Ex Parte Kagerer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 23, 2017

13909279 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2017)

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.
13/909,279 06/04/2013 Walter KAGERER 080437.65476US 1012
23911 7590 10/25/2017
CROWELL & MORING LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP
P.O. BOX 14300
WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300
EXAMINER
WORDEN, THOMAS E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/25/2017 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):
edocket @ crowell. com
tche @ crowell. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WALTER KAGERER and MARIA-CHRISTINA LAIOU
Appeal 2016-006573
Application 13/909,279
Technology Center 3600
Before THU A. DANG, LARRY R. HUME, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1—6, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2016-006573
Application 13/909,279
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to “cruise and/or range
control of motor vehicles” wherein “during determination of a desired
acceleration value,. . . specific data of a target object traveling ahead and of
a front object traveling in front of the target object are taken into account”
(Spec. 12).
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method of operating a range-controlled cruise control
system of a motor vehicle, the method comprising the acts of:
as a function of specific data of a target object driving
ahead, determining a first desired pre-acceleration value for
achieving a predefined distance with respect to the target object
driving ahead;
as a function of specific data of a front object driving
ahead, which front object is traveling in front of the target object,
determining a second desired pre-acceleration value for
achieving a predefined distance with respect to the front object
driving ahead;
determining weighting factors for each of the first and
second desired pre-acceleration values based at least on
information related to a road on which the motor vehicle is
traveling;
determining a desired acceleration value for the motor
vehicle from the first desired pre-acceleration value and the
second desired pre-acceleration value by weighting the first and
second desired pre-acceleration values in accordance with the
determined weighting factors; and
outputting a torque demand based on the desired
acceleration value to a drive unit or a brake unit of the motor
vehicle.
App. Br. 11 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal 2016-006573
Application 13/909,279
C. REJECTION
Claims 1—6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shin et al. (US 2010/0198450 Al; pub. Aug. 5, 2010) and
Natsume (US 2006/0284760 Al; pub. Dec. 21, 2006).
II. ISSUES
The main issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in finding
the combination of Shin and Natsume teaches or would have suggested
“determining a first desired pre-acceleration value for achieving a predefined
distance with respect to the target object driving ahead; determining a
second desired pre-acceleration value for achieving predefined distance with
respect to the front object driving ahead; determining weighting factors for
each of the first and second desired pre-acceleration values based at least on
information related to a road on which the motor vehicle is traveling;” and
“determining a desired acceleration value ... by weighting the first and
second desired pre-acceleration values,” as recited in claim 1.
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Appellants ’ Invention
1. Appellants recognize that a front object which is driving in front of a
target object significantly influences the driving characteristics of the target
object. 112. Accordingly, Appellants’ invention is directed to speed
control that takes into account the specific data for the front object in
3
Appeal 2016-006573
Application 13/909,279
addition to specific data of the target object. Id. Figure 1 is reproduced
below:
d2
I...FQ........;...F;..........
............di
Figure 1 shows vehicle FO equipped with a range-controlled cruise
control system, and target object FI driving ahead, wherein additional
relevant data of the front object F2 situated in front of the target object FI
are taken into account. Spec. 122.
Shin
2. Shin discloses that adaptive cruise control (ACC) is known for
automatically controlling a vehicle by target vehicle following (| 5), wherein
the velocity of the vehicle is controlled according to a cruise control system
that has a plurality of cruise control features (Abst.). Figure 8 is reproduced
below:
4
Appeal 2016-006573
Application 13/909,279
.Mir. $
Figure 8 shows reaction times of a vehicle to changes in velocities of
various multiple feature cruise control features (id. 119). Plot B describes
resulting velocity v for a multiple feature control system wherein exemplary
command arbitration of the various features is performed, and the current
desired acceleration is determined according to inputs and resulting
predictions through the time horizon T by the various cruise control
functions (id. 137). Features controlling velocity include weather,
pedestrian or object impact mitigation, traffic, identified road hazards, etc.
(id. 144).
Natsume
3. Natsume discloses an on-vehicle radar device and vehicle control
system (Abst.). Natsume discloses the need to take into account the state
ahead of a preceding vehicle which could cause the preceding vehicle to
suddenly apply the brakes (1 6). In particular, Natsume recognizes the need
to obtain information about a vehicle in front of the preceding vehicle in
adaptive cruise control (ACC) and correctly estimate a behavior
(acceleration or deceleration) of the vehicle in front of the preceding vehicle
5
Appeal 2016-006573
Application 13/909,279
to control the speed of the subject vehicle. (17). Figures 6 and 7 are
reproduced below:
Figures 6 and 7 show examples of a case where a vehicle exists in
front of a preceding vehicle {id. H 22—23). As shown in the figures, vehicle
G traveling in front of preceding vehicle F is sensed, such that when
acceleration/deceleration of vehicle G is sensed, ACC control of the subject
vehicle is performed in consideration of the behavior (acceleration or
deceleration) of vehicle G {id. 1 60—61).
