appeal 2018-004948
Application 14/054,613
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision to reject claims 137, 139--
146, 148, 149, 234, and 235.
REVERSED
6