Ex Parte Zhang et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 21, 2012

11372807 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 21, 2012)

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.
11/372,807 03/10/2006 Yilu Zhang GP-306210-RD-KAM 5919
65798 7590 03/21/2012
MILLER IP GROUP, PLC
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
42690 WOODWARD AVENUE
SUITE 200
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304
EXAMINER
ALGAHAIM, HELAL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/21/2012 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 YILU ZHANG, WILLIAM C. LIN, AND YUEN-KWOK CHIN
____________

Appeal 2010-006687
Application 11/372,807
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, MICHAEL L. HOELTER and
JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006687
Application 11/372,807

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 11, 12 and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Engstrom (US 2002/0128751 A1, pub. Sep. 12, 2002), and
claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Engstrom. Claims
1-10, 13, and 18-21 are withdrawn. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 11 is the sole independent claim on appeal, is representative of
the subject matter on appeal, and recites:
11. A driver skill recognition system for
identifying a driver skill level, said system
comprising:
a steering wheel angle processor responsive
to a vehicle condition signal and providing a
representation signal of the vehicle condition
signal; and
at least one feed-forward artificial neural
network (FF-ANN) responsive to the
representation signal, said at least one FF-ANN
providing an output signal indicative of the driver
skill level.

OPINION
Engstrom collects vehicle parameter data 21, including steering angle
28, to predict a category of driving environment via a pattern recognizer or
neural network 25. Paras. [0036], [0056], [0057]. Engstrom provides four
categories of driving environments: highway, main road, suburban traffic,
Appeal 2010-006687
Application 11/372,807

3
and city. Abstract, fig. 1. Engstrom tailors vehicle control applications
based on driving environment and driver needs. Para. [0016]. For example,
vehicle suspension can be made “softer” for highway driving and “tighter”
for city driving based on the recognition of driving environment; and a
drowsiness detection system can be turned off for city driving based on the
assumption that rapidly changing external stimulus prevents a driver from
falling asleep. Para. [0054]; see also paras. [0005], [0006].
The Examiner finds that Engstrom’s neural network 25 corresponds to
the feed-forward artificial neural network as recited in claim 11 because it
detects a driver’s mental state, such as being drowsy or distracted, and
recognizes differences between individual drivers (para. [0015]) and
different driving styles (para. [0017]). Ans. 3, 6-7. The Appellants contend
Engstrom’s neural network does not provide “an output signal indicative of
the driver skill level.” App. Br. 10, 12-13.
First, the Appellants point out that Engstrom’s system determines a
current external physical driving environment of a vehicle, e.g., city driving.
App. Br. 12. The Appellants persuasively contend that Engstrom’s
determination of driving environment is unrelated to a driver’s skill level.
Id. Second, the Appellants persuasively contend that a driver’s mental state
does not correspond to a driver’s skill level because “[o]ne is purely abstract
while the other is a physical manifestation of an ability”. App. Br. 11, Reply
Br. 1-2. Third, the Appellants persuasively contend that Engstrom’s
disclosure of a model that takes into account “differences between individual
drivers” and “different driving styles” does not offer sufficient support to
find that Engstrom discloses an indication of a driver’s skill level. See
Reply Br. 2. For example, a driver’s driving style may be aggressive, but an
Appeal 2010-006687
Application 11/372,807

4
aggressive driving style does not identify the driver skill level, e.g., novice
or expert. See also Spec. paras. [0020], [0024].
For the reasons provided above, the Examiner’s findings are not
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Thus the rejection of claim
11 and dependent claims 12, and 15-17 is not sustained.
The rejection of claim 14 relies on the same erroneous finding as
discussed above, that Engstrom discloses an output signal indicative of
driver skill. Thus, the rejection of claim 14 is not sustained.

DECISION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 11, 12, and 14-17.

REVERSED

Klh