Robert Bosch GmbH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 9, 2021

2020002670 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 9, 2021)

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.
15/542,457 07/10/2017 Christian Braeuchle 2178-1697 5789
10800 7590 07/09/2021
Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
Indianapolis, IN 46204
EXAMINER
TERRELL, EMILY C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/09/2021 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHRISTIAN BRAEUCHLE
and CHRISTIAN JESCHKE

Appeal 2020-002670
Application 15/542,457
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, THU A. DANG, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 3–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject the claims. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

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 Robert
Bosch GmbH. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002670
Application 15/542,457

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 3–14 in the Final Office Action
(“Final Act”) as follows:
Claims 1 and 4–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Schut
et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0261838 A1, published Oct.
3, 2013) (“Schut”) and Mochizuki et al. (U.S. Patent
Application Publication 2013/0162448 A1, published Jun. 27, 2013)
(“Mochizuki”). Final Act. 3.
Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Schut,
Mochizuki, and Shimomura et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication
2003/0174054 A1, published Sept. 18, 2002) (“Shimomura”). Final Act. 12–
13.
There are three independent claims on appeal, claims 1, 9, and 10. We
select claim 1 as representative. Claim 1 is copied below with annotations
added in brackets to number the steps in the claim:
1. A method for detecting a passage of a motor vehicle on a
road through a road sign gantry, the method comprising:
[1] receiving environmental information at a control-and-
evaluation unit from a sensor on the motor vehicle;
[2] recognizing road signs in the environmental
information using the control-and-evaluation unit;
[3] determining a correct direction of travel for the road
using the control-and-evaluation unit;
[4] selecting a first road sign and a second road sign of
the recognized road signs arranged on opposing sides of the
road opposite from each other, the first road sign and the
second road sign together constituting the road-sign gantry;
[5] ascertaining position data for the first road sign and
for the second road sign from the environmental information
using the control-and-evaluation unit;
[6] determining a gantry width between the first road sign
and the second road sign;
Appeal 2020-002670
Application 15/542,457

3
[7] determining a first distance of the motor vehicle from
the first road sign using the control-and-evaluation unit;
[8] determining a second distance of the motor vehicle
from the second road sign using the control-and-evaluation
unit; and
[9] detecting the passage of the motor vehicle through the
road-sign gantry as a function of [9a] the gantry width, [9b] the
first distance, and [9c] the second distance using the control-
and-evaluation unit, the passage of the motor vehicle through
the road-sign gantry indicating that the motor vehicle is
traveling in a wrong direction on the road; and
further comprising:
[10] checking the gantry width for plausibility; and
[11] discarding the road-sign gantry in response to the
gantry width being implausible.

OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
Claim 1 is directed to a method for detecting passage of a motor
vehicle on a road through a road-sign gantry. The Specification describes a
road-sign gantry as “consist[ing] of at least two road signs which are
arranged spaced horizontally from one another.” Spec. 4:20–25.
Consistently, the claim recites that the road signs are “on opposing sides of
the road opposite from each other” (step [4]). The method specifically
detects that a motor vehicle is traveling in the wrong direction on the road
(step [9]). The Specification explains, with reference to highways in
Germany, “that instances of wrong-way travel can be recognized particularly
well by the fact that a wrong-way driver at a junction firstly has to drive
through a road-sign gantry in order to reach the federal freeway.” Spec.
3:29–33.
Environmental information is received in step [1] of the claim “at a
control-and-evaluation unit from a sensor on the motor vehicle.” Using the
Appeal 2020-002670
Application 15/542,457

4
control-and-evaluation unit, road signs are recognized in the information
(step [2]) and a correct direction of travel is determined (step [3]). First and
second road signs “on opposing sides of the road opposite from each other”
are selected from step [2] of the claim to constitute the road-sign gantry in
step [4].
The positions of the road-signs are ascertained from the
environmental information (step [5]) and the width of the road-sign gantry is
determined (step [6]). The Specification describes how the width is
calculated, but the claim does not recite the equations used to make the
calculation. Spec. 5–7.
The distance of the motor vehicle from the first and second road signs
are determined using the control-and-evaluation unit (steps [7], [8]).
In step [9] of the claim, “the passage of the motor vehicle through the
road-sign gantry” is detected “indicating that the motor vehicle is traveling
in a wrong direction on the road.” This detection is made as a function of
[9a] the gantry width (determined in step [6]), [9b] the first distance from the
first road sign (determined in step [7]), and [9c] the second distance from the
second road sign (determined in step [8]).
The gantry width is checked for plausibility and discarded if
implausible in steps [10] and [11], respectively. The Specification explains
that “[o]nly a gantry width that satisfies a predefined minimum and/or a
maximum can be employed meaningfully for the method.” Spec. 6:25–27.
Thus, a gantry width that does not meet this criteria is discarded. Spec. 6:19–
25 (“‘Discarding’ here means, in particular, that the road-sign gantry in
question will not be taken into consideration any further for a detection of
passage.”).
Appeal 2020-002670
Application 15/542,457

