12788819 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2016)

Ex Parte Phillips et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 15, 2016

12788819 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121788,819 05/27/2010 28395 7590 03/17/2016 BROOKS KUSHMAN P,CJFG1L 1000 TOWN CENTER 22NDFLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Anthony Mark Phillips 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. 81197546 7430 EXAMINER TROOST, AARON L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3668 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/17/2016 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): docketing@brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANTHONY MARK PHILLIPS, MING LANG KUANG, JUNGME PARK, YI MURPHEY, LEONIDAS KILIARIS, MD ABUL MASRUR, and ZHIHANG CHEN Appeal2014-001655 Application 12/788,819 Technology Center 3600 Before JAMES P. CAL VE, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Anthony Mark Phillips et al. ("Appellants") 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-7 and 9-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Tryon (US 2005/0228553 Al, pub. Oct. 13, 2005), Engstrom (US 6,879,969 B2, iss. Apr. 12, 2005), and Barker (US 2007/0208498 Al, pub. Sept. 6, 2007). The Board has jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 The Appeal Brief identifies Ford Global Technologies, LLC; The Government of the United States, as represented by the Secretary of the Army; and The Regents of the University of Michigan as the real parties in interest. Br. 1-2. Appeal2014-001655 Application 12/788,819 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 7, and 9 are independent. Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal: 1. A system for vehicle drive cycle determination and energy control for an automotive vehicle with an engine and a storage battery, the system comprising: a computer-readable storage medium; and a controller in electrical communication with the storage medium, the controller being configured to receive a speed signal representing speed of the vehicle, to process the speed signal to obtain a set of features characterizing a driving environment that the vehicle has experienced, to process the features to determine a level of traffic congestion that the vehicle is predicted to experience, to determine a drive cycle based on the level of traffic congestion that the vehicle is predicted to experience, and to generate a control signal based on the drive cycle to control charging of the storage battery with power generated from the engme. Claims App. 1. ANALYSIS Claims 1 and 9 Appellants argue claims 1 and 9 together as a group. Br. 5-10. We select claim 1 to decide the appeal of the rejection of these claims. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015). The Examiner cites Tryon as disclosing the subject matter of claim 1, except for "process[ing] the speed signal to obtain a set of features characterizing a driving environment that the vehicle has experienced" (for which Engstrom is cited), and "process[ing] the features to determine a level of traffic congestion that the vehicle is predicted to experience" (for which 2 Appeal2014-001655 Application 12/788,819 Barker is cited). Final Act. 5---6. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to provide Tryon's controller with the functionality of Engstrom's controller "to provide real-time optimization of vehicle operating parameters based on a specific driving environment." Id. at 6 (citations omitted). The Examiner further determines it would have been obvious to provide the combined controller of Tryon and Engstrom with the functionality of Barker's controller "to reduce traffic congestion by facilitating more efficient travel." Id. A preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner's finding that Engstrom discloses using an individual vehicle's speed to obtain a set of features characterizing the driving environment the vehicle has experienced. Final Act. 2-3, 6 (citing inter alia Engstrom, 3:21-29, 3:49-54, 5:49-54, 12:27-36).2 A preponderance of evidence also supports the Examiner's finding that Barker discloses processing features to determine a level of traffic congestion that an individual vehicle is predicted to experience. Id. at 3, 6 (citing inter alia Barker i-fi-13, 20, 58---60, 133). Appellants do not dispute these findings. Br. 6-10. Appellants, rather, contend the Examiner errs in combining Engstrom with Barker because Engstrom's inputs are based on individual vehicle performance measurements, such as vehicle speed, whereas Barker's inputs are based on knowledge of the travel area and aggregate information regarding all vehicles traveling in the area or along a route. 3 Br. 9. 2 The Examiner further cites Engstrom, column 23, lines 63---65. Final Act. 6. There is no column 23 in Engstrom. 3 Barker predicts future traffic conditions based on inputs such as current and past traffic amounts for road segments, traffic accidents, road work, weather conditions, scheduled events, and school schedules. Barker i120. 3 Appeal2014-001655 Application 12/788,819 Appellants assert "Barker does not give any guidance as to how traffic predictions would be generated based on vehicle performance measurements from an individual vehicle." Id. Therefore, according to Appellants, Barker does not teach or suggest claim 1 's requirement for processing an individual vehicle's speed signal to predict a level of traffic congestion to be experienced by the vehicle. Id. Appellants correspondingly assert Barker "must be modified in undisclosed ways in order to handle the different set of input data," so the Examiner's proposed combination would improperly change Barker's principle of operation. Id. (citing MPEP Â§ 2143.0l(VI) and In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810 (CCPA 1959)). Appellants also assert that using an individual vehicle's speed as an input to Barker's traffic condition predictor would not have led to a predictable or successful result. Id. at 9- 10. We are not persuaded of Examiner error. Engstrom discloses an individual vehicle's speed as one of several variables that may be used "to predict or recognize a current driving environment." Engstrom, 3:21-29, 5:49-54. Barker, meanwhile, discloses using several variables to "generate predictions of future traffic conditions." Barker, Fig. 3, i-fi-120, 58---60. Barker further discloses using the current reported speed of traffic on a road segment as an input to its traffic condition predictor. Id. i-f 133. We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill based on the combination of these various disclosures. In particular, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that Barker discloses using many different kinds of data as inputs to its traffic condition predictor (Barker i1 20), and an individual vehicle's speed is closely akin to the particular Barker input of the current reported speed of 4 Appeal2014-001655 Application 12/788,819 tratlic (id. if 133). Indeed, as the Examiner points out, Barker even discloses using road traffic sensors that measure "vehicle speed" for helping to predict traffic conditions. Ans. 3 (citing Barker iii! 51, 53-54). We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that combining Engstrom with Barker would complement their respective disclosures, rather than change Barker's principle of operation, which would remain the prediction of future traffic conditions based on various kinds of data. Id. at 3--4. "A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420-21 (2007). We are not persuaded by Appellants' assertion that using an individual vehicle's speed as an input to Barker's traffic condition predictor would have been so unpredictable so as to require more than ordinary skill, particularly where Barker uses predictive models for traffic conditions based on the speed of traffic on a road segment, and an individual vehicle's speed on a road may be representative of traffic speed on that road. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 9 as unpatentable over Tryon, Engstrom, and Barker. Claims 2-7 and 10--20 Appellants argue for the patentability of claims 2-7 and 10-20 based solely on the arguments we have considered above in connection with claims 1and9. Br. 10-12. Having determined those arguments not to be persuasive, we likewise sustain the rejection of claims 2-7 and 10-20 as unpatentable over Tryon, Engstrom, and Barker. 5 Appeal2014-001655 Application 12/788,819 DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-7 and 9-20 as unpatentable over Tryon, Engstrom, and Barker is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended, under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6