Ex Parte Tengler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 24, 2014

12337169 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STEVE TENGLER and RONALD HEFT
____________

Appeal 2011-012998
Application 12/337,169
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-012998
Application 12/337,169

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 4-6, 9-13, 15-17, and 29-31. Claims 21-28, 32, and 33
have been allowed. An Oral Hearing was held March 6, 2014. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Illustrative Claim
1. A forward vehicle brake warning system comprising:
an incoming message receiving component that receives
hard brake messages from neighboring vehicles located within a
prescribed communication region around a host vehicle equipped
with the forward vehicle brake warning system, each of the hard
brake messages including a vehicle location of a corresponding
one of the neighboring vehicles and a hard brake indication;
an incoming message relevancy component that performs a
relevancy determination, based on the vehicle location of the
neighboring vehicle sending the hard brake messages received by
the incoming message receiving component, determining the
hard brake messages are relevant in response to the vehicle
location being within an adjustable zone of interest, determining
the hard brake messages are irrelevant in response to the vehicle
location being outside the adjustable zone of interest, filtering out
irrelevant hard brake messages and retaining relevant messages,
the adjustable zone of interest being an area in front of the host
vehicle that is bound by a maximum distance ahead measured
from the front of the host vehicle forward along a current
trajectory of the host vehicle;
a relevancy adjustment component that adjusts the
relevancy determination by selectively changing the maximum
distance ahead of the adjustable zone of interest relative to the
host vehicle to selectively filter the hard brake messages
received; and
Appeal 2011-012998
Application 12/337,169

3
a driver warning component that alerts a driver of the host
vehicle with a warning signal in response to relevant messages
identified during the relevancy determination by the incoming
message relevancy component.

Prior Art
Musiel US 2003/0141452 A1 Jul. 31, 2003
Odagawa US 2004/0245853 A1 Dec. 9, 2004
Poropat US 2004/0254728 A1 Dec. 16, 2004
Ernst US 7,124,027 B1 Oct. 17, 2006

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 6, 10, 13, 15, 16, 29, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Odagawa and Musiel.
Claims 4, 11, 12, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Odagawa, Musiel, and Ernst.
Claims 5 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Odagawa, Musiel, Ernst, and Poropat.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Odagawa, Musiel, and Poropat.

ANALYSIS
Section 103 rejection of claims 1, 6, 10, 13, 15, 16, and 31
Appellants contend Odagawa does not teach a zone of interest that is
adjustable and is bound by a maximum distance ahead. Appellants also
contend Odagawa does not teach a relevancy adjustment component that
adjusts the relevancy determination by selectively changing the maximum
distance ahead. Br. 17. Appellants’ contentions are inconsistent with
Appeal 2011-012998
Application 12/337,169

4
paragraphs 85-87 of Odagawa, which teach determining whether a distance
“L” between the own vehicle and the harsh braking-applied vehicle is within
an emergency threshold “L1” or a caution threshold “L2.” The distances
“L1” and “L2” of the emergency and caution thresholds can be adjusted
based on weather conditions and road surface conditions. Appellants have
not provided a definition of “adjustable zone of interest” that excludes the
adjustable emergency and caution thresholds taught by Odagawa.
Appellants contend Musiel does not teach filtering hard brake
messages. Br. 18. However, the Examiner relies on Odagawa to teach
filtering hard brake messages. Ans. 4-5, 19.
Appellants contend Musiel does not teach “a relevancy adjustment
component that adjusts the relevancy determination by selectively changing
the maximum distance ahead of the adjustable zone of interest relative to the
host vehicle to selectively filter the hard brake messages received” as recited
in claim 1. Br. 20. The Examiner relies on Musiel to teach the relevancy
adjustment component that adjusts the relevancy determination by
selectively changing the maximum distance ahead of the adjustable zone of
interest relative to the host vehicle (Ans. 6-7, 19), and relies on Odagawa to
teach selectively filtering the received hard brake messages (Ans. 4-5, 19).
One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually,
where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck
& Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Appellants contend a person of ordinary skill in the art would not look
to the enhanced optical device of Musiel to modify the communication
system of Odagawa. Br. 16, 20-22. The Examiner finds Odagawa and
Appeal 2011-012998
Application 12/337,169

5
Musiel are both directed to devices that detect objects from a vehicle. Ans.
19. We agree that Odagawa – directed to a vehicle position detection and
warning apparatus (Abstract) – and Musiel – directed to a vehicle object
detection apparatus (Abstract) – are within the same field of endeavor or are
at least reasonably pertinent to the problem to be solved (position detection).
In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Further, the Examiner
provides a rationale for the combination – “adjusting the zone of interest to
fit the present conditions allows the system to accurately detect for objects in
a pertinent zone based on the conditions, and thus creating a safer system for
the driver” (Ans. 6) – i.e., increase performance (accuracy) and safety. See
Ans. 6-7. Therefore, the Examiner has stated “some rational underpinning
to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2006)). The rationale for combining the references does not have to be
obtained solely from the prior art. “[A]ny need or problem known in the
field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can
provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” In re
ICON Health and Fitness Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(quoting KSR, 550 U.S at 413).
Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument to
rebut the Examiner’s rationale or show that adjusting the warning thresholds,
or “zones of interest,” of the harsh brake warning system of Odagawa, to
consider changes in vehicle speed and environmental conditions as taught by
paragraphs 41 and 42 of Musiel’s object detection apparatus, was “uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog
Appeal 2011-012998
Application 12/337,169

6
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 419).
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants
do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 6, 10, 13, 15,
16, and 31 which fall with claim 1.

Section 103 rejection of claim 29
Appellants present arguments for the patentability of claim 29 similar
to those presented for claim 1 which we find unpersuasive. Br. 26-29.
Appellants also contend the combination of Odagawa and Musiel does
not teach an adjustable zone of interest bound between a minimum distance
and a maximum distance ahead measured from the front of the host vehicle
forward along a current trajectory of the host vehicle as recited in claim 29.
Br. 28. The Examiner finds the combination of Odagawa and Musiel
teaches this limitation. Ans. 9-12.
We agree with the Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner’s
Answer. Id. We sustain the rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Section 103 rejection of claims 4, 11, 12, and 30
Appellants contend the combination of Odagawa, Musiel, and Ernst
does not teach an adjustable zone of interest. Br. 30. We disagree with
Appellants for the reasons given in the analysis of claim 1 above.
We sustain the rejection of claims 4, 11, 12, and 30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.

Appeal 2011-012998
Application 12/337,169

7
Section 103 rejection of claims 5 and 9
Appellants contend the combination of Odagawa, Musiel, Ernst, and
Poropat does not teach selectively changing the lateral angle of view of the
adjustable zone of interest relative to the host vehicle. Br. 30-31. The
Examiner finds Figure 2 and paragraph 37 of Poropat teach this limitation.
Ans. 14-15. We agree with the Examiner for the reasons given in the
Examiner’s Answer. Id.
We sustain the rejection of clams 5 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Section 103 rejection of claim 17
Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of
claim 17.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 6, 10, 13, 15, 16, 29, and 31 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Odagawa and Musiel is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 4, 11, 12, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Odagawa, Musiel, and Ernst is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 5 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Odagawa, Musiel, Ernst, and Poropat is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Odagawa, Musiel, and Poropat is affirmed.
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.
§ 41.50(f).
Appeal 2011-012998
Application 12/337,169

8

AFFIRMED

tj