Ex Parte Uhler et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 25, 201211636106 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 25, 2012) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/636,106 12/08/2006 Werner Uhler 10191/3997A 8123 26646 7590 01/26/2012 KENYON & KENYON LLP ONE BROADWAY NEW YORK, NY 10004 EXAMINER TO, TUAN C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3663 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/26/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte WERNER UHLER and DIRK SCHMID ____________ Appeal 2009-013340 Application 11/636,106 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and WILLIAM V. SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judges. STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-013340 Application 11/636,106 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Werner Uhler and Dirk Schmid (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Egami (US 2003/0233187 A1, published Dec. 18, 2003) and Kerns (US 6,078,860, issued Jun. 20, 2000). We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6. THE INVENTION Appellants’ invention relates to a method for controlling the speed of a vehicle when parking/maneuvering the vehicle. Spec. 1, ll. 10-11. Claim 1, the sole claim, reads as follows: 1. A method for regulating a speed of a vehicle during maneuvering/parking of the vehicle, comprising: detecting objects within a surrounding area of the vehicle and recording a distance between a most proximate object to the vehicle in a travel direction and the vehicle, using a detection device; regulating, using a regulator, a speed of the vehicle while maintaining a first predefined distance to the most proximate object in the travel direction, as a function of a position of an actuating device and of the distance to the most proximate object in the travel direction of the vehicle according to a predefined speed/distance relation; and controlling a braking element and a driving device of the vehicle as a function of a corresponding output signal of the regulator, using a control device; wherein, after an activation of the regulator, the regulator utilizes stored characteristics fields to generate an instantaneous setpoint speed as a function of a position of the actuating device and the distance to a most proximate object in the travel direction. Appeal 2009-013340 Application 11/636,106 3 SUMMARY OF DECISION We AFFIRM. ANALYSIS Appellants argue that neither Egami nor Kerns discloses regulating the speed of a vehicle (1) “while maintaining a first predefined distance to the most proximate object in the travel direction, as a function of a position of an actuating device and of the distance to the most proximate object in the travel direction” (App. Br. 4); and (2) utilizing “stored characteristic fields to ‘generate an instantaneous setpoint speed as a function of a position of an actuating device and of the distance to the most proximate object in the travel direction’” (App. Br. 5-7). Appellants’ First Argument The Examiner found that, “[o]ne of the control functions of the main controller (1) [of Egami] is to control the driving of the subject vehicle so as to maintain a vehicle distance to the preceding vehicle according to the accelerator pedal actuation amount.” Ans. 6. Appellants counter that claim 1 requires “maintaining a predefined distance to the most proximate object and concurrently regulating a speed of the vehicle as a function of a position of an actuating device and of the distance to the most proximate object in the travel direction.” Reply Br. 3. Moreover, in contrast to claim 1, Appellants argue that paragraph [0060] and Figure 9 of Egami specifically disclose that “the target distance Dt varies depending on the ‘calculated reciprocal 1/THW of the target headway and the subject vehicle speed V1,’ which ‘reciprocal 1/THW of the headway THW’ is calculated ‘from the accelerator pedal actuation amount S’.” Id. Appeal 2009-013340 Application 11/636,106 4 Hence, according to Appellants, Egami discloses “varying the target distance as a function of the pedal position S.” Reply Br. 4. At the outset, we agree with the Examiner that Egami discloses a system for regulating the speed of a vehicle including a main controller 1 that controls the distance to a preceding vehicle as a function of the accelerator pedal actuation amount detected by sensor 4. Ans. 4 and 6. See also, Egami, para. [0083]. However, as the Examiner noted, Egami “fails to disclose that the main controller (1) regulates the speed of the subject vehicle as a function of a position of an actuating device (e.g. accelerator pedal).” Ans. 6. Emphasis added. Hence, the Examiner turned to the disclosure of Kerns to show controlling the vehicle speed based upon the position of accelerator pedal 14. Ans. 7. See also, Kerns, col. 3, ll. 29-33. As such, the Examiner’s rejection is based on the combined teachings of Egami and Kerns. Therefore, in a first instance, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument because nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We further agree with the Examiner that Egami discloses regulating the speed of a vehicle as a function of (1) the accelerator pedal stroke (S); (2) the distance to the preceding vehicle (D2); and (3) the speed of the vehicle (V1). Ans. 6. For example, Egami specifically teaches in Figure 14 a process control including, inter alia, (Egami, paras. [0103]-[0111], see also Ans. 7): (1) Detecting the speed of the vehicle V1, the accelerometer pedal actuation amount S, the distance to the preceding vehicle D2, and Appeal 2009-013340 Application 11/636,106 5 the relative velocity between the two vehicles Vr (steps