Robert Bosch GmbH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 2, 2020

2020001707 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 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.
15/593,652 05/12/2017 Ruediger Jordan BOSC.P10350US/1000197395 5320
24972 7590 11/02/2020
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
NEW YORK, NY 10019-6022
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, NGA X
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2020 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):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RUEDIGER JORDAN, STEFFEN WAELDELE, and
THOMAS MAURER
Appeal 2020-001707
Application 15/593,652
Technology Center 3600
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, CARL M. DEFRANCO, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Robert Bosch. Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001707
Application 15/593,652

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to controlling a protection device of a motor
vehicle. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for controlling a motor vehicle, the method
comprising:
determining a position of the motor vehicle;
determining topographical surroundings of the position;
and
controlling, based on the determined topographical
surroundings, a passive protection device and an active
protection device on board the motor vehicle if a collision of the
motor vehicle with another object is imminent;
wherein pieces of information about a cross traffic
situation of the motor vehicle are output only to a driver of motor
vehicle when it is established, based on pieces of the determined
topographical surroundings, that the motor vehicle is situated in
an area of an intersection of a first road and a second road,
wherein a reaction to the another object is discarded or postponed
if the another object is not moving along one of the first road and
the second road, and wherein the active protection device is
configured to assume or influence a longitudinal or transverse
control of the motor vehicle.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Dudeck US 2004/0090117 A1 May 13, 2004
Breed US 2009/0140887 A1 June 4, 2009
Harda US 2015/0012185 A1 Jan. 8, 2015
Kaminade US 2015/0158482 A1 June 11, 2015

Appeal 2020-001707
Application 15/593,652

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 5–7 and 9–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Breed and Kaminade. Final Act. 3.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Breed, Kaminade, and Harda. Final Act. 6.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Breed, Kaminade, and Dudeck. Final Act. 7.
OPINION
All claims and rejections are argued as a group based on two issues
Appellant raises with the Breed and Kaminade combination. Appeal Br. 2–
12. Breed was cited for all aspects of independent claims 1 and 9 apart from
discarding or postponing a reaction when another object is not moving along
the roads associated with a motor vehicle’s present intersection. Final Act.
3–5. Appellant contends “the only protection device referred to in the Breed
reference is the passive airbag system 64 (see paragraph [0667]), so that it
does not in any way disclose or suggest active protection systems” as
required by claims 1 and 9. Appeal Br. 9. It is not clear why Appellant
focuses on only paragraphs 667 (Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 4) and 557–564
(Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 5) of Breed where the Examiner clearly and
repeatedly relied upon paragraphs 665–667 regarding the recited “active
protection” of claims 1 and 9, which the Examiner regarded as any of
Breed’s systems to accelerate, decelerate, and steer the vehicle. Final Act. 3,
4; Ans. 4. Appellant points out that “active protection” according to
Appellant’s Specification is described as a device “configured to assume or
influence a longitudinal or transverse control of the motor vehicle.” Appeal
Appeal 2020-001707
Application 15/593,652

4
Br. 7; Reply Br. 3; see Spec. 2:16–20.2 The cited portion of Breed
(particularly, para. 666) discloses precisely this:
Adjustment of the travel of the vehicle 50 may entail applying
brakes 52 to slow the vehicle or otherwise changing the speed
of travel of the vehicle (accelerating), changing the direction of
travel of the vehicle via control of the steering system 58 or a
combination thereof.
Accordingly, we are not apprised of any error with regard to the
Examiner’s determination that Breed discloses “active protection.”
Appellant’s next argument is that the Examiner improperly relied
upon an “obvious to try” rationale to support the Breed-Kaminade
combination. Appeal Br. 10–12. The arguments appearing on pages 10–12
of Appellant’s brief and again on pages 7–9 of the reply brief appear to be
generic text without any references or relevance to the case presently before
us. Appellant does not direct our attention to, nor do we find any instance
where the Examiner set forth, a so-called “obvious to try” rationale. The
Examiner’s findings regarding Kaminade,3 as well as the Examiner’s stated

2 It is unclear why Appellant cites to a discussion regarding the
topographical surroundings in the Specification (pp. 12–13) to support this
argument when the thrust of Appellant’s stated argument relates to the
alleged absence of active protection not determining topographical
surroundings. Appellant does not raise any issues with regard to, or appear
to address, the Examiner’s findings regarding Breed’s determination of
topical surroundings (Final Act. 4 (citing Breed paras. 524–527)).
3 If the Examiner has not already done so, the Examiner may wish to
consider in any further prosecution the details associated with Kaminade’s
step ST5 (Figure 11), particularly ST5F (Figure 9) and the associated
description thereof (paragraph 118), and their pertinence to the discarding or
postponing aspects of Appellant’s claimed subject matter. Although the
Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference
should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See MPEP § 1213.02.
Appeal 2020-001707
Application 15/593,652

5
reason for the proposed combination, improving driving safety (Final Act.
4–5), stand uncontroverted. Only issues and findings of fact contested by the
Appellant will be addressed. See Ex Parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075–76
(BPAI 2010) (precedential). Any arguments not made are considered waived
for purposes of this appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). In view of
Appellant’s arguments, which do not address the Examiner’s proposed
combination with particularity, we are not apprised of error in the
Examiner’s proposed combination of Breed and Kaminade.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are AFFIRMED.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5–7, 9–
10
103 Breed, Kaminade 1, 2, 5–7, 9–
10

3, 4 103 Breed, Kaminade,
Harda
3, 4
8 103 Breed, Kaminade,
Dudeck
8
Overall
Outcome
1–10
RESPONSE
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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED