Toyota Research Institute, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 2, 2020

2020002246 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 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.
15/455,647 03/10/2017 Nikolaos Michalakis 108749-17/TRI
2016-477 PA
8112
96411 7590 09/02/2020
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900
Cincinnati, OH 45202
EXAMINER
KIM, PATRICK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2020 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):
CincyPAIR@dinsmore.com
elise.merkel@dinsmore.com
jennifer.baker@dinsmore.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte NIKOLAOS MICHALAKIS
____________

Appeal 2020-002246
Application 15/455,647
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.

WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1 and 3–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART and enter a NEW GROUND OF
REJECTION pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).

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 Toyota
Research Institute, Inc. (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal 2020-002246
Application 15/455,647

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention “relate[s] to systems and methods for providing
updatable roadway codes and, more specifically, to roadway codes that
provide a pointer to a remote computing device to provide environmental
information.” (Spec. ¶ 1.)
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 8 is
illustrative.2 It recites (emphasis added):
8. A system for providing updatable roadway codes
comprising:
an image capture device for capturing a roadway code,
wherein the roadway code includes a static portion and a
dynamic portion; and
a computing device that is coupled to the image capture
device and includes a memory component that stores logic that,
when executed by a processor, causes the system to perform at
least the following:
locate the roadway code;
determine static data related to the static portion of
the roadway code;
communicate with a remote computing device to
determine dynamic data related to the dynamic portion of
the roadway code;
provide at least one of the following to a user: the
static data and the dynamic data;
capture environmental data, wherein the
environmental data corresponds with the dynamic data;

2 Claim 8 recites “compare the dynamic data with the environmental data to
determine whether the stored data is accurate.” The term “stored data” lacks
antecedent basis. However, in view of the next limitation reciting “in
response to determining that the dynamic data is not accurate,” for purposes
of our analysis, we will consider the claim term “stored data” in claim 8 to
be a typographical error and treat the compare limitation as reciting
“compare the dynamic data with the environmental data to determine
whether the dynamic data is accurate.”
Appeal 2020-002246
Application 15/455,647

3
compare the dynamic data with the environmental
data to determine whether the stored data is accurate; and
in response to determining that the dynamic data is
not accurate, provide a communication to update the
dynamic data.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Fridman (US 2018/0023961 A1, pub. Jan. 25, 2018).
Claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable in view of Fridman and Ng-Thow-Hing (US 2013/0293582 A1,
pub. Nov. 7, 2013).
Claims 5–7, 11–14, and 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable in view of Fridman and Dickson (US 6,574,603 B1, iss.
June 3, 2003).

ANALYSIS
The § 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 8 and 15
“[A]n invention is anticipated if the same device, including all the
claim limitations, is shown in a single prior art reference. Every element of
the claimed invention must be literally present, arranged as in the claim.”
Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
“Anticipation can occur when a claimed limitation is ‘inherent’ or otherwise
implicit in the relevant reference.” Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor
Indus., Inc., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
The Examiner finds that Fridman discloses:
a computing device that is coupled to the image capture device
and includes a memory component that stores logic that, when
Appeal 2020-002246
Application 15/455,647

4
executed by a processor, causes the system to perform at least the
following: locate the roadway code (Par. [0233], beacons, codes,
located on existing road signs);
determine static data related to the static portion of the
roadway code (Par. [0233], landmark location);
communicate with a remote computing device to
determine dynamic data related to the dynamic portion of the
roadway code (Par. [0268], receive identified landmark data).

(Final Action 5.)
Appellant argues that “Fridman teaches that the electronic beacons
may send landmark identification and/or landmark location information, but
does not teach that this information is dynamic, as recited in claim 8.”
(Appeal Br. 6.) “Specifically, nothing in Fridman suggests that the beacon is
a pointer to the server; only that the beacon provides static data.” (Reply
Br. 4.)
As an initial matter, we construe the claim terms “roadway code,”
“static portion,” and “dynamic portion.”
Claims are construed in light of the specification. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Bond,
910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“During examination, ‘claims . . . are to
be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and . . . claim language should be read in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the
art.’”)). We are also mindful that “[t]he general rule . . . is that the claims of
a patent are not limited to the preferred embodiment.” Karlin Tech., Inc. v.
Surgical Dynamics, Inc., 177 F.3d 968, 973 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The Specification provides no explicit definitions for these terms.
However, the Specification discloses that
Appeal 2020-002246
Application 15/455,647

5
[s]ome embodiments [of the invention] include a lookup table
that is remotely stored in the cloud at a remote computing device.
The lookup table can include a series of codes that correspond to
semantic information for an environment. As the vehicle drives
along a roadway, the vehicle may detect a code along the road.
The code may be painted using, for example, invisible paint or
may be provided via a radio frequency identifier technology, etc.
The vehicle may decode the detected roadway code and will look
up corresponding information for the code from the lookup table.
. . .
In one example, the code can include both a dynamic
portion (e.g., a reference number or tag for the lookup table) that
refers to dynamic data, as well as a static portion with static data
about the location where the vehicle is currently located (such as
encoded location information). . . .
The static portion of the roadway code may be deciphered
immediately by the vehicle computing device 110 to reveal static
data. The dynamic portion of the roadway code may include a
pointer to the remote computing device 104 to access dynamic
data. . . .
It should be understood that the roadway code may be
formatted in any of several different ways. As an example, the
static portion and/or the dynamic portion may be formatted as a
bar code, quick response (QR) code, or other code for accessing
the associated data.

(Spec. ¶¶ 14, 15, 19, 20.)
By way of example, the Specification discloses a standard road sign
with an added roadway code. (Id. ¶ 25 (citing Fig. 2).) Appellant’s Figure 2
is reproduced below.
Appeal 2020-002246
Application 15/455,647

6

Figure 2 “depicts a dashboard view of a vehicle that recognizes a roadway
code.” (Id. ¶ 8.)
In the example of FIG. 2, the image capture device 108 detects
both the road sign 242 and the roadway code 244. The static
portion of the roadway code 244 may be detected by the vehicle
computing device 110. In FIG. 2, the static portion indicates that
the road sign 242 is a stop sign.
The vehicle computing device 110 may also detect the
dynamic portion of the roadway code 244 and may communicate
with the remote computing device 104 to determine the data
being conveyed by the dynamic portion of the roadway code 244.
In this example, the dynamic portion of the roadway code 244
indicates that the traffic at the incoming intersection does not
stop.

(Id. ¶¶ 25, 26.)3

3 We note that Appellant’s Specification discloses that an image capture
device is not limited to a device for capturing visual images. (Spec. ¶ 23
(“[T]he image capture device 108 may be configured as an infrared camera,
radio frequency identification device, and/or other device capable of
Appeal 2020-002246
Application 15/455,647

7
In view of the disclosures in the Specification, and applying a
broadest reasonable interpretation, we determine that the claim term
“roadway code” includes a code that can be captured by an image capture
device and interpreted by a processor. A roadway code may include a static
portion and a dynamic portion.
In view of the disclosures in the Specification, and applying a
broadest reasonable interpretation, we determine that the claim term “static
portion” when used with regard to a roadway code, includes information that
may be deciphered immediately by a local computing device without
accessing a remote computing device.
In view of the disclosures in the Specification, and applying a
broadest reasonable interpretation, we determine that the claim term
“dynamic portion” when used with regard to a roadway code, includes
information that can be used to access particular data in a remote computing
device, e.g., information that constitutes a pointer that can be used to access
data in a lookup table in a remote computing device. In other words, it is not
the portion of roadway code itself that is dynamic, rather it is the remotely
stored data that is considered “dynamic.”4
Fridman “relates generally to autonomous vehicle navigation and a
[crowdsourced] sparse map for autonomous vehicle navigation.” (Fridman

detecting the roadway code, whether the roadway code is visible or invisible
to a human.”).)
4 This interpretation is further supported by the disclosure in the
Specification stating that “[b]ecause the dynamic portion of the roadway
code is remotely stored at the remote computing device 104, this portion of
the roadway code may be updatable, based on changing conditions of the
environment.” (Spec. ¶ 19.)
Appeal 2020-002246
Application 15/455,647

8
¶ 2.) A “sparse map may comprise at least one line representation of a road
surface feature extending along the road segment and a plurality of
landmarks associated with the road segment.” (Id. ¶ 10.) “[L]andmarks
may include any visible and identifiable objects along a road segment.” (Id.
¶ 229.) “Examples of landmarks . . . include traffic signs, directional signs,
roadside fixtures, and general traffic signs.” (Id. ¶ 230.)
Landmarks may also include beacons that may be
specifically designed for usage in an autonomous vehicle
navigation system. For example, such beacons may include . . .
visual/graphical information added to existing road signs (e.g.,
icons, emblems, bar codes, etc.) that may be identified or
recognized by a vehicle traveling along a road segment. Such
beacons may also include electronic components. In such
embodiments, electronic beacons (e.g., RFID tags, etc.) may be
used to transmit non-visual information to a host vehicle. Such
information may include, for example, landmark identification
and/or landmark location information that a host vehicle may use
in determining its position along a target trajectory.

(Id. ¶ 233.)
Fridman also discloses use of a remote server. Specifically, Fridman
discloses
a method of generating a road navigation model for use in
autonomous vehicle navigation may comprise receiving, by a
server, navigation information from a plurality of vehicles. The
navigation information from the plurality of vehicles may be
associated with a common road segment. The method may
further comprise storing, by the server, the navigation
information associated with the common road segment, and
generating, by the server, at least a portion of an autonomous
vehicle road navigation model for the common road segment
based on the navigation information from the plurality of
vehicles.

Appeal 2020-002246
Application 15/455,647

9
(Id. ¶ 13.) In turn, the server may distribute the road navigation model to
one or more autonomous vehicles for use in navigating the common road
segment. (Id.; see also id. ¶ 268.)
With regard to the Examiner’s finding that Fridman discloses a
roadway code with static portion and a dynamic portion (see Final Action 5),
Fridman discloses receiving information from beacons along a roadway,
e.g., traffic signs, including traffic signs with visual/graphical information
added to the sign. (Fridman ¶¶ 230, 233.) Appellant’s Specification
discloses that visual/graphical information added to a sign can constitute a
roadway code. (See Spec. ¶ 25 (citing Fig. 2).)
Fridman discloses that information from the beacons may include
both landmark identification information and landmark location information.
(Fridman ¶¶ 230, 233.) Landmark location information is the type
information that may be deciphered immediately by the local computing
device without accessing a remote computing device. (See id.) Thus, we
agree with the Examiner that Fridman discloses a roadway code including a
static portion.
Fridman discloses that information related to landmarks such as text
on the landmark may be sent to the remote server. (Id. ¶ 267.) In particular,
Fridman discloses that “processing onboard the vehicle may detect[] the
landmark and communicate information about the landmark to the server,
and the system onboard the vehicle may receive the landmark data from the
server and use the landmark data for identifying a landmark in autonomous
navigation.” (Id. ¶ 268; see also Final Action 5.) Thus, Fridman discloses
communicating with the remote server, e.g., by sending landmark
information to the remote server that the server can use to access particular
Appeal 2020-002246
Application 15/455,647

10
data in the server, such as landmark data, that can subsequently be sent from
the server to the vehicle.5 (See Fridman ¶ 268.) Therefore, we agree with
the Examiner that Fridman discloses a roadway code including a dynamic
portion.6
Appellant next argues that
Fridman appears to teach that the static information in the beacon
is compared with the information in the model to determine
whether the model should be updated. This is different than
claim 8 for at least the reason that Fridman is comparing the data
received from the beacon with data in the model. Claim 8, by
contrast determines whether the data in the dynamic portion of
the roadway code is different than the data from the environment.

(Appeal Br. 8.)
Claim 8 recites “compar[ing] the dynamic data with the
environmental data to determine whether the stored [sic, dynamic] data is
accurate.”
The Examiner finds that Fridman discloses this limitation in
paragraph 275. (Answer 6–7.)
As an initial matter, we construe the claim term “environmental data.”
The Specification provides no explicit definition for this claim term.

5 We note that claim 8 does not require sending the dynamic portion of the
roadway code itself to the remote computing device. Rather, claim 8 recites
communicating with the remote computing device to determine dynamic
data related to the dynamic portion of the roadway code.
6 In view of the discussion, supra, we need not address the Examiner’s
additional finding that Fridman’s disclosure of “landmark identification
contain[ing] a tag of the roadway sign which is used to refer back to a
database containing different traffic signs (Par. [0235]),” also discloses a
dynamic portion of a roadway code. (See Answer 5.)

Appeal 2020-002246
Application 15/455,647

11
However, the Specification provides an example. The example refers to
Figure 3. Figure 3 is reproduced below.

Figure 3 “depicts a dashboard view of a vehicle that determines that a
roadway code is different than an environmental condition.” (Spec. ¶ 9.)
The Specification discloses:
As illustrated, the road sign 342 indicates that the speed limit is
25 miles per hour. However, the roadway code 344 indicates
includes [sic] a static portion that indicates that the vehicle 106
is traveling on Main Street, as well as a dynamic portion that
indicates that the speed limit is 35 miles per hour. As is evident,
the dynamic portion of the roadway code 344 provides different
information than the environmental data provided by the road
sign 342.

(Spec. ¶ 28.)
In view of the disclosures in the Specification, and applying a
broadest reasonable interpretation, we determine that the claim term
“environmental data” includes current data regarding the environment, e.g.,
information currently appearing on a road sign.
Appeal 2020-002246
Application 15/455,647

12
As discussed above, Fridman discloses communicating with a remote
server, e.g., sending landmark information to the remote server that can be
used to access particular data in the server, such as landmark data. (See
Fridman ¶ 268.) Fridman further discloses:
The server may use one or more criteria for determining
whether new data received from the vehicles should trigger an
update to the [road navigation] model or trigger creation of new
data. For example, when the new data indicates that a previously
recognized landmark at a specific location no longer exists, or is
replaced by another landmark, the server may determine that the
new data should trigger an update to the model.

(Id. ¶ 271; see also Answer 6–7.) With regard to the information sent to the
remote server, Fridman discloses that “different types of landmarks may be
associated with different types of data to be uploaded to and stored in the
server” (id. ¶ 268), and that new information may “indicate[] that a
previously recognized landmark at a specific location no longer exists, or is
replaced by another landmark” (id. ¶ 271). “In some embodiments, the
server may identify [road navigation] model changes, such as constructions,
detours, new signs, removal of signs, etc., based on data received from the
vehicles.” (Id. ¶ 275.) In short, Fridman discloses sending current data
regarding the environment, i.e., environmental data, to the server.
Fridman also discloses that when the new data indicates a change in a
landmark, “the server may determine that the new data should trigger an
update to the model.” (Id. ¶ 271.) In other words, the environmental data
sent to the server is compared to the data stored in the server.
In view of these disclosures, we do not find persuasive Appellant’s
argument that “Fridman appears to teach that the static information in the
beacon is compared with the information in the model to determine whether
Appeal 2020-002246
Application 15/455,647

13
the model should be updated.” (See Appeal Br. 8.) Appellant’s other
arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8.
Claim 15 is not separately argued and falls with claim 8. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

The § 103 rejections of claims 9–14 and 16–20
Appellant’s arguments regarding the rejections of dependent claims
9–14 and 16–20 under § 103 are based on the arguments presented for
independent claim 8. For the above reasons, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9–14 and 16–20.

New ground of rejection of claims 1 and 3–7
Claim 1 recites (emphasis added):
1. A method for providing updatable roadway codes
comprising:
locating a roadway code along a roadway, wherein the
roadway code is invisible to a user, wherein the roadway code
includes at least one of the following: a static portion and a
dynamic portion;
determining stored data associated with the dynamic
portion provided by the roadway code;
providing at least a portion of the stored data to the user;
capturing environmental data along the roadway, wherein
the environmental data corresponds with the stored data;
comparing the stored data with the environmental data to
determine whether the stored data is accurate; and
in response to determining that the stored data is not
accurate, providing a communication to update the stored data.

Claim 1 recites that the roadway code includes at least one of a static
portion and a dynamic portion. In other words, the roadway code need not
Appeal 2020-002246
Application 15/455,647

14
include a dynamic portion. Yet the remaining limitations of claim 1 recite
“determining stored data associated with the dynamic portion,” and
performing steps involving the stored data (i.e., providing, capturing,
comparing, and in response). It is unclear what these steps do when the
roadway code includes only a static portion. Claim 1 violates the
definiteness requirement of § 112(b) which requires that the specification
“conclude with one or more claims ‘particularly pointing out and distinctly
claiming the subject matter which the inventor . . . regards as the
invention.’” See In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see
also Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).
In view of the above, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or
dependent claims 3–7, because this rejection is necessarily based on
speculative assumptions as to the meaning of the claim. See In re Steele,
305 F.2d 859, 862–63 (CCPA 1962). It must be understood, however, that
our decision regarding this rejection is based solely on the ambiguity of the
claim and does not reflect in any manner on the adequacy or the prior art
evidence relied on in the Examiner’s rejection.
Further in view of the above, and pursuant to our authority under 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION against
claims 1 and 3–7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 9–14 and 16–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 are affirmed.
Appeal 2020-002246
Application 15/455,647

15
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) is
reversed.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 3–7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are
reversed.
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we enter a NEW
GROUND OF REJECTION against claims 1 and 3–7 under 35 U.S.C
§ 112(b) as indefinite.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Section 41.50(b) provides that, “[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review.” Section 41.50(b) further provides that Appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both,
and have the matter reconsidered by the Examiner, in which event the
proceeding will be remanded to the Examiner.
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under
§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same record.

Appeal 2020-002246
Application 15/455,647

16
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed New
Ground
1, 8, 15 102(a)(1) Fridman 8, 15 1
3, 4, 9,
10, 16,
17
103 Fridman,
Ng-Thow-Hing
9, 10, 16,
17
3, 4
5–7, 11–
14, 18–
20
103 Fridman, Dickson 11–14,
18–20
5–7
1, 3–7 112(b) Indefiniteness 1, 3–7
Overall
Outcome
8–20 1, 3–7 1, 3–7

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-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)