Ex Parte STEFAN et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2018

14925180 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/925,180 10/28/2015
28395 7590 10/01/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Frederic STEFAN
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.
83572201 1964
EXAMINER
KAN, YURI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2018 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 FREDERIC STEP AN,
UWE GUSSEN, and CHRISTOPH ARNDT
Appeal2018-002413
Application 14/925,180
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, PAUL J. KORNICZKY, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-002413
Application 14/925, 180
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § I34(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner's decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action dated March 24,
2017 ("Final Act."), rejecting claims 1---6 and 14--19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Trajkovic (US 6,683,539 B2, issued January 27,
2004) and Luke (US 2007/0282503 Al, published December 6, 2007). 2 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method for assisting a maneuvering
process of a motor vehicle, and parking assistance system. Spec. ,r 2.
Claims 1 and 14 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced
below with indentation added and disputed limitations italicized for
emphasis, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
during an assisted parking maneuver (APM) in which a
stored plurality of values define a maneuvering trajectory
followed by a vehicle during the APM, and
in response to occurrence of a stuck condition, processing
by a controller the values in reverse order to exit the stuck
condition by returning the vehicle to a position on the
maneuvering trajectory encountered prior to the stuck condition.
Ford Global Technologies, LLC ("Appellant") is the applicant
pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.46, and is identified as the real party in interest.
Appeal Brief, dated August 28, 2017 ("Appeal Br."), at 2.
2 Claims 7-13 are cancelled. Final Act. 2. We note that the summary
statement of the rejection on page 4, paragraph 4 erroneously says claims 1-
8, not claims 1-6.
2
Appeal2018-002413
Application 14/925, 180
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1: Claims 1-6 and 14-19
as Unpatentable Over Trajkovic and Luke
The Examiner asserts that Trajkovic and Luke disclose all of the
limitations of the claims, including processing "the values in reverse order to
exit the stuck condition by returning the vehicle to a position on the
maneuvering trajectory encountered prior to the stuck condition," as recited
in independent claims 1 and 14. Final Act. 4--7.
Appellant asserts that the Examiner's rejection is erroneous because
neither Trajkovic nor Luke disclose "that when stuck, the vehicle should
follow that certain path in reverse order to return the vehicle to a position on
the certain path encountered prior to being stuck." Appeal Br. 3. According
to Appellant, "Trajkovic explains that ' [ t ]he control system may further
include an emergency stop feature to suspend parking of a vehicle if an
object is sensed in the path determined by the path planning system,"' and
that "to the extent Trajkovic gets stuck, it suspends automatic maneuvering
in favor of manual maneuvering." Id. (citing Trajkovic, 2:30-32). With
respect to Luke, Appellant asserts that Luke does not remedy the
deficiencies in Trajkovic because "Luke does not explore situations when
the vehicle is stuck." Id.
In response to Appellant's argument, the Examiner merely states that
"the Trajkovic reference, as [the] primary reference, teaches on the
[ disputed] features and limitations, and the Appellant appears not to argue
what the Trajkovic reference, as the primary reference, teaches or discloses."
Answer, dated November 3, 2017 ("Ans."), at 2; see also id. at 4. We agree
with the Examiner that Trajkovic discloses the recited "stuck condition," but
3
Appeal2018-002413
Application 14/925, 180
the Examiner does not identify any disclosure in Trajkovic or Luke about
how the vehicle corrects the "stuck condition" and, more specifically, "in
response to occurrence of a stuck condition," processing "the values in
reverse order to exit the stuck condition by returning the vehicle to a position
on the maneuvering trajectory encountered prior to the stuck condition" as
recited in claims 1 and 14. According to Trajkovic, the vehicle just stops
and a driver must physically identify the problem and correct the stuck
condition. See, e.g., Trajkovic 2:30-32.
Because the combination of Trajkovic and Luke do not disclose all of
the limitations in independent claims 1 and 14, and their depending claims,
the rejection is not sustained.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1---6 and 14--
19 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
4