Ex Parte Jaipaul

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2019

13210521 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/210,521 08/16/2011
142109 7590 02/28/2019
CONNEELY PC
121 WILLOWDALE A VENUE
SUITE 207
TORONTO, ON M2N 6A3
CANADA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Joshua Timothy Jaipaul
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.
T8474372US 1 2315
EXAMINER
SHERWIN,RYANW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2019 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):
joe@conneely.ca
info@conneely.ca
j conn eel y@rogers.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSHUA TIMOTHY JAIP AUL
Appeal2018-000203
Application 13/210,521 1
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-6, 8-19, and 21-24. Claims 7 and 20 were previously canceled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 In a prior Decision (Appeal Number 2014-004295, decided February 2,
2016, herein "Decision"), we affirmed the Examiner's rejections: of claims
1, 3-5, 13, 17, and 18 under§ 103(a) over Hisaharu, Laird, and Kawai; of
claims 2, 6, 14--16, and 19 under§ 103(a) over Hisaharu, Laird, Kawai, and
Hot; of claims 7-9, 12, 20, 21, and 24 under§ 103(a) over Hisaharu, Laird,
Kawai, Okunuga, and Chiu; of claims 10, 11, and 23 under§ 103(a) over
Hisaharu, Laird, Kawai, Chiu, and Ho; and of claim 22 under§ 103(a) over
Hisaharu, Okunuga, Chiu, and Bloomfield.
Appeal2018-000203
Application 13/210,521
We affirm. The decision does not address any issue concerning
subject matter eligibility.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellant, the invention "is directed to ... monitoring
intersections adjacent to an obstruction that can inhibit a driver's view of
oncoming traffic" (Spec. ,r 1 ).
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A system for monitoring traffic at an intersection of a
first street and a second street, the system comprising:
a camera configured to capture data representing a view
of the second street;
a display screen in communication with the camera for
receiving the data, the display screen configured to display the
data to drivers on the first street;
wherein the camera is mounted adjacent the second
street, is spaced from and before the intersection, and is directed
away from the intersection toward oncoming traffic on the
second street only;
wherein the data represents a view of oncoming traffic on
the second street only;
wherein the display screen is mounted adjacent the first
street, is spaced from and before the intersection, and is directed
away from the intersection toward oncoming traffic on the first
street only;
wherein the display screen is visible to oncoming traffic
on the first street only;
wherein the view of the second street is at least partially
obstructed to the drivers on the first street;
wherein the display screen has a display counter
configured to display an indication as to whether it is safe or
not to enter the intersection; and
2
Appeal2018-000203
Application 13/210,521
a sensor configured to sense at least one measurement of
a vehicle on the second street, the sensor connected to a
processor for calculating an estimated time of arrival of the
vehicle at the intersection based on the at least one
measurement, the display counter being in communication with
the sensor for receiving the estimated time of arrival, the
display counter configured to display a countdown of the
estimated time of arrival to the drivers on the first street as the
indication as to whether it is safe or not to enter the
intersection;
wherein the at least one measurement includes a weight
of the vehicle.
C. REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3-5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 18, 21, and 24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over Hisaharu (JP 2002-329291; published
November 15, 2002), Yamaguchi (US 2010/0082244 Al; published April 1,
2010), Takubo (US 6,377,191 Bl; published April 23, 2002), and Okunuga
(US 7,057,531 Bl; published June 6, 2006).
Claims 2, 6, 8, 11, 14--16, 19, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) over Hisaharu, Yamaguchi, Takubo, Okunuga, and Hot (US
2012/0089445 Al; published April 12, 2012).
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over Yamaguchi,
Takubo, Okunuga, and Bloomfield (US 6,411,204 Bl; published June 25,
2002).
II. ISSUES
The principal issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in
finding the combination of Hisaharu, Yamaguchi, Takubo, and Okunuga
teaches or would have suggested :
3
Appeal2018-000203
Application 13/210,521
1) a "sensor" configured to sense "at least one measurement," wherein
"the at least one measurement includes a weight of the vehicle." Br. 26
(Claims App'x) (Claim 1 ).
2) "wherein the display screen is mounted adjacent the first street, is
spaced from and before the intersection, and is directed away from the
intersection toward oncoming traffic on the first street only" and "wherein
the display screen is visible to oncoming traffic on the first street only." Id.
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Hisaharu
1. Hisaharu discloses a system for providing crossing information
equipment and a crossing information system which can report information
to a driver in real time. Hisaharu ,r 5. Figures 1-2 are reproduced below:
Figure 1:
4
Appeal2018-000203
Application 13/210,521
Figure 2:
Figures 1-2 show camera I mounted adjacent a street and provides a
bird-eye view directed toward oncoming traffic of the street ( car C 1) and an
intersecting street ( car C2), and display screens 6 mounted on comers
adjacent each of the streets and are directed toward oncoming traffic of the
streets (cars Cl and C2).
Display screens 6 display characters and pictures. Id. ,r 20. Display
screens 6 are not limited to being near signal light 10, and can be installed in
a place where "drivers, such as the vehicles C, tend to recognize." Id.
In image processing system 2, operating states, such as the vehicle
type of vehicles C near a crossing, speed or acceleration, are distinguished
based on the acquired picture. Id. ,r 24. In one crossing situation, control
device 4 processes information, including, e.g. distinguishing vehicle type,
5
Appeal2018-000203
Application 13/210,521
and displays it on display screen 6. Id. ,r 25. A crossing situation is
displayed on display screen 6 with a certain amount of text and picture. Id.
Hisaharu discloses the need for a "dangerous display" be given to the
driver of vehicles C who is going to pass through crossing K in an applicable
time limit. Id. ,r 29. For example, in an applicable time limit, "'right
advance vehicle'" etc. is displayed to the driver of vehicles C2 to prevent
collision with vehicles C2. Id.
Takubo
2. Takubo discloses a system for assisting the traffic safety of vehicles,
the system including a camera for monitoring the road of an oncoming
vehicle making a right tum at an intersection, and a display board placed at a
position above the road leading up to the intersection in a manner visible to
the driver of the vehicle. Takubo, Abstract. A radar is provided for emitting
a radar wave to an object, such as a vehicle, moving on the road approaching
the intersection to obtain information on the position and speed of the
moving object. Id.
Okunuga
3. Okunuga discloses a system for indicating approaching vehicle speed.
Okunuga, Abstract. The system is primarily used as a warning device for
pedestrians who are crossing a road, but may also be used for warning
vehicles of approaching vehicles, which is particularly useful for those
intersections that are blinded to oncoming traffic. Id. at 2:66-3:3. Two
weight sensors are positioned on a ground surface such that a vehicle will
drive over the weight sensors, and a processor, receiving a weight detecting
signal from the weight sensors when the vehicle drives over the weight
sensors, verifies the relative speed of the vehicle. Id. at 2:52-62.
6
Appeal2018-000203
Application 13/210,521
IV. ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellant could have
made, but did not make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016). On the record before us, we are unpersuaded the
Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth
in the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner's
Answer, and provide the following for highlighting and emphasis.
Appellant contends that the prior art references do not teach or
suggest "wherein the at last one measurement includes a weight of the
vehicle." Br. 17. In particular, although Appellant concedes that the weight
sensors in Okunuga detect the passage of a vehicle, Appellant contends that
they "do not measure the actual weight of a vehicle." Id. at 18.
Further, according to Appellant, Okunuga is not directed to a weight
sensor "having the same configuration, serving the same function, or for the
same purpose" as the sensor in Appellant's claims. Id. at 19-20 ( citing In re
Gorman, 933 F.2d 982 (Fed. Cir. 1991)) (emphasis omitted). Thus,
Appellant contends that Okunuga has been improperly combined with
Hisaharu, Yamaguchi, and Takubo. Id. at 19.
Furthermore, although Appellant acknowledges that Hisaharu shows a
"display 6 is directed toward the crossing K such that it is visible to a driver
of a vehicle Con the opposite side of the crossing K," (id. at 20, referring to
Hisahru, Fig. 1 ), Appellant contends that the claimed invention requires a
display interface that is "directed away from the intersection," (id. at 21 ).
According to Appellant, Hisaharu does not teach or suggest "'the display
screen is mounted adjacent the first street, is spaced from and before the
7
Appeal2018-000203
Application 13/210,521
intersection, and is directed away from the intersection toward oncoming
traffic on the first street only'" and "'is visible to oncoming traffic on the
first street only"' as recited by claim 1. Id. ( emphasis omitted).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments.
Hisaharu discloses a system for assisting traffic safety which
comprises a control device for processing distinguish information in the
oncoming traffic, including, e.g. vehicle type (FF 1 ). Takubo discloses a
system for assisting the traffic safety of vehicles, which comprises a radar
for obtaining information on the position and speed of the oncoming vehicle
(FF 2). Okunuga discloses a system for indicating an approaching vehicle's
speed, the system comprising weight sensors positioned on a ground surface
and a processor for receiving a weight detecting signal from the weight
sensors when the vehicle drives over the weight sensors, such that the
processor may verify the relative speed (FF 3). As the Examiner finds,
"Hisaharu teaches a system for monitoring traffic at an intersection" (Final
Act. 4); "Takubo teaches ... a display counter configured to display an
indication as to whether it is safe or not to enter the intersection," Takubo's
system further comprises "a sensor ... to sense at least one measurement of
a vehicle" (id. at 7); and "Okunuga teaches wherein the at least one
measurement includes a weight of the vehicle" (id. at 8).
Although Appellant contends that Okunuga' s "weight sensors ... are
for detecting a passage of a vehicle" and "do not provide what is known as
an analog, continuous, or measured value such as a measurement of 2500
pounds" (Br. 18 ( emphasis added)), claim 1 does not preclude "weight
sensors" that detect the "passage of the vehicle" or require that the sensor
provide "analog, continuous, or measured value." Rather, claim 1 merely
8
Appeal2018-000203
Application 13/210,521
requires a "sensor configured to sense at least one measurement of a
vehicle," wherein the "measurement" comprises "weight."
As the Examiner finds, Okunuga's "weight sensors" are "relied upon
within the system or method for obtaining a result and sharing that result
with a processing device." Ans. 3. That is, Okunuga discloses using
"weight sensors" for detecting the vehicle as it passes over the sensors
positioned in the ground surface, thereby producing "weight detecting
signal" of the vehicle (FF 3). Based in the record, we agree with the
Examiner Okunuga teaches or at least suggest detecting a "measurement" of
a vehicle, such as the "weight" of the vehicle, a as claimed. Id.
Here, we find no error with the Examiner's combination of Hisaharu's
system for monitoring traffic at an intersection (FF 1), with Takubo's sensor
to sense a vehicle measurement (FF 2) and Okunuga' s teaching of "weight
sensors" that provide "weight detecting signals" (FF 3), for teaching and
suggesting the contested limitation of claim 1. That is, according to the
Examiner, the combination of Hisaharu, Takubo, and Okunuga teaches or at
least suggests a system for monitoring traffic which comprises "sensor"
configured to sense "at least one measurement," wherein "the at least one
measurement includes a weight of the vehicle," as required by claim 1.
Final Act. 4--8.
We are also not persuaded by Appellant's contention that Okunuga
has been improperly combined with Hisaharu, Yamaguchi, and Takubo.
Br. 19. Although Appellant contends that Okunuga is not directed to a
weight sensor "having the same configuration, serving the same function, or
for the same purpose" as the sensor in Appellant's claims (id. at 19-20), we
find no error with the Examiner's finding that Okunuga's "'weight sensors'
9
Appeal2018-000203
Application 13/210,521
are still relied upon within the system or method for obtaining a result and
sharing that result with a processing device," such as that in the combination
ofHisaharu, Yamaguchi, and Takubo. Ans. 3. Here, Hisaharu, Takubo, and
Okunuga are all in the same field of endeavor of detecting an approaching
vehicle. FF 1-3. We find no error with the Examiner's reliance on Takubo
to teach "'a sensor ... to sense at least one measurement of a vehicle,"' and
reliance on Okunuga to teach and suggest "that the at least one measurement
includes a weight of the vehicle" (Ans. 4). That is, we agree with the
Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
combine Hisaharu's system for processing distinguish vehicle information in
the oncoming traffic (FF 1 ), with Takubo' s teaching and suggestion of
obtaining distinguishing information, such as the position and speed, of the
oncoming vehicle (FF 2) and Okunuga's system for indicating an
approaching vehicle's speed comprising weight sensors for providing a
weight detecting signal to verify the relative speed (FF 3).
