Ex Parte Pierpont

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2013

11557138 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte BRIEN E. PIERPONT
________________

Appeal 2010-008378
Application 11/557,138
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges.

NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008378
Application 11/557,138

2
SUMMARY
Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-10. Specifically, claims 1, 2, 4 and
7 have been rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.§ 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Kaufmann et al. (US 2004/0262063 A1,
Dec. 30, 2004) (“Kaufmann”), Davidian (US 5,357,438, October 18, 1994)
(“Davidian”) and Lemelson et al. (US 6,906,639 B2, June 14, 2005)
(“Lemelson”).
Claims 3 and 5 have been rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Kaufmann, Davidian,
Lemelson, and Nisiyama (US 2004/0068366 A1, April 8, 2004)
(“Nisiyama”).
Claim 6 has been rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being obvious over the combination of Kaufmann, Davidian, Lemelson,
Nisiyama, and Schreder (US 5,504,482, April 2, 1996) (“Schreder”).
Claim 8 has been rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being obvious over the combination of Kaufmann, Davidian, Lemelson,
and further in view of De-Grinis et al. (US 5,453,730, September 26, 1995)
(“De-Grinis”).
Claim 9 has been rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being obvious over the combination of Kaufmann, Davidian, Lemelson
and Escareno et al. (US 6,163,251, December 19, 2000) (“Escareno”).
Claim 10 has been rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being obvious over the combination of Kaufmann, Davidian, Lemelson
and Fehr et al. (US 7,428,449 B2, September 23, 2008) (“Fehr”).

Appeal 2010-008378
Application 11/557,138

3
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is directed to an automobile guidance system
having an automobile with an exterior, a gas pedal, a brake pedal, a steering
wheel, and a global positioning system, and a plurality of
ultrasound/radiofrequency detectors/transmitters in communication with a
control unit within the automobile. Abstract.

GROUPING OF CLAIMS
Because Appellant either does not argue the claims separately or
argues that the Examiner erred for substantially the same reasons with
respect to the other claims, we select claim 1 as representative. App. Br. 3,
5, 6, 7. Claim 1 recites:
1. An automobile guidance system comprising:

an automobile having an exterior, a gas pedal, a brake pedal and
a steering wheel;

a plurality of ultra sound and radiofrequency detectors and
transmitters on the exterior of the automobile;

a plurality of detectors and transmitters associated with a
highway;

a global positioning system in communication with a control
unit within the automobile;

Appeal 2010-008378
Application 11/557,138

4
wherein the control unit receives information from the detectors
and transmitters on the exterior of the automobile and the
global positioning system;

wherein the control unit actuates at least one of the gas pedal,
the brake pedal or the steering wheel in response to the
information received; and

wherein the control unit is programmed to pull the automobile
to a side of a road to a complete stop.

App. Br. A-1.

ISSUE
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Kaufmann, Davidian and Lemelson teaches or suggests the
limitations of claim 1 reciting “a plurality of ultra sound and radiofrequency
detectors and transmitters on the exterior of the automobile” and “a
plurality of detectors and transmitters associated with a highway.” App. Br.
4 (emphasis in original). We therefore address whether the Examiner so
erred.

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that none of the cited references, alone or in
combination, discloses both a plurality of ultra sound and radiofrequency
detectors and transmitters on the exterior of an automobile and a plurality of
detectors and transmitters associated with a highway. App. Br. 4.
According to Appellant, Kaufmann discloses a lane keeping system 100
which uses a camera system (including, inter alia, an optical sensor 114 and
image processing system 116) in addition to dynamic sensors 130 to
Appeal 2010-008378
Application 11/557,138

5
generate signals and create a two dimensional digitized image in order to
sense surroundings and control vehicle 1 within the disclosed lane keeping
system 112. Id. (citing Kaufmann, ¶¶ [0022]; [0038]-[0039]). However,
Appellant contends, Kaufmann contains no teaching or suggestion of either
a system which employs both a plurality of detectors and transmitters on the
exterior of an automobile nor a plurality of detectors and transmitters
associated with a highway, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 4.
Appellant also argues that neither Davidian nor Lemelson cures the
alleged deficiencies of Kaufmann, because neither reference teaches or
suggests both an automobile having a plurality of detectors and transmitters
on the automobile's exterior and a plurality of detectors and transmitters
associated with the highway. App. Br. 4 (citing Davidian, col. 4, ll. 52-66;
col. 10, ll. 16-35; Lemelson, cols. 16-17, ll. 63-25).
Appellant argues further that although Nisiyama teaches magnetic
nails which are buried in the center of a highway and are then detected by
detectors on a vehicle, Nisiyama fails to disclose an automobile guidance
system which not only includes a plurality of detectors and transmitters on
the exterior of an automobile, but also includes a plurality of detectors and
transmitters associated with a highway. App. Br. 5 (citing Nisiyama,
¶ [0029]).
The Examiner answers that Kaufmann, explicitly teaches a control
unit 110/112 receiving data from an image with lane markers (from the
environment, such as a highway) transmitted to a camera located on a
vehicle. Ans. 9 (citing Kaufmann, Fig. 4, ¶ [0022]). The Examiner
therefore finds that the camera, located on the vehicle, is considered one
type of detector. Ans. 9. The Examiner also finds that the vehicle sensors
Appeal 2010-008378
Application 11/557,138

6
(130) also correspond to detectors on a vehicle, wherein the data from these
sensors are transmitted to control unit 110. Ans. 9 (citing Kaufmann, Figs.
2 and 4). The Examiner finds that, since the control unit 110/112 is
receiving data and transmitting data (lane position 118 and status 119), the
control unit 110/112 receives information from the detectors and
transmitters along with the GPS unit. Ans. 9 (citing Kaufmann, Fig. 2).
The Examiner admits that Kaufman does not teach or suggest the
location of the transmitters and detectors “on an exterior of a vehicle,” but
finds that Lemelson remedies this deficiency, teaching both detectors and
transmitters located on an exterior (bumper) of a vehicle and a plurality of
detectors and transmitters which are associated with a highway. Ans. 9
(citing Lemelson, col 16, ll. 53-63; col 16-17, ll. 63-25). The Examiner also
finds that Davidian discloses ultrasound and radio-frequency detectors and
transmitters located on a vehicle. Ans. 10 (citing Davidian, Figs. 1, 6A, 7;
col 4, ll. 52-59; col 10, ll. 17-24).
The Examiner also finds that, although Nisiyama is used to reject the
claim limitations of claims 3 and 5 (which are not argued separately by
Appellant) which disclose detectors and transmitters on the exterior of the
automobile in communication with the detectors and transmitters associated
with the highway, Nisiyama nevertheless supports claim 1, since the
detectors and transmitters are associated with a highway. Ans. 10.
Consequently, the Examiner finds that the combination of Kaufmann,
Davidian and Lemelson teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1
reciting “a plurality of ultra sound and radiofrequency detectors and
transmitters on the exterior of the automobile” and “a plurality of detectors
and transmitters associated with a highway.” Ans. 10.
Appeal 2010-008378
Application 11/557,138

7
We are persuaded by the Examiner’s reasoning and adopt it as our
own. “[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of
references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (C.C.P.A. 1981). We agree
with the Examiner that Kaufmann teaches or suggests detectors mounted on
a vehicle transmitting data received from the highway to a control unit.
Ans. 9. We disagree with Appellant’s contention that Lemelson fails to
teach or suggest an “automobile having a plurality of detectors and
transmitters on the automobile's exterior” because Lemelson explicitly
teaches that “[t]he infra-red communication system may involve code
pulsed infra-red diodes or lasers and solid state receivers of infrared light
mounted on the front and rear bumpers of the vehicles” as well as a
plurality of detectors and transmitters which are associated with a highway.
Lemelson, col 16, ll. 63-67; col 17, ll. 1-25; col. 17, ll. 58-62; Ans. 9.
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Davidian teaches
sensors in the form of ultrasonic and radio-frequency transmitters and
receivers. Ans. 10. Consequently, we conclude that the Examiner did not
err in finding that the combination of Kaufmann, Lemelson and Davidian
teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1 reciting “a plurality of ultra
sound and radiofrequency detectors and transmitters on the exterior of the
automobile” and “a plurality of detectors and transmitters associated with a
highway.”

Appeal 2010-008378
Application 11/557,138

8
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-10 as unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

msc