Sebastian Engel et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 5, 2019

14055468 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2019)

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.
14/055,468 10/16/2013 Sebastian Engel ENGEL-3 5892
20151 7590 12/05/2019
HENRY M FEIEREISEN, LLC
HENRY M FEIEREISEN
35 West 35th Street
SUITE 900
NEW YORK, NY 10001
EXAMINER
SHERWIN, RYAN W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/05/2019 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):
INFO@FEIEREISENLLC.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SEBASTIAN ENGEL, MICHAEL BOTSCH, and
HENDRIK RÖSSLER
________________

Appeal 2018-003048
Application 14/055,468
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JOHN A. EVANS, MATTHEW J. McNEILL, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, and 6‒8, which are all the claims pending in this
application. An oral hearing was held September 26, 2019, and a transcript
was made of record on October 22, 2019. 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 AUDI AG.
Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-003048
Application 14/055,468

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s application relates to a method to enable accurate, reliable
association of a transmitter with a vehicle that is detected by environmental
sensors in a receiving motor vehicle. Spec. ¶ 10. Claim 1 illustrates the
appealed subject matter and reads as follows:
1. A method for unambiguously identifying in car-to-car
communication an object having a transmitter located therein
and being associated with at least one remote vehicle in relation
to a host vehicle, comprising:
detecting with an environmental sensor of the host
vehicle, the at least one remote vehicle and determining based
on first environmental data from the environmental sensor of
the host vehicle at least one of a first relative distance and a first
relative speed between the host vehicle and the object,
transmitting, with the transmitter located in the object, in
the car-to-car communication to the host vehicle at least one
communication information containing second environmental
data comprising a second relative distance and a second relative
speed between the host vehicle and the object obtained with an
environmental sensor of the object and describing the object to
the host vehicle, said first and said second environmental data
excluding a use of Global Positioning System (GPS) data,
comparing in a controller of the host vehicle the first
environmental data with the second environmental data, and
ascertaining an unambiguous identification when at least
one of the first relative distance and the first relative speed
corresponds to a negative value of the corresponding second
relative distance or the second relative speed among the at least
one remote vehicle based on the comparison.

Appeal 2018-003048
Application 14/055,468

3
The Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1, 2, and 6‒8 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Zeng (US 8,229,663 B2; July 24, 2012) and
Shida (US 2013/0060443 A1; March 7, 2013). Final Act. 3‒10.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the combination of Zeng and Shida teaches or
suggests “said first and said second environmental data excluding a use of
Global Positioning System (GPS) data,” as recited in claim 1. See Final Act.
5; Ans. 2‒6. In particular, the Examiner finds Zeng does not explicitly teach
first and second environmental data excluding a use of GPS data, but an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the
teachings of Zeng such that GPS data is not relied upon because GPS data is
not always reliable. Final Act. 5; Ans. 2‒3. The Examiner finds Zeng
teaches prioritizing sensor data over GPS data when GPS obstructions are
present. Ans. 4 (citing Zeng ¶ 27).
The Examiner further finds Shida teaches a host vehicle receiving
sensor data of external objects, which corresponds to the first environmental
data. Ans. 3 (citing Shida ¶ 25). The Examiner finds Shida teaches receiving
surrounding vehicle information, such as vehicle ID, speed, acceleration,
position, and orientation. Ans. 3 (citing Shida ¶ 27). The Examiner finds
Shida teaches identifying the location of a vehicle without exclusively using
GPS data because Shida teaches “in the case where positional information is
calculated only from GPS data,” suggesting that GPS data is not always the
only data that is used. Id. at 4 (citing Shida ¶ 27). The Examiner finds the
Appeal 2018-003048
Application 14/055,468

4
received data, excluding the position data, corresponds to the second
environmental data. Id. at 3.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred because neither Zeng nor Shida
teaches or suggests “said first and said second environmental data excluding
a use of Global Positioning System (GPS) data.” Br. 5‒8. In particular,
Appellant argues the Examiner admits Zeng does not teach “said first and
said second environmental data excluding a use of Global Positioning
System (GPS) data.” Id. at 6. Appellant argues Zeng’s teaching that sensor
data should be prioritized over GPS data does not teach that GPS data should
be completely excluded. See Sept. 26, 2019 Hearing Tr. 4:20‒8:14.
We agree with Appellant. The Examiner’s finding that an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Zeng and Shida such
that the environmental data would exclude GPS data is not sufficiently
supported by the Examiner’s factual findings. Specifically, the Examiner
relies on Zeng’s teaching that sensor data may be prioritized over GPS data,
but we agree with Appellant that this teaching does not suggest excluding
GPS data altogether. See Zeng 4:33‒39. The Examiner relies on Shida’s
suggestion that a vehicle’s position may be determined without exclusively
relying on GPS data, but this suggests the inclusion of other data, not the
exclusion of GPS data. See Shida ¶ 27. Thus, we agree with Appellant that
the Examiner has failed to sufficiently explain why an ordinarily skilled
artisan presented with the teachings of Zeng and Shida, which both rely on
GPS data in determining the position of vehicles, would exclude GPS data
from the environmental data, as claimed.
For these reasons, Appellant has persuaded us the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over Zeng and Shida. We, therefore, do
Appeal 2018-003048
Application 14/055,468

5
not sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 8, which recites commensurate limitations, or dependent
claims 2, 6, and 7.

CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 6‒8 103(a) Zeng, Shida 1, 2, 6‒8

REVERSED