Ex Parte Maass

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 1, 2009

10510398 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 1, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ALEXANDER MAASS
____________________

Appeal 2009-002032
Application 10/510,398
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Decided:1 June 1, 2009
____________________

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Before: WILLIAM F. PATE, III, JENNIFER D. BAHR and
LINDA E. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PATE, III, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-002032
Application 10/510,398

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
15, 16, 18, 19 and 21-24. App. Br. 2. Claims 1-14 have been cancelled and
claims 17, 20, and 25-28 have been withdrawn from consideration. App. Br.
2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The claims are directed to a method for providing driver information
and vehicle intervention when leaving a traffic lane. Claim 15, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:

15. A method for at least one of providing driver information
and performing a vehicle intervention when leaving a traffic
lane, the method comprising:
recording at least one boundary of the traffic lane;
determining an anticipated track of a vehicle, taking into
account a future, anticipated path correction by the driver;
deriving at least one of the driver information and the
vehicle intervention from the at least one boundary of the traffic
lane and the anticipated track of the vehicle; and
at least one of: a) providing the driver information when
the vehicle one of leaves the traffic lane and threatens to leave
the traffic lane; and b) performing the vehicle intervention
when the vehicle one of leaves the traffic lane and threatens to
leave the traffic lane.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Hiwatashi US 6,370,474 B1 Apr. 9, 2002
Jeon US 6,487,501 B1 Nov. 26, 2002
Russell US 6,675,094 B2 Jan. 6, 2004
Breed WO 00/54008 A1 Sep. 14, 2000
Appeal 2009-002032
Application 10/510,398

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 15, 16, 18, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Breed. Ans. 3
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Breed and Hiwatashi. Ans. 4.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Breed and Jeon. Ans. 5.
Claims 23 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Breed and Russell. Ans. 5.

OPINION
The Examiner contends that Breed discloses “determining an
anticipated track of a vehicle, taking into account a future, anticipated path
correction by the driver” as required by claim 15. In order to meet this
limitation the Examiner cites to exiting a highway or attempting to run off
the roadway as the anticipated track of the vehicle, and the driver’s control
of the vehicle, or the driver’s intent to exit, as the anticipated path
correction. Ans. 3. The Examiner also implies that if Breed does not teach
this feature, the steps of determining the driver intention S140, and
determining whether that intent was to change lanes S150, of Jeon also meet
this limitation. Ans. 5.
Appellant contends that the limitation should not be interpreted as two
independent steps but that the step of determining the anticipated track must
take into account the correction that is expected from the driver. App. Br. 9-
11; Reply Br. 2-6. We are in agreement with Appellant’s construction of
claim 15. While both Breed and Jeon take into account a future anticipated
Appeal 2009-002032
Application 10/510,398

4
path correction by the driver in their overall methods, neither Breed nor Jeon
use this information to determine the anticipated track of the vehicle. In light
of the Appellant’s Specification a track or path requires at least two points.
See e.g., Spec. 9:16; Fig. 5; Reply Br. 3. Determining the driver’s intent to,
at some point in the future, deviate from the lanes or corridors of Breed or
Jeon does not reasonably constitute determining an anticipated track of a
vehicle, because it does not involve the determination of any points.
Accordingly, since Breed does not disclose each and every element of claim
15, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15, 16, 18 and 21 as being anticipated
by Breed cannot be sustained. Since Jeon, Russell, and Hiwatashi do not
cure the noted deficiencies of Breed, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 19,
and 22-24 also cannot be sustained.

REVERSED

vsh

KENYON & KENYON LLP
ONE BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10004