Ex Parte Polt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 17, 2015

12903919 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/903,919 10/13/2010
23363 7590 12/21/2015
CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP
POBOX29001
Glendale, CA 91209-9001
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Polt
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.
66581/K537 4872
EXAMINER
PARIKH, DAKSHESH D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2488
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2015 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):
pto@cph.com
pair_cph@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL POLT, SOREN SCHRODL, REFI-
TUGRUL GONER, and OLIVER NAGY
Appeal2014-000464
Application 12/903 ,919
Technology Center 2400
Before HUNG H. BUI, JON M. JURGOV AN, and ADAM J. PYONIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosure is directed to "[a Jn onboard unit for a road toll
system including: at least one transceiver ... and at least one camera."
Appeal2014-000464
Application 12/903,919
Abstract. Claims 1 and 21 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below
for reference:
1. An onboard unit for a road toll system to be used in a
moving vehicle, comprising:
at least one transceiver for transmitting toll-relevant data
to transceiver stations for forwarding to a central processing
unit of the road toll system; and
at least one camera to be directed towards an
environment of the moving vehicle and configured to create at
least one image recording of at least one section of the
environment;
wherein the camera forms an object detector configured
to detect the presence of an object remaining substantially
stationary relative to the moving vehicle, and upon detection of
such an object, causing the camera to record an image.
References and Rejections
Hedley US 2004/0167861 Al Aug.26,2004
Schofield US 2005/0046978 Al Mar. 3, 2005
Segawa US 2008/0051988 Al Feb.28,2008
Jung US 2008/0181533 Al July 31, 2008
Breed US 2008/0215202 Al Sept. 4, 2008
Uda JP 2004280729A Oct. 7, 2004
Claims 1-3, 11-15, 17, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Breed. Final Act. 3.
Claims 4, 5, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Breed and Jung. Final Act. 8.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Breed and Schofield. Final Act. 10.
2
Appeal2014-000464
Application 12/903,919
Claims 7, 8, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Breed and Uda. Final Act. 11.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Breed, Uda, and Jung. Final Act. 13.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Breed, Uda, and Schofield. Final Act. 14.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Breed and Segawa. Final Act. 16.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Breed. Final Act. 16.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Breed and Hedley. Final Act. 18.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections listed above (hereinafter,
the "Examiner's Rejections") in light of Appellants' arguments that the
Examiner has erred. We adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions (see
Final Act. 2-19, Ans. 14--21) as our own, and we add the following for
emphasis.
Independent Claim 1 recites a "detector configured to detect the
presence of an object remaining substantially stationary relative to the
moving vehicle" (hereinafter, the "disputed limitation"). There is no dispute
on the record before us that this limitation requires "objects that are traveling
substantially at the same speed as of the vehicle in the moving
environment." Ans. 14, see also Reply Br. 2--4.
3
Appeal2014-000464
Application 12/903,919
Detection of Stationary Objects
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding Breed shows the
disputed limitation of claim 1, because "the cameras of Breed are designed
to detect [a] moving object" relative to the moving vehicle, in order to
prevent impacts to the vehicle. App. Br. 3. Particularly, Appellants contend
that the system of Breed cannot detect stationary objects, as "the output of
[the] camera is fed into a video processor 61 for 'subtracting one scene from
another to eliminate unimportant background images,' which will include
stationary objects. (Underlining added.)" App. Br. 3 (citing Breed i-f 474),
see also Reply Br. 3.
The Examiner finds Breed anticipates the disputed limitation, because
Breed describes cameras "for interrogating [the] environment nearby the
host vehicle for many different functions" such as adaptive/automatic cruise
control; thus Breed's system will "recognize[] objects that could be most
threatening to the vehicle, i.e., closest to the vehicle." Ans. 18 (with
emphasis added), see also Breed i-fi-17 6, 242. The Examiner finds these
potentially threatening objects include objects that are nearby and
substantially stationary relative to the moving vehicle. Ans. 19.
We agree with the Examiner's findings, as any object close to a
vehicle moving at high speed can be considered threatening. Further, Breed
discloses the "entire area in front of the instant vehicle, perhaps as much as a
full 180 degree arc in the horizontal plane can be scanned for objects" so
that a "clear picture or image of the object ... can be obtained." (emphasis
added). Breed i-f 238, contra App. Br. 4--5 (arguing that Breed teaches away
from front facing detection with respect to claim 22). Appellants do not
persuasively show that Breed's camera system will eliminate detection of
4
Appeal2014-000464
Application 12/903,919
other cars that are moving-including at the same speed as the moving
vehicle-from the automotive control system. Further, Appellants'
argument regarding the elimination of background images (see App. Br. 3)
refers to "the function of feature extraction" which is an optional step and is
not necessary for systems with enough processing power. See Breed i-fi-1 96,
474. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
Safe Distance
Appellants additionally argue that Breed's adaptive cruise control
does not inherently detect the presence of other cars that are "remaining
substantially stationary relative to the moving vehicle." Reply Br. 3.
Particularly, Appellants contend Breed discloses an adaptive cruise control
that only maintains a "safe distance" from other cars, which "does not
necessarily mean that it is a constant distance (i.e., relatively stationary)[;]
rather, in order to keep a safe distance, the host vehicle most probably moves
away from the leading vehicle, which makes the moving (leading) vehicle
NOT stationary relative to the host vehicle." Id at 2.
Appellants arguments do not persuade us the Examiner erred. As
cited by the Examiner, Breed discloses "[ t ]he maximum packing of vehicles
is automatically obtained and thus the maximum vehicle flow rate is also
achieved" with certain uses of the adaptive cruise control. Breed i1 7 6, see
also Ans. 17. We thus agree with the Examiner that Breed's detectors will
detect cars moving at similar speeds, because cars using Breed's system will
need to be evenly spaced to allow for maximum vehicle packing and flow
rates. In contrast, Appellants' interpretation would lead to excessive
acceleration and braking by the adaptive cruise control. See Reply Br. 2.
5
Appeal2014-000464
Application 12/903,919
Accordingly, Appellants do not persuade us the Examiner's finding of
anticipation is in error. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254--55 (CCPA
1977).
CONCLUSION
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claim 1, or dependent claim 22. Appellants advance no further argument on
remaining claims 2-21 and 23. See App. Br. 5. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejections of these claims for the same reasons discussed above. 1
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's Rejections of claims 1-23.
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).
AFFIRMED
mp
1 In the event of further prosecution, Appellants and the Examiner may wish
to consider whether the disputed limitation is sufficiently definite under 3 5
U.S.C. § 112. For example, the parties may wish to consider whether the
claim 1 recitation of an object that is "substantially stationary relative to the
moving vehicle" also encompass a stationary object and a moving vehicle,
both relative to the perspective of a third party observer. See Ex Parte
Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).
6