Ex Parte Staempfle et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2016

12303723 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/303,723 06/22/2010 Martin Staempfle
26646 7590 03/31/2016
KENYON & KENYON LLP
ONE BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10004
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.
1019115601 9012
EXAMINER
BUCHANAN, CHRISTOPHER R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2016 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):
uspto@kenyon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte MARTIN STAEMPFLE, FRED OECHSLE, ANDREAS SIMON,
JAN-CARSTEN BECKER, CHRISTIAN SCHMIDT,
and KATHARINA WITT
Appeal2014-000673
Application 12/303,723
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 11, 12, and 14--22. We have jurisdiction over
the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellants' contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence on this
record supports the Examiner's conclusion that the subject matter of
Appellants' claims 11, 12 and 14--22 is unpatentable over the combination of
Baijens (US 2008/0294319 Al, pub. Nov. 27, 2008) in view of Official
Notice. In this regard, we adopt the findings and reasoning of the Examiner
Appeal2014-000673
Application 12/303,723
in regard to teachings of Baijens and Official Notice. Ans. 3--4. We also
adopt the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments, as found on pages
4--5 of the Answer.
We add, for emphasis only, that we are not persuaded of error on the
part of the Examiner by Appellants' argument that Baijens discloses that the
assist functions can be activated without actuating signals from the driver.
Appellants base this argument on the disclosure in Baijens that the functions
are activated depending on the vehicle condition and/or the activation of the
system from the driver. Although Baijens describes an embodiment in
which the assist system is activated without action of the driver, we agree
with the Examiner that Baijens nonetheless discloses an embodiment
wherein the functions are activated depending on the vehicle condition and
the activation of the system from the driver.
We also agree with the Examiner that the Baijens driver assistance
system would engage immediately or after the time interval needed to take
measurements and perform calculations, and as such, Baij ens does not
disclose that the system is activatable simultaneously or within a specified
time interval contrary to the arguments of Appellants.
We also agree with the Examiner that Appellants have not sufficiently
traversed the Official Notice taken by the Examiner. We do not find in this
record any challenge by Appellants of the facts of which the Examiner took
Official Notice. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Appellants have not
adequately traversed the Examiner's taking of Official Notice.
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner in rejecting
claim 18. In making this rejection the Examiner found that the particular
activation means are well known and that the selection of a particular means
2
Appeal2014-000673
Application 12/303,723
would be a matter of design choice. Appellants do not address whether the
selection of a speech activation would have been a matter of design choice
but rather merely state that no art has been cited. As such, Appellants'
arguments do not adequately address the rejection of the Examiner.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l) (2009).
ORDER
AFFIRMED
3