As for claim 1, Appellants contend “the claimed invention not only
determines first and second desired pre-acceleration values corresponding to
the target object (FI) and front object (F2)” but “further uses road
information to compute weighting factors for each of the first and second
desired pre-acceleration values” to determine a desired acceleration for the
subject vehicle (App. Br. 5). According to Appellants, Shin determines the
FIG. 8
, TSMSSliSSjffiS
* W3U6H S*1
IV. ANALYSIS
6
Appeal 2016-006573
Application 13/909,279
desired acceleration based on the “minimum future velocity” and the
“minimum current desired velocity,” wherein “a minimum velocity value
would not be understood as being a weighting factor” because “the two
velocity values are independent and not otherwise interrelated” {id. at 6).
That is, “there is no interrelatedness between the Shin’s minimum future
velocity and the minimum current desired velocity” because “Shin does not
allow for one to be more heavily considered” {id. at 7). Appellants also
contend that Shin fails to “apply those minimum selected velocity values
against separately determined first and second desired pre-acceleration
values, as is expressly required by claim 1.” Id. at 8.
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellants’ contentions regarding the
Examiner’s rejections of the claims. We agree with the Examiner’s
conclusion that claim 1 would have been obvious over the combined
teachings of Shin and Natsume.
As an initial matter of claim construction, we give the claim its
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In
re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). However, “limitations are
not to be read into the claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988
F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).
Although Appellants contend “there is no interrelatedness between the
Shin’s minimum future velocity and the minimum current desired velocity”
because “Shin does not allow for one to be more heavily considered” (App.
Br. 7), such contentions are not commensurate in scope with the specific
recited claim language. Here, the claims do not require any “interrelatedness
between” the velocities or “one to be more heavily considered” {id.).
7
Appeal 2016-006573
Application 13/909,279
Rather, independent claim 1, for example, merely requires weighting factors
“for each” of the values, wherein the acceleration value is determined by
“weighting” the values (claim 1). That is, given the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claims, “weighting” the values comprises any
determination by considering/arbitrating the values, which does not require
any weighting of the values against each other.
Here, we find no error with the Examiner’s reliance on Shin for
disclosing or at least suggesting “determining weighting factors” for each
pre-acceleration values “based at least on information related to a road on
which the motor vehicle is traveling” and “determining a desired
acceleration value” by weighting the values. In Shin, command arbitration
of the various features is performed, and the current desired acceleration is
determined, wherein the features controlling velocity include weather,
pedestrian or object impact mitigation, traffic, identified road hazards, etc.
(FF 2). That is, Shin at least suggests weighting/arbitrating values based on
information related to the road conditions, such as the weather,
pedestrian/objects obstruction, road hazards, and the like, and then using the
weighted/arbitrated values to determine the desired
acceleration/deceleration. We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ contention
that Shin’s road information is not for determining weighting factors (App.
Br. 9). Instead, we agree with the Examiner that, in Shin, “two-feature
control arbitration” (weighting) is performed, wherein the features are based
on the road conditions (Ans. 8).
We also agree with the Examiner’s reliance on Natsume for teaching
and suggesting “determining a first desired pre-acceleration value for
achieving a predefined distance with respect to the target object driving
8
Appeal 2016-006573
Application 13/909,279
ahead,” “determining a second desired pre-acceleration value for achieving a
predefined distance with respect to the front object driving ahead,” and
“determining a desired acceleration value” in response, as recited in claim
1. Like Appellants’ invention (FF 1), Natsume also discloses the need to
take into account the state of a front vehicle ahead of the target vehicle
which could influence the driving characteristics of the target vehicle (FF 3).
Thus, we find no error with the Examiner’s finding that the contested
limitations are at least suggested by the combination of Shin and Natsume.
In particular, we agree that it would have been obvious to combine
Natsume’s teaching and suggestion of taking into account the specific data
for the front object in addition to specific data of the target object to control
the vehicle speed (FF 3) with Shin’s teaching and suggestion of controlling a
vehicle speed based on the specific data of a target object relating to the
condition of the road (FF 2). We find that the combination of the references
to teach and suggest computing weighting/arbitration factors for both the
target vehicle and a front vehicle according to road condition information to
determine a desired acceleration, is no more than a simple arrangement of
old elements, with each performing the same function it had been known to
perform, yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
See KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
On this record, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 1. Appellants do not provide substantive
arguments for claims 2—6 depending from claim 1 (App. Br. 10). Thus,
claims 2—6 falls with claim 1 over Shin and Natsume.
9
Appeal 2016-006573
Application 13/909,279
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—6 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). See 37
C.F.R. §41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
10