Ex Parte ELIE et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 14, 2018

14693597 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2018)

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.
14/693,597 04/22/2015 Larry Dean ELIE 83515740 3793
28395 7590 02/16/2018
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET
EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER TROOST, AARON L
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/16/2018 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):
docketing @brookskushman. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LARRY DEAN ELIE, TIMOTHY J. POTTER,
ROBERT F. NOVAK, JOHN W. JARANSON,
JEFFREY A. WALLACE, MICHAEL M. AZZOUZ,
GERALD J. HEATH, and EVANGELOS P. SKOURES
Appeal 2017-006586
Application 14/693,5971
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, AMEE A. SHAH, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, the Appellants appeal from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3—10, and 12—20. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to the Appellants, “[t]he real party in interest is Ford Global
Technologies, LLC.” Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-006586
Application 14/693,597
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Subject Matter on Appeal
The Appellants’ invention relates to a system and a method for
preventing a vehicle door from transitioning between an opened position and
a closed position in response to a light-field camera detecting the presence of
an object in the swing radius of the door. See Spec. H4, 5.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A vehicle comprising:
a door having a swing radius;
a light-field camera configured to detect and determine the
distance to objects within a field-of-view of the camera; and
a controller programmed to, in response to the camera
detecting the presence of an object moving along a path, that is
based on the distance to and a trajectory of the object, towards
the swing radius, prevent the door from transitioning between
opened and closed positions.
Rejections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, 13, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Nickolaou et al. (US 2011/0196568 Al, pub.
Aug. 11, 2011) (“Nickolaou”) and Foley et al. (US 2013/0286188 Al, pub.
Oct. 31,2013) (“Foley”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Nickolaou, Foley, and Ishiguro et al. (US 2012/0217764 Al, pub. Aug. 30,
2012) (“Ishiguro”).
2
Appeal 2017-006586
Application 14/693,597
Claims 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Nickolaou, Foley, and Miyahara (US 2006/0017656 Al,
pub. Jan. 26, 2006).
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Nickolaou, Foley, and Ihlenburg et al. (US 2014/0207344 Al, pub.
July 24, 2014) (“Ihlenburg”).
ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1, 9, and 17, and their dependent claims, as unpatentable over
Nickolaou and Foley relies on impermissible hindsight. Appeal Br. 3—5;
Reply Br. 2—3. The Appellants’ argument does not persuade us that the
Examiner erred.
The Examiner finds that Nickolaou teaches substantially all of the
subject matter of claims 1, 9, and 17. See Final Act. 3, 5, 7. Among other
things, the Examiner finds that Nickolaou teaches sensor group 130, having
sensors 270-280, which are configured to detect and determine the distance
to objects. See, e.g., Final Act. 3; Ans. 2; Nickolaou ]Hf 25, 35. The
Examiner also finds that Nickolaou’s sensors include “both active (e.g.,
LIDAR) and passive (e.g., stereo camera) sensors,” where the latter
generates images of objects within a target area. Ans. 4; see Final Act. 3
(citing Nickolaou 123).
The Examiner finds that Nickolaou fails to teach a light-field camera
as one of its sensors, which is required by claims 1, 9, and 17. See Final
Act. 3^4 (citing Nickolaou 123); Ans. 4. The Examiner relies on Foley to
remedy this deficiency. Final Act. 4 (citing Foley 140, Abstract).
3
Appeal 2017-006586
Application 14/693,597
The Examiner concludes, “[i]t would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art... to have modified the vehicle safety system of
Nickolaou to be a light-field camera that determines depth data of objects, as
taught by Foley, to detect objects for controlling vehicle functions.” Final
Act. 4. The Examiner explains that this modification is a simple
substitution. Ans. 3. More particularly, a “[sjimple substitution of the light-
field camera of Foley for the sensor(s) of Nickolaou[, which] would yield
the same and predictable result of detecting and ranging objects around the
vehicle, where the data from the light-field camera is used to control a
vehicle function.” Ans. 3; see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416 (2007) (“[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior
art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known
in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.”)
(citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 50-51 (1966)). We agree with
the Examiner.
The Appellants do not acknowledge that the Examiner’s modification
is based on a simple substitution rationale. As such, the Appellants do not
explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would fail to understand the
replacement of Nickolaou’s sensors with the sensors as taught by Foley to be
a simple substitution. For example, the Appellants do not challenge the
Examiner’s finding “the sensor(s) of Nickolaou and the light-field camera of
Foley perform equivalent functions, and the data from the sensor(s) and the
light-field camera are both used for controlling the vehicle as part of an
object detection and avoidance system.” Ans. 3.
Rather, the Appellants’ contentions are directed to a comparison of
Nickolaou’s sensors with the Appellants’ passive sensing devices, i.e., light-
4
Appeal 2017-006586
Application 14/693,597
field cameras. See Appeal Br. 3—\\ Reply Br. 2. For example, the
Appellants acknowledge that Nickolaou’s vehicle safety system may include
cameras, but contend that they “are simply used to generate images in the
target area and not to determine proximity, direction, speed, or the trajectory
of an object,” whereas light-field cameras “are capable of determining the
proximity, direction, speed, or the trajectory of an object by generating depth
data.” Appeal Br. 4. We appreciate the Appellants’ comparison of
Nickolaou’s sensors and Appellants’ light-field cameras, however the
comparison does not suggest that the sensors taught by Foley are not
substitutes for Nickolaou’s sensors.
The Appellants also contend that “Nickolaou teaches away from using
passive sensors for determining the proximity, direction, speed, or the
trajectory of an object” because Nickolaou’s “stereo cameras are used to
generate images depicting the height and curvature of objects in conjunction
with an active sensor that is used to sense the presence and position of the
objects within the target area.” Reply Br. 2 (emphasis added). However,
Nickolaou does not teach away from using passive sensors. Actually,
Nickolaou suggests other types of sensors that result in the same
functionality as sensor group 130 by describing “that alternative
embodiments may include other types of sensors as well.” Nickolaou 123.
As such, we fail to understand Nickolaou to criticize, discredit, or otherwise
discourage investigation into the use of a light-field camera. See DePuy
Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed.
Cir. 2009) (“A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely
expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not
5
Appeal 2017-006586
Application 14/693,597
‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the invention
claimed.”) (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,3,4, 6, 9, 12,
13, 17, and 19 as unpatentable over Nickolaou and Foley. We also sustain
the rejections of claim 5, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 16, 18, and 20, which the
Appellants do not argue separately.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3—10, and
12-20.
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.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6