Ex Parte Eichhorst

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 22, 2015

12684442 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/684,442 01/08/2010
40581 7590 12/24/2015
CRAWFORD MAUNU PLLC
1150 NORTHLAND DRIVE, SUITE 100
ST. PAUL, MN 55120
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kevin Eichhorst
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.
GTTE.004PA 5228
EXAMINER
SMALL, NAOMI J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/24/2015 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):
USPTO-patent@ip-firm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEVIN EICHHORST 1
Appeal2014-000251
Application 12/684,442
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, SHARON PENICK, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
T , 1 , • 1nrroaucnon
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-20. The Examiner indicates claim 21 would be
allowable if rewritten in independent form. Final Act. 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies Global Traffic Technologies, LLC, as the real party in
interest.
Appeal2014-000251
Application 12/684,442
Invention
Appellant discloses approaches for prioritizing multiple candidates for
preemption of a traffic signal phase where candidates are determined from
both light signals and radio signals. Abstract.
Exemplary Claims
Claims l and 2, reproduced below, are representative:
1. A method for prioritizing multiple candidates for preemption
of a traffic signal phase at an intersection, comprising:
receiving a respective light signal transmitted from one
or more light-signaling vehicles approaching an intersection,
each respective light signal encoding a priority code using a
first set of values and representing a respective light-emitter-
based preemption request;
receiving a respective radio signal from one or more
radio-signaling vehicles approaching the intersection, each
respective radio signal encoding respective location data and
encoding a respective priority code using a second set of values,
the encoded priority code representing a respective radio-
transmitter-based preemption request;
adding a respective preemption candidate to a set of
preemption candidates for each light-emitter-based preemption
request;
adding a respective preemption candidate to the set of
preemption candidates for each radio-transmitter-based
preemption request;
determining a respective relative pnonty of each
preemption candidate based on the priority code of each
preemption candidate; and
outputting a request for preemption of the traffic signal
phase for a preemption candidate having a highest priority.
2
Appeal2014-000251
Application 12/684,442
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a respective message packet from one or more
network-coupled vehicles approaching the intersection, each
respective message packet encoding respective location data
and encoding a respective priority code using the second set of
values, the encoded priority code representing a respective
network-packet-based preemption request; and
adding a respective preemption candidate to the set of
preemption candidates for each network-packet-based
preemption request.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Schwartz (US 2006/0273923 Al, published Dec. 7,
2006) and Hall et al. (US 5,539,398, issued July 23, 1996). Final Act. 3---6.
The Examiner rejects claims 2, 4, 13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Schwartz, Hall, and Bachelder (US 2009/
0189782 Al, published July 30, 2009). Final Act. 7-9, 11-12, and 27-29.
The Examiner rejects claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schwartz, Hall, and Hamer (US 5,187,476, issued Feb. 16,
1993). Final Act. 9-11.
The Examiner rejects claims 5, 7, 8, 10, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schwartz, Hall, Hamer, and Jones et al.
(US 6,243,026 Bl, issued June 5, 2001). Final Act. 12-14, 16-22.
The Examiner rejects claim 6, 9, 11, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Schwartz, Hall, Jones, and Bachelder. Final Act.
14--16, 22-27.
The Examiner rejects claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schwartz, Hall, Bachelder, and Hamer. Final Act. 29-31.
3
Appeal2014-000251
Application 12/684,442
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in concluding that it would have been
obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to combine the teachings and
suggestions of Schwartz and Hall in the manner recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in concluding that it would have been
obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to combine the teachings and
suggestions of Schwartz, Hall, and Bachelder in the manner recited in claim
2?
ANALYSIS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts
and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this
appeal was taken. We have considered Appellant's arguments, but do not
find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 18-20
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to combine the use of optical detectors
in Schwartz to control traffic lights with the Hall GPS-based traffic control
system to "improve the preemption intersection arrangement of Schwartz
with the reasonable expectation that it would result in receiving preemption
request from vehicles which are both in the direct line-of-sight of the
intersection receiver module, and from vehicles which are not in the direct
line-of-sight of the intersection receiver module." Final Act. 4. The
Examiner further notes Schwartz teaches or suggests that a system with
multiple communication modes has known benefits such as enabling
4
Appeal2014-000251
Application 12/684,442
preemption when an emergency vehicle crosses through different
jurisdictions. Ans. 34--35 (citing Schwartz i-fi-15, 7, and 20).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because the benefit of being
able to accept preemption requests from both vehicles in and out of the
direct line-of-sight would have been realized with Hall's GPS-based system
alone without further combining it with the optical-based system of
Schwartz. App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 1. However, the Examiner's findings show
that an artisan of ordinary skill would have recognized the benefit of
enabling a traffic light's controller to be compatible with the preemption
request equipment of multiple jurisdictions. See Ans. 34 (citing, e.g.,
Schwartz i1 5).
Appellant argues the Schwartz communication modes "are limited to
different optical systems." Reply Br. 1. Nonetheless, an artisan of ordinary
skill would have recognized that enabling preemption based on both optical-
based requests (as taught or suggested by Schwartz) and GPS-based requests
(as taught or suggested by Hall) would have provided the similar benefit of
providing compatibility with preemption request equipment of multiple
jurisdictions variously using optical-based and GPS-based preemption
request technologies.
Appellant further argues that the partial overlap in inventorship
between Schwartz and Hall "is evidence that the teachings of Schwartz and
Hall would not have suggested to one skilled in the art to modify Schwartz
to include GPS-based preemption alongside the optical-based preemption."
Reply Br. 3. That is, Appellant argues that if Schwartz (the common
inventor) "did not contemplate GPS being one of the different
communication modes, then there is no basis to support the assertion that
5
Appeal2014-000251
Application 12/684,442
Schwartz[] ... would have suggested to a hypothetical skilled artisan ... to
include the GPS capabilities of Hall." Id. However, the mere lack of an
explicit disclosure in Schwartz of enabling both optical-based and GPS-
based traffic preemption request capabilities is not persuasive evidence of
nonobviousness.
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been
obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to combine the teachings and
suggestions of Schwartz and Hall in the manner recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1, as well as the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims
3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 18-20, which Appellant argues are patentable for
similar reasons. App. Br. 6, 8-9.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13, and 15-17
In rejecting claim 2, the Examiner relies on Bachelder's cellular-based
nreemntion svstem to teach or su2:i:.!est the use of a network-nacket-based
_._ _._ el '-''-' _._
preemption request. Final Act. 7 (citing Bachelder i-f 8). The Examiner
concludes it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to
modify the system of Schwartz and Hall using the teachings and suggestions
of Bachelder
to improve the traffic signal preemption request system of
Schwartz in view of Hall with the reasonable expectation that it
would result in the ability for the system to utilize a pre-existing
cellular infrastructure for transmitting preemption requests from
vehicles which are not in the direct line-of-sight of the
intersection receiver module when a GPS system is unavailable.
Final Act. 7.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because "Bachelder's cellular-
based system [alone] allows preemption requests to be received by an
6
Appeal2014-000251
Application 12/684,442
intersection receiver module from vehicles that are not in the direct line-of-
sight of the intersection receiver module when a GPS system is unavailable,
which are the benefits alleged to support the motivation to modify the
Schwartz-Hall combination." App. Br. 7. However, the Examiner's
findings persuasively show that, in the same way it would have been obvious
to an artisan of ordinary skill that Schwartz and Hall teach or suggest
enabling preemption based on multiple preemption request technologies
(i.e., optical-based and GPS-based), an artisan of ordinary skill would also
have recognized that Schwartz, Hall, and Bachelder teach or suggest further
enabling preemption based on a network-packet-based preemption
technology. Ans. 34--35. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that it
would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to combine the
teachings and suggestions of Schwartz, Hall, and Bachelder in the manner
recited in claim 2.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 2, and claims 4, 6, 9, 11, 13, and 15-17, which Appellant argues are
patentable for similar reasons. App. Br. 7-10.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
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.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
mp
7