S201- S203); (2) Calculating a risk potential PF using a map as shown in Figures 6 and 7 of Egami, based upon V1, D2, and Vr (step S204); (3) Calculating a first target speed Vta based upon S (step S205); (4) Determining whether a preceding vehicle exists and whether the accelerometer pedal actuation amount S is within a prescribed range, i.e., Smin and Smax (steps 206 and S207); (5) Performing vehicle distance control by calculating a target distance Dt corresponding to the accelerometer pedal actuation amount S using the map shown in Figure 9 (step S208); (6) Calculating a second target speed Vtd required to follow the preceding vehicle while maintaining the target distance Dt, based D2 and Vr (step S209); and (7) Setting the target speed Vt by comparing Vta and Vtd (steps S210 and S211). Hence, we find that Egami specifically discloses regulating the speed of a vehicle “while maintaining a first predefined distance to the most proximate object in the travel direction, as a function of … the distance to the most proximate object in the travel direction,” as called for by claim 1. Although we appreciate that target distance Dt varies as driving conditions change, nonetheless, for a set traveling condition (as determined by vehicle speed V1, accelerometer pedal actuation amount S, distance to the preceding vehicle D2, relative velocity between the two vehicles Vr, and risk potential PF), that is, during a single iteration of the process control shown in Figure Appeal 2009-013340 Application 11/636,106 6 14, Egami specifically discloses that target distance Dt is maintained while a target speed is calculated. Furthermore, as we noted above, the Examiner turned to the disclosure of Kerns to show controlling the vehicle speed based upon the position of accelerator pedal 14. Ans. 7. See also, Kerns, col. 3, ll. 29-33. Appellants do not appear to argue the Examiner’s proposed combination of the teachings of Egami and Kerns. As such, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill to control the speed of Egami’s vehicle using the position of the accelerator pedal as taught by Kerns “without disrupting the natural feel of the accelerator pedal and maintaining the relationship between the pedal position and vehicle performance at all vehicle speeds.” Ans. 5. In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ first argument. Appellants’ Second Argument The Examiner found that “Egami inherently teaches the regulator utilizes stored characteristics fields in the said storage [CPU, ROM, RAM] to generate setpoint speed as a function of the distance to the preceding vehicle in the travel direction.” Ans. 4. See also, Reply Br. 4-5. Appellants argue that, “there is absolutely no logical reason why the mere presence of a CPU and possibly a ROM or a RAM in the main controller of the Egami reference would inherently teach that the regulator utilizes stored characteristic fields.” App. Br. 5. In response, the Examiner takes the position that: Appeal 2009-013340 Application 11/636,106 7 By using the map of the risk potential PF, the controller (1) regulates the vehicle speed in response to the degree of propinquity or proximity of the subject vehicle to the preceding vehicle is expressed. Thus, Egami inherently discloses that the controller (1) utilizes stored characteristic fields such as the map of PF. Advisory Action, mailed Mar. 27, 2008, p. 2, para. 3. Appellants counter that this “is a completely new argument presented for the first time in the examination, and therefore the argument presented in the Advisory Action must be designated as a new ground of rejection.” App. Br. 6. Appellants’ argument is directed to a petitionable matter and not an appealable matter and is not within the jurisdiction of the Board. See MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (MPEP) §§ 706.07(c) and 1002.02(c)(1)(a). Appellants further argue that : [T]he risk potential PF is merely used to vary the accelerator pedal reaction force (see, e.g., Egami paragraphs [0007], [0034] and [0050]), i.e., amount of actuation generated for a given applied force … but the map of the risk potential PF is not used to generate a setpoint speed, as recited in claim 1. Id. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument because although the risk potential PF is ultimately used to vary the accelerator pedal reaction force, nonetheless, calculating risk potential PF is part of Egami’s control process (step S204) for determining a target speed Vt, i.e., an instantaneous setpoint speed. Egami, fig. 14. Claim 1 does not require that the “stored Appeal 2009-013340 Application 11/636,106 8 characteristic fields” directly generate “an instantaneous setpoint speed,” as Appellants appear to argue. Claim 1 merely requires a regulator (controller 1) that “utilizes stored characteristic fields to generate an instantaneous setpoint speed.” Since Egami’s controller 1 uses the maps of Figures 6 and 7 to calculate risk potential PF which is used in the control process of Egami to determine a target speed Vt, we agree with the Examiner that controller 1 and maps of Egami satisfy the limitation of a “regulator [that] utilizes stored characteristics fields to generate an instantaneous setpoint speed,” as called for by claim 1. It is well established that although the claims are interpreted in light of the Specification, limitations from the Specification are not read into the claims. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons we also not persuaded by Appellants’ second argument. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Egami and Kerns is sustained. SUMMARY The decision of the Examiner to reject claim 1 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation