YAMAHA HATSUDOKI KABUSHIKI KAISHA

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 23, 2020

15026712 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 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.
15/026,712 04/01/2016 Keisuke MORISHIMA 90606.1380/su 5334
54071 7590 10/23/2020
YAMAHA
C/O KEATING & BENNETT, LLP
1800 Alexander Bell Drive
SUITE 200
Reston, VA 20191
EXAMINER
BULLINGTON, ROBERT P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/23/2020 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):
JKEATING@KBIPLAW.COM
sfunk@kbiplaw.com
uspto@kbiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEISUKE MORISHIMA

Appeal 2019-005974
Application 15/026,712
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JOHN C. KERINS, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOODS, 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 13–21, 23, and 24. See Appeal Br. 20.
Claims 1–12 and 22 are cancelled. Id. at Claims App. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Yamaha
Hatsudoki Kabushiki Kaisha. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-005974
Application 15/026,712

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The application is titled “DRIVING SKILL