Ex Parte Tate

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 8, 2016

13324524 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/324,524 12/13/2011
70422 7590 08/10/2016
LKGlobal (GM)
7010 E. COCHISE ROAD
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85253
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
EDWARD D. TATE JR.
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.
P017527-GMVE-LDA/003.0901 7710
EXAMINER
KAN, YURI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/10/2016 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@lkglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
ExparteEDWARDD. TATE, JR.
Appeal2014-003760
Application 13/324,524
Technology Center 3600
Before JILL D. HILL, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and GORDON D. KINDER,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Edward D. Tate, Jr. ("Appellant") appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-003760
Application 13/324,524
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are pending. Claim 1, reproduced
below, illustrates the subject matter on appeal, with the key disputed
limitation highlighted.
1. A method for providing routing for an automotive vehicle
from a first location to a second location, the automotive vehicle
configured to operate using a primary energy source and a
secondary energy source onboard the automotive vehicle, the
method comprising:
ascertaining a measure of available energy from the
primary energy source;
ascertaining characteristics of a plurality of segments
connecting the first location and the second location; and
selecting, via a processor an optimized route between the
first location and the second location using the measure of
available energy and the characteristics of the plurality of
segments.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 2, 4--10, 12-16, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mason (US 2012/0022904 Al, pub.
Jan. 26, 2012) and Mineta (US 2011/0246019 Al; pub. Oct. 6, 2011). Final
Act. 2.
II. Claims 3, 11, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mason, Mineta, and Zik (US 2012/0173444 Al; pub. July
5, 2012). Final Act. 6.
2
Appeal2014-003760
Application 13/324,524
ANALYSIS
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the prior art discloses
selecting an optimized route between first and second locations using a
measured available energy of a vehicle's primary energy source.
Each of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recites, inter alia,
"ascertaining a measure of available energy from the primary energy source"
and "selecting ... an optimized route between the first location and the
second location using the measure of available energy."
The Examiner finds that Mason discloses, inter alia, selecting an
optimized route using a measure of available energy. Final Act. 2-3 (citing
Mason i-fi-152, 54.). Appellants argue, in tum, that
[ w ]hile Mason may evaluate routes based on energy usage
costs, and while Mineta may sense energy levels for the vehicle,
there is no disclosure in either reference of the actual selection
of an optimized route based on the available energy from a
primary energy source of the vehicle. ii..lternatively stated, the
Mason reference may be used to pick a route that is fuel
efficient (regardless of available energy level), and the Mineta
reference may be used to selectively choose between two
energy sources based on available energy. However, neither
reference selects the route itself based on the available energy ..
Appeal Br. 4.
The Examiner responds that Mason's route selection, based on
"energy considerations," is equivalent to teaching a step of selecting an
optimized route between the first location and the second location using a
measure of available energy of a primary energy source, "by giving the
claimed limitations and the prior art their broadest reasonable
interpretation." Ans. 4.
3
Appeal2014-003760
Application 13/324,524
We agree with Appellants. The Examiner admits that Mason teaches
route selection based on "energy considerations" rather than the available
energy from the vehicle's primary energy source. Id. The Examiner
contends that these two selection bases are equivalents when the limitation
"available energy from the primary energy source" is given its broadest
reasonable interpretation. Id. The Examiner, however, fails to actually
construe the claim limitation, and we are unable to discern a reasonable
construction of "available energy from the primary energy source" that is
broad enough to encompass Mason's "energy considerations." Any
construction of "available energy from the primary energy source" that is
broad enough to encompass Mason's "energy considerations" unreasonably
reads almost the entire limitation out of the claims. The Examiner does not
find that Mineta cures this deficiency. We therefore do not sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15 as unpatentable over Mason and Mineta.
The remaining claims subject to Rejection I depend from one of
independent claims 1, 8, or 15. We therefore do not sustain Rejection I.
Regarding Rejection II, claims 3, 11, and 17 depend from claims 1, 8, and
15, respectively. The Examiner does not find that Zik cures the deficiencies
of Mason and Mineta. We therefore do not sustain rejection II.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--10, 12-16,
and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mason and
Min eta.
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 11, and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mason, Mineta, and Zik.
4
Appeal2014-003760
Application 13/324,524
REVERSED
5