Ex Parte Kirk

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2018

13888216 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/888,216
89941 7590
HONEYWELL/S&S
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
FILING DATE
05/06/2013
09/04/2018
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
James C. Kirk
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.
H0039484-5447/1121-550USO 7364
EXAMINER
LITTLEJOHN JR, MANCIL H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/04/2018 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):
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES C. KIRK
Appeal2017-005535
Application 13/888,216 1
Technology Center 2600
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-14, which are all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies the Applicant, Honeywell International Inc., as the real
party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-005535
Application 13/888,216
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's application relates to providing and receiving warnings of
impending collisions between parked or taxiing aircraft vehicles and a host
ground vehicle. Spec. ,r 2. Claims 1 and 6 are illustrative of the appealed
subject matter and read as follows:
1. A device comprising:
at least one antenna;
a radio frequency identification (RFID) device in signal
communication with the at least one antenna, the RFID device
configured to provide identification information via the at least
one antenna in response to a read pulse received at the at least
one antenna;
a receiver in signal communication with the at least one
antenna;
a processor configured to
receive a signal from the at least one antenna;
determine whether identification information
included in the received signal matches identification
information of the RFID device; and
if the identification information of the received
signal matches the identification information of the RFID
device, then generate an alert signal; and
an output device configured to provide an alert based on
the generated alert signal.
6. A device located on a host vehicle, the device
compnsmg:
a transceiver; and
a processor coupled to the transceiver, the processor
configured to
2
Appeal2017-005535
Application 13/888,216
transmit a read pulse via the transceiver;
receive a return signal based on the read pulse;
determine whether a target identified by the return
signal is on a collision course with the host vehicle;
determine whether the return signal includes
identification information; and
generate a warning signal if the target and the host
vehicle are determined to be on a collision course,
wherein the transceiver is configured to transmit the
warning signal,
wherein the warning signal comprises the identification
information if determined to be included in the return signal.
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Wietfeld et al. (WO 2011/151291, Dec. 8, 2011; using US
2013/0176144 Al, July 11, 2013 as a translation). Final Act. 2-6.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in consideration of
Appellant's contentions and the evidence of record. Appellant persuades us
the Examiner fails to establish that the claims are unpatentable over the cited
reference.
Claim 1
The Examiner finds Wietfeld teaches or suggests "an output device
configured to provide an alert based on the generated alert signal" wherein
the alert signal is generated "if the identification information of the received
3
Appeal2017-005535
Application 13/888,216
signal matches the identification information of the RFID device." Final
Act. 3 (citing Wietfeld, Fig. 8, ,r,r 35, 40), 6.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Wietfeld teaches
generating an alert signal because Wietfeld teaches deactivating a warning
signal when it is determined that a warning module and marking module in
the vicinity have the same identification information. App. Br. 6 ( citing
Wietfeld ,r 35). According to Appellant, an ordinarily skilled artisan would
have understood Wietfeld's approach of deactivating a warning signal when
identification information matches to be directly contrary to generating an
alert signal when "the received signal matches the identification information
of the RFID device," as claimed. Id. Appellant also argues Wietfeld does
not teach providing "an alert based on the generated alert signal." App.
Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 4.
Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds,
in the Answer, Wietfeld teaches a "piece of information," which the
Examiner interprets "as an ID" is "exchanged for a comparison by a
processor to generate an alarm." Ans. 3 (citing Wietfeld ,r,r 23, 26, 34, 35,
40). However, the portions of Wietfeld cited by the Examiner disclose
deactivating an approach warning when the "piece of information" matches
the identification information. See Wietfeld ,r,r 23, 26, 34, 35, 40.
The purpose ofWietfeld's approach warning and the context of the
cited disclosures are relevant to the Examiner's findings. Specifically,
Wietfeld discloses an object affiliated with a warning module outputting an
approach warning in response to detecting the approach by, and potential
collision with, an object affiliated with a marking module. Wietfeld ,r 33.
