Ex Parte Ignatin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2015

11014121 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2015)

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.
11/014,121 12/15/2004 Gary Ignatin 15237US02 2724
49579 7590 03/30/2015
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, CHUONG P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2015 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 GARY IGNATIN
____________

Appeal 2013-003291
Application 11/014,1211
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–7, 11, and 21–38. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 The Appellant, Gary Ignatin, is identified as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2013-003291
Application 11/014,121

2
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1, 21, and 26 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, with added emphasis, is illustrative of the subject matter
on appeal.

1. A traffic management system, comprising:
a first mobile traffic participant communicatively
coupled to a communication network;
a second mobile traffic participant communicatively
coupled to the communication network; and
at least one traffic control system communicatively
coupled to the communication network,
wherein the at least one traffic control system is
configured to automatically receive real-time travel data
associated with the first mobile traffic participant, and is
configured to generate a first traffic control instruction based on
the received real-time travel data, the first traffic control
instruction associated only with the second mobile traffic
participant, and wherein the at least one traffic control system
is configured to automatically generate an updated first traffic
control instruction based on received updated real-time travel
data.

Rejections
I. Claims 1–7, 11, and 21–38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
II. Claims 1–3, 6, 7, 11, 21–23, 25–28, 31–34, and 36–38 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Myr (US 6,480,783 B1, iss.
Nov. 12, 2002).
III. Claims 4, 5, 24, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Myr and Takahashi (US 5,646,853, iss. July 8, 1997).
Appeal 2013-003291
Application 11/014,121

3
IV. Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Myr and Chen (US 2004/0119612 A1, pub. June 24, 2004).

ANALYSIS
Rejection I
We agree with the Appellant that “the first traffic control instruction
associated only with the second mobile traffic participant,” as recited in
claim 1, and substantially similar recitations in claim 21 and 26, comply
with the written description requirement. Appeal Br. 6–8; Reply Br. 4–6.
More particularly, paragraph 40 of the Specification reasonably conveys to
one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application
was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Paragraph 40 recites,
“[f]or example, processed travel data may be delivered to one of the client
systems 303 in response to travel data collected from another of the client
systems” (emphasis added). As pointed out by the Appellant, “travel data
and/or traffic control instruction . . . being delivered to ‘one of the client
systems’ is the same as that travel data and/or traffic control instruction
being delivered only to the specific ‘one of the client systems.’” Appeal Br.
7–8; see Reply Br. 5. Contra Ans. 14.
Thus, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–7, 11, and 21–38 under 35
U.S.C. § 112 is not sustained.

Rejections II–IV
The Appellant contends Myr does not disclose the following recitation
of independent claim 1, “the first traffic control instruction associated only
with the second mobile traffic participant,” and substantially similar
Appeal 2013-003291
Application 11/014,121

4
recitations of independent claims 21 and 26. Appeal Br. 8–9, 13; see Appeal
Br. 10–11. The Appellant’s contention is persuasive.
The Examiner does not explicitly find that Myr discloses “the first
traffic control instruction associated only with the second mobile traffic
participant,” as recited in claim 1. Rather, the Examiner explains, “it would
have been obvious that Myr also teaches the first traffic control instruction
associated with the second mobile traffic participant only” for two reasons:
first, “the specification does not provide support or criticality for the
negative limitation as stated in 35 U.S.C. [§ ]112, first paragraph rejection
above”; and, second, the “Appellant claims the language of ‘comprising[;]’
therefore, Myr’s system also applies for the second mobile traffic participant
only depending on the number of participant[s] participating at any given
time in real time.” Ans. 5. As such, it seems the Examiner finds Myr
discloses “the first traffic control instruction associated only with the second
mobile traffic participant,” as recited in claim 1, based on an understanding
from the Specification and an interpretation of the claim language.
As for the first reason, as discussed above, the Examiner’s explanation
for the written description rejection has been determined to be inadequate.
As such, the first reason lacks proper foundation, among other things. As
for the second reason, the use of the open-ended transitional phrase
“comprising” does not alter the requirement of claim 1 that the first traffic
control instruction is associated only with the second mobile traffic
participant.
Thus, the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and its
dependent claims, lacks adequate support. For substantially similar reasons,
the rejection of independent claims 21 and 26, and their dependent claims,
Appeal 2013-003291
Application 11/014,121

5
lacks adequate support. Thus, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 6, 7,
11, 21–23, 25–28, 31–34, and 36–38 as unpatentable over Myr is not
sustained.
The remaining rejections based on Myr in combination with
Takahashi or Chen rely on the same erroneous finding as discussed above.
As such, we do not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of:
claims 4, 5, 24, 29, and 30 as unpatentable over Myr and Takahashi; and
claim 35 as rejected as unpatentable over Myr and Chen.

DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1–7, 11, and 21–38.

REVERSED

rvb