FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2020

15340817 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2020)

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.
15/340,817 11/01/2016 Donatus Andreas Josephine KEES 83739972 6811
28395 7590 03/02/2020
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
KLEINMAN, LAIL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2020 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 DONATUS ANDREAS JOSEPHINE KEES and
ANTHEMIOS PHILEMON PETRIDIS

Appeal 2019-005171
Application 15/340,817
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–12, 14–18, and 20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
The Specification states that “[t]his disclosure relates to a method of
positioning an electric vehicle relative to a charging point, such as an

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-005171
Application 15/340,817

2
inductive charging point, using a corrected global positioning system
signal.” Spec. ¶ 2.

CLAIMS
Claims 1, 10, and 14 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. A method of positioning an electric vehicle relative to a
charging point, comprising:
receiving at the vehicle, a global positioning system (GPS)
signal and a GPS correction signal;
correcting the GPS signal using the GPS correction signal;
positioning the vehicle relative to the charging point using
the GPS signal; and
responsive to the vehicle being within a threshold vicinity
of the charging point, docking the vehicle at the charging point
using the GPS correction signal.
Appeal Br., Claims App. 1.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1–12, 14–18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
2. The Examiner rejects claims 1–7, 9–12, 14–18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over McCool2 in view of Gazit.3
3. The Examiner rejects claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
McCool in view of Gazit and Krammer.4

2 McCool et al., US 2014/0021908 A1, pub. Jan. 23, 2014.
3 Gazit et al., US 9,020,755 B1, iss. Apr. 28, 2015.
4 Krammer, US 2016/0046198 A1, pub. Feb. 18, 2016.
Appeal 2019-005171
Application 15/340,817

3
DISCUSSION
Written Description
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that the recitation
“positioning the vehicle relative to the charging point using the GPS signal”
has “not been properly described in the application as originally filed.”
Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that the Specification discloses positioning
the vehicle only after the GPS signal has been corrected and fails to disclose
that the vehicle is positioned relative to the charging point before the GPS
signal is corrected. Id. at 3–4 (citing Spec. ¶ 32, 39). Similarly, with respect
to claims 10 and 14, the Examiner finds that there is not adequate support in
the Specification for the recitation “drive a vehicle to a charging point using
the GPS signal.” Id. at 4.
Compliance with the written description requirement is determined
based on whether the disclosure as originally filed reasonably conveys to
one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor was in possession of the
invention claimed at the time of filing. See, e.g., Agilent Techs., Inc. v.
Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Here, we agree with
Appellant that the Specification provides adequate support for the limitation
at issue. In particular, as Appellant points out, the Specification discloses
using the GPS navigation system to direct a vehicle to the vicinity of a
charging point and then using the corrected GPS signal to accurately
position the vehicle. Spec. ¶ 38. The Examiner responds that the
Specification does not specifically disclose that the GPS signal, as opposed
to the GPS navigation system, is used to drive the vehicle, as recited in the
claim. Ans. 4. However, the claimed subject matter need not be described
“in haec verba” in the original specification in order to satisfy the written
Appeal 2019-005171
Application 15/340,817

4
description requirement. In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 425 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that use of the GPS
navigation system before using the corrected GPS signal as described in
paragraph 38 reasonably conveys the distinction between GPS signal and
GPS correction signal required by the claims.
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the written description
rejection of claims 1–12, 14–18, and 20.
Obviousness
Independent claim 1 recites a method requiring positioning a vehicle
with respect a charging point using a GPS signal and then docking the
vehicle at the charging point using a GPS correction signal when it reaches a
threshold vicinity of the charging point. Appeal Br., Claims App. 1. Each
of independent claims 10 and 14 requires a controller configured to drive a
vehicle to a charging point using a GPS signal and then using a GPS
correction signal to dock the vehicle at the charging point when the vehicle
reaches a threshold vicinity of the charging point. Id. at 2, 3. Thus, each of
the independent claims requires, inter alia, using a combination of a GPS
signal and a GPS correction signal to dock a vehicle at a charging point. We
are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the obviousness rejection of
independent claims 1, 10, and 14 “fails to provide adequate articulated
reasoning for using both uncorrected and corrected GPS signals in concert
and toggling between the two based on a vehicle’s location relative to the
charting point.” Reply Br. 2.
With respect to claim 1, for example, the Examiner relies on McCool
as teaching a method as claimed including using GPS signals to position a
vehicle relative to a charging point and docking the vehicle at the charging
Appeal 2019-005171
Application 15/340,817

5
point when it reaches a threshold vicinity of the charging point. Final Act.
5–6 (citing McCool ¶¶ 67, 69, 71). The Examiner finds that McCool does
not disclose correcting the GPS signal and using a GPS correction signal to
dock the vehicle at the charging point. Id. at 6. However, the Examiner
finds that “Gazit teaches correcting the GPS signal using the GPS correction
signal and docking the vehicle at the charging point using the GPS
correction signal.” Id. (citing Gazit col. 2, l. 52–col. 3, l. 12) (emphasis
omitted). The Examiner concludes:
McCool discloses positioning a vehicle using GPS with
respect to a charging point, and responsive to the vehicle being
within a threshold vicinity, initiating a docking sequence for the
vehicle with respect to the charging point. Gazit teaches
positioning a vehicle using a corrected GPS for fine-tuned
maneuvering.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
modify the invention of McCool and include the feature of a
GPS correction signal, as taught by Gazit, to improve accuracy
of the GPS signals of McCool.
Final Act. 6.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s analysis fails to consider
the specific requirements of the claim that both uncorrected and corrected
GPS signals are used to dock the vehicle at the charging point. The
Examiner finds only that it would have been obvious to use a GPS correction
signal to improve the accuracy of the GPS signals of McCool. However, we
agree with Appellant that the logical conclusion from this rationale is that
one would replace McCool’s device or method with a device or method that
uses corrected GPS signals to navigate the vehicle during the entire docking
Appeal 2019-005171
Application 15/340,817

6
process and not using such signals only when the vehicle reaches a threshold
distance, as required by the claims. See Appeal Br. 4.
The Examiner responds by noting that Gazit discloses correcting GPS
signals when within a predetermined distance of a stationary vehicle. Ans.
5. The problem with relying on this disclosure in Gazit is that Gazit
discloses not only correcting the GPS within this “local area” of the
stationary vehicle but also in a “wide area” outside of this “local area.”
Gazit col. 3, ll. 59–67. Based on this disclosure, it is unclear why one of
ordinary skill in the art would seek to modify McCool’s method or device to
use corrected GPS signals consistent with the claim, i.e. only when the
vehicle is within a threshold vicinity (“local area”) and not outside this
vicinity (“wide area”).
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the Examiner has not set
forth an adequate reason with the necessary rational underpinnings to
support the conclusion of obviousness with respect to each of the
independent claims. See 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)).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 10, and 14. We
also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2–7, 9, 11, 12, 15–18,
and 20 for the same reasons. Finally, in the rejection of claim 8, the
Examiner does not cure the deficiency in the rejection of claim 1, from
which claim 8 depends. Accordingly, we also do not sustain the rejection of
claim 8.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1–12, 14–18, and 20.
In summary:
Appeal 2019-005171
Application 15/340,817

7
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–12, 14–18,
20
112(a) Written
description
1–12, 14–
18, 20
1–7, 9–12,
14–18, 20
103 McCool, Gazit 1–7, 9–12,
14–18, 20
8 103 McCool, Gazit,
Krammer
8
Overall Outcome 1–12, 14–
18, 20

REVERSED