Wietfeld further discloses that "the approach warning can be deactivated"
4
Appeal2017-005535
Application 13/888,216
when the marking module and warning module are associated with the same
object. Wietfeld ,r,r 34--35. Thus, Wietfeld's deactivation of the approach
warning does not teach or suggest providing an alert (i.e., turning on or off
some indicator of a collision) based on an alert signal generated in response
to matching IDs, as required by the claim. At most, Wietfeld teaches
generating a signal indicating the detected condition (i.e., a detected marking
module is affiliated with the warning module) should not cause Wietfeld's
output device to provide an approach warning.
Put another way, Wietfeld does not teach activating or deactivating an
alert based on Wietfeld' s cited signal and instead suggests maintaining the
status quo--i.e., the system should ignore the marking module affiliated
with the warning module and generate an approach warning ( or not)
depending on whether another marking module is approaching.
Moreover, the Examiner finds Wietfeld's output device providing
"visual, audible and/or haptic output" teaches or suggests the recited "output
device configured to provide an alert based on the generated alert signal"
and Wietfeld's output device does not provide any sort of output or "alert"
based on the cited signal. See Wietfeld ,r 23. As argued by Appellant, the
Examiner has failed to explain how Wietfeld's teaching of deactivating an
approach warning constitutes providing an alert or, therefore, generating an
alert signal on which the provided alert is based, as claimed. See Reply Br.
3.
Accordingly, on this record we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 as unpatentable over Wietfeld. We also do not sustain
the rejection of independent claim 10, which recites commensurate
limitations, and claims 2-5 and 11-14, dependent therefrom.
5
Appeal2017-005535
Application 13/888,216
Claim 6
The Examiner finds Wietfeld teaches a processor configured to
"generate a warning signal ... wherein the warning signal comprises the
identification information if determined to be included in the return signal."
Final Act. 4-5 ( citing Wietfeld ,-r,-r 33-35).
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Wietfeld teaches a
warning signal comprising identification information, as claimed. See App.
Br. 8-11; Reply Br. 5-6. In particular, Appellant argues the Examiner finds
Wietfeld's "presence signal" corresponds to the claimed "return signal,"
while Wietfeld's "trigger signal" corresponds to the claimed "warning
signal." App. Br. 8. Appellant asserts Wietfeld teaches presence signals
( the claimed "return signal") comprising identification information, but
Wietfeld does not teach or suggest a trigger signal ( the claimed "warning
signal") comprising identification information. Id. at 8-9.
The Examiner asserts Wietfeld's marking module (which transmits
presence signals) and warning module ( which transmits warning signals) are
"each produced so as to be replaceable." Ans. 4. The Examiner finds "it is
therefore possible to equip a plurality of vehicles with warning modules of
the same type and to protect each person by means of a marking module
such that the person produces an approach warning when he approaches any
vehicle in the roadworks." Id. The Examiner reasons that in such a system,
both sides (marking and warning module) are "functionally capable of
( mutual alerts) identifying each other and generating alerts to each other
when needed which is interpreted as being funct[ion ]ally no different in
concept, than the claimed invention." Id.
6
Appeal2017-005535
Application 13/888,216
Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. As argued by
Appellant, the Examiner's findings do not establish that Wietfeld teaches a
warning signal includes identification information. See Reply Br. 6.
Instead, the Examiner's findings merely establish that Wietfeld teaches a
"return signal" that comprises "identification information." Wietfeld
discloses its trigger signal, which the Examiner finds teaches the recited
"warning signal," notifies marking modules in range of the trigger signal
that a vehicle is nearby and "influence[ s] the emission of the presence
signals. Wietfeld ,r 26.
The Examiner provides insufficient explanation and reasoning how
such a trigger signal teaches or suggests including identification information.
The Examiner's conclusory findings regarding "replaceable" parts that
function no differently "in concept" than the claimed invention fail to
establish that Wietfeld teaches the claimed "warning signal" that "comprises
the identification information if determined to be included in the return
signal." Thus, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has failed to
establish that Wietfeld teaches or suggests a processor configured to
"generate a warning signal ... wherein the warning signal comprises the
identification information if determined to be included in the return signal."
Accordingly, on this record we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 6 as unpatentable over Wietfeld. 2 We also do not sustain
the rejection of claims 7-9, dependent therefrom.
2 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced
by Appellant with respect to claim 6, we need not reach the merits of
Appellant's other arguments.
7
Appeal2017-005535
Application 13/888,216
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-14.
REVERSED
8