The Supreme Court guides that the conclusion of obviousness can be
based on the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary
skill in the art. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007). The
skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at
421. Here, as the Examiner concludes, it would have been obvious "to
modify combination of Hisaharu in view of Yamaguchi and Takubo with the
multiple weight sensors outputting a 'weight detecting signal' of Okunuga"
because "including weight sensors would be a simple substitution of the type
of sensor based on a desired objective in the system or method with the
predictable result of increasing the reliability of the system due to a reliance
10
Appeal2018-000203
Application 13/210,521
on detecting the weight of the vehicle." Ans. 3; see also In re Rice, 341 F.2d
309,314 (CCPA 1965)).
We are also not persuaded by Appellant's contention that, in
Hisaharu, "the display 6 is directed toward the crossing K such that it is
visible to a driver of a vehicle C on the opposite side of the crossing K"
(Br. 20), and thus, Hisaharu does not teach or suggest "wherein the display
screen . . . is directed away from the intersection toward oncoming traffic on
the first street only; wherein the display screen is visible to oncoming traffic
on the first street only." Id. at 21 ( citing claim 1) ( emphasis omitted). That
is, we are unpersuaded by Appellant's contention that the claimed invention
differs from Hisaharu in that "the display interface 112 of the display 106 is
directed toward oncoming traffic on one street 202 only," it is "directed
away from the intersection 200," and that it is "spaced from and before the
intersection 200 such that it is visible to oncoming traffic on that one street
202 only." Id.
As the Examiner points out, "[a]lthough the [A]ppellant argues
Drawing 1 of Hisaharu, this drawing is not relied upon in the Final Office
action," but instead, "the Final Office Action relies on Drawing 2" of
Hisaharu. Ans. 4. As the Examiner finds, Hisaharu places the display 6
where "drivers, such as the vehicles C, tend to recognize." Id. at 5 (citing
Hisaharu ,r 20).
11
Appeal2018-000203
Application 13/210,521
Figure 2 of Hisaharu is reproduced below:
Figure 2 shows display 6 that displays a "right advance vehicle," for
example, to the driver of the vehicles C2 so that it may not collide with the
vehicles in the intersection. FF 1. That is, like Appellant's invention, as
shown in Figure 2, display 6 is directed toward oncoming car C2 on one
street only, is directed away from the intersection K, and that it is spaced
from and before the intersection K such that it is visible to C2 on that one
street only. See FF I.
In view of the above, we find no error with the Examiner's finding the
combination of Hisaharu, Takubo, and Okunuga teaches or at least suggests
a system for monitoring traffic "'wherein the display screen is mounted
adjacent the first street, is spaced from and before the intersection, and is
directed away from the intersection toward oncoming traffic on the first
12
Appeal2018-000203
Application 13/210,521
street only'" and "'wherein the display screen is visible to oncoming traffic
on the first street only,"' as required by claim 1. Ans. 4--5.
Accordingly, Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and independent claim 13 which is not separately argued and thus
falling therewith, as well as claims 3-5, 9, 10, 12, 17, 18, 21, and 24
respectively depending therefrom (Br. 22) over Hisaharu, Yamaguchi,
Takubo, and Okunuga. Appellant does not provide substantive arguments
for claims 2, 6, 8, 11, 14--16, 19, 22, and 23 separate from those for claim 1
(Br. 23-24). Accordingly, we also affirm the Examiner's rejections of:
claims 2, 6, 8, 11, 14--16, 19, and 23 over Hisaharu, Yamaguchi, Takubo,
and Okunuga, in further view of Hot; and of claim 22 over Yamaguchi,
Takubo, and Okunuga, in further view of Bloomfield.
V. DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1---6, 8-19, and 21-24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
13