5

Rejection
Both rejections are based on Schut and Mochizuki. Schut describes a
“vehicular imaging system for determining roadway width includes an
image sensor for capturing images and an image processor for receiving the
captured images.” Schut, Abstract. Schut disclose that the “image processor
determines roadway width by identifying roadway marker signs and
oncoming traffic in processed images captured by the image sensor.” Id.
The Examiner found that Schut describes all the steps of claim 1, but
does not “explicitly state wrong direction” as in step [9] of the claim. Final
Act. 3–4. To meet this limitation, the Examiner further cited Mochizuki,
block quoting from portions of it in which “wrong-way vehicle position” is
described. Final Act. 5 (reproducing paragraphs 27, 28, 30, and 32 of
Mochizuki). The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious at the
time the “invention was made”2 to “modify the system of Schut with the
teachings of Mochizuki so that the caution about the wrong-way vehicle can
be appropriately sent by using quickly provided information showing the
presence of the wrong-way vehicle, as taught by Mochizuki.” Final Act. 6.
Appellant argues that Schut does not describe [4] of the claim of
selecting signs that constitute a road-sign gantry, which Appellant explains
is a type of road sign arrangement found particularly in Europe, and then
determining the width between them as in step [6]. Appeal Br. 7, 9, and 10.
Appellant also argues that Schut does not detect passage through a road-sign
gantry as recited in step [9] of the claim.

2 The Examiner did not establish when the “invention was made.” The
pertinent time in determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is “before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”
Appeal 2020-002670
Application 15/542,457

6
Appellant also argues that Mochizuki detects wrong-way vehicles in a
completely different way than claimed, and particularly does not use the
road sign-gantry to make this determination as required by step [9] of the
claim. Appeal Br. 9–10.
Appellant also contend that the combination of Schut and Mochizuki
does not disclose or suggest determining the plausibility of the gantry width
and discarding it if it is determined to be implausible as in steps [10] and
[11] of the claim, respectively.

Discussion
We agree the Examiner’s determination that Schut describes
determining the position of road-signs at opposites of the road and using this
information to determine the width between them, meeting limitations [4]–
[6] of the claim. To begin its method, Schut acquires images and uses optical
algorithms to determine road-way markers and signs3 as in step [4] of the

3 Schut ¶ 20 (“The process begins with image acquisition 201 where the
front facing imager or camera on the vehicle acquires a digital image in one
or more frames of data. . . . Once the image is acquired, it is initially stored
in cache or buffer for optical processing. . . . Thereafter, the image is
processed with optical algorithms used in connection with light peak
detection 203. In peak detection, the various pixels of light are analyzed and
processed to determine light intensity such as local brightness amplitude
peaks. These peaks in light amplitude are then used for identifying the
‘intensity local maxima’ portions of a light source or reflective object.);
Schut ¶ 22 (“This process involves recognizing pixels that are above some
predetermined light feature threshold such that a road way marker can be
identified and classified as compared to headlights, taillights, signs and/or
other objects.”)
Appeal 2020-002670
Application 15/542,457

7
claim. Road markers on both left and right sides of the road are determined.4
Appellant contends that a road-sign gantry is not determined as
required by the claim because “Schut does not associate the signs on one
side of the road with the signs on the other side of the road in any
meaningful way.” Appeal Br. 7. We do not agree. As indicated above, Schut
expressly describes detecting signs “on both the left and right sides of the
roadway” and “at their specific locations on both sides of the vehicle.” Schut
¶ 25. Fig. 4A of Schut, reproduced below, shows road signs aligned
horizontally and opposite from each as required by a road-sign gantry. The
figure from Schut is annotated with blue arrows to show signs aligned on
opposite sides of the road:

Fig. 4A, reproduced above, shows signs horizontally aligned signs
(annotated with blue arrows to show that the signs are arranged horizontally)
and an opposite sides of the road, constituting a road-sign gantry.

4 Schut ¶ 25 (“FIG. 4A and FIG. 4B are diagrams showing various examples
of the feature extraction process where FIG. 4A shows images with the
presence of roadway markers or signs a predetermined distance from the
vehicle on both the left and right sides of the roadway . . . Thus, FIG.
4B illustrates identification of the roadway markers at their specific
locations on both sides of the vehicle over a plurality of frames e.g. frame 1
and frame 2 etc.”)
Appeal 2020-002670
Application 15/542,457

8
Once Schut has selected signs on opposite sides of the road, Schut
determines the left distance from the vehicle to left road marker and the right
distance from the right road marker to determine the width of the road. Schut
¶¶ 25, 27.5 To make this determination, Schut determines the distance from
the motor vehicle to each sign as in steps [7] and [8] of the claim. Schut
¶ 25.6 To the extent that Schut does not expressly teach that the two selected
signs are horizontal and on opposite sides of the road from each other, there
are a limited number of choices and any two signs would be obvious to
choose to make the road width determination. See Schut, Fig. 4A reproduced
above which shows the limited number of choices, namely two signs
opposite and horizontal, or the first sign below or above the second sign and
therefore not horizontally arranged. When two signs on opposing sides of
the road are selected as required by step [4] of the claim, the distance
between them is determined by Schut and therefore step [6] of determining a
gantry width is accomplished.

5 Schut ¶ 25: “FIG. 4B illustrates a top or birds-eye view of that shown in
FIG. 4A, using signs or images on both sides of the roadway where their
distance (X) from the vehicle path (Z) is identified to insure these are
preferred light peaks. By way of example, FIGS. 4A and 4B both show how
a light peak is identified as a roadway marker and its global position is then
identified in relation to the vehicle. Thus, FIG. 4B illustrates identification
of the roadway markers at their specific locations on both sides of the
vehicle over a plurality of frames e.g. frame 1 and frame 2 etc.”; Schut ¶ 27
(“FIG. 5 is a diagram illustrating a vehicle that has a determined roadway
width in accordance with an embodiment of the invention where the left
distance from the road (-X(m) and right distance to the right side of the road
(+X(m) are calculated to determine the position of the vehicle in the
roadway.”)
6 Schut ¶ 25: (“FIG. 4A shows images with the presence of roadway markers
or signs a predetermined distance from the vehicle on both the left and right
sides of the roadway.”)
Appeal 2020-002670
Application 15/542,457

9
Schut also discusses describes comparing the determined width to
“known experimental results” which reasonably suggests discarding
roadway widths when they are not consistent with known results, thus
meeting steps [10] and [11] of the claim. Schut ¶ 28.7
While, we agree with the Examiner, as discussed above, that Schut
describes steps [1]–[8], [10], and [11] of claim 1, the Examiner did not
provide adequate evidence that Schut in combination with Mochizuki makes
obvious step [9] of claim 1.
In step [9] of the claim, [9a] the gantry width, [9b] the first distance
from the first road sign, and [9c] the second distance from the second road
sign are used to determine passage through the gantry and whether the
vehicle is traveling in a wrong direction on the road. The Examiner found
that Schut describes passage through a road sign gantry, but the Examiner
only pointed to the description in Schut of detecting roadway signs on
opposite sides of the road and did not explain how this disclosure detects
passage through the opposing road signs. Ans. 6–8; Final Act. 4.
The Examiner acknowledged that Schut does not describe detecting
that a motor vehicle is traveling in the wrong direction on the road as in step
[9] of the claim. Final Act. 4. To meet this deficiency, the Examiner cited
Mochizuki. Id. Mochizuki describes a system for reporting a wrong-way
probe vehicle that is traveling in a wrong direction on a road with respect to
a target vehicle. Mochizuki ¶ 9. The position of the probe vehicle is first
determined. Id. ¶ 27. Mochizuki then describes obtaining “the travel

7 Schut ¶ 28 (“Once roadway width had been determined, the motorway
identification 213 operates by comparing the lateral distance of the
oncoming traffic model to known experimental results.”)
Appeal 2020-002670
Application 15/542,457

10
direction of the probe vehicle 80 based on the detection result of the
direction sensor 53” and “the travel speed and the travel distance of the
probe vehicle 80 based on the detection result of the distance sensor 54.” Id.
¶ 29. Mochizuki discloses “the wrong-way determination conditions are
conditions that the travel direction of the probe 80 vehicle is opposite to the
designated travel direction of the 80 road, and the travel speed of the probe
vehicle is equal to or higher than a predetermined reference speed.” Id. ¶ 31.
Thus, Mochizuki uses travel speed, travel distance, and direction of the
probe vehicle from the target vehicle to determine the traveling direction of
the probe vehicle. The Examiner did not identify any disclosure in
Mochizuki, alone, or in combination with Schut, of using [9a] gantry width,
or suggesting its use, in combination with [9b] and [9c], the distances from
the road signs, to determine that the vehicle is traveling through a road-sign
gantry and in the wrong direction.
“An examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness.” In re Huai-Hung Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1066 (Fed. Cir.
2011). “The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art,” In re
Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991); i.e., “whether the teachings of
the prior art, taken as a whole, would have made obvious the claimed
invention.” In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The
Examiner did not meet the burden of establishing that the claimed subject
matter is obvious based on Schut and Mochizuki. Accordingly, we are
compelled to reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 1.
Independent claims 9 and 10 have substantially the same limitation of
step [9] of claim 1 in which the passage of the motor vehicle through the
Appeal 2020-002670
Application 15/542,457

11
road-sign gantry is detected as a function the gantry width, the first distance,
and the second distance, indicating that the motor vehicle is traveling in a
wrong direction on the road. The obviousness of these claims, and dependent
clams 4–8 and 11–14, which incorporate all the limitations of the
independent claims are therefore reversed, as well, for the same reasons as
for claim 1.
Claim 3, which depends from claim 1, is rejected based on Schut and
Mochizuki, and further on Shimomura. The Examiner did not find that
Shimomura describes determining a wrong-way vehicle as in the claim, and
therefore the rejection of claim 3 is also reversed.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–14 103 Schut, Mochizuki 1, 4–14
3 103 Schut, Mochizuki,
Shimomura
3
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–14

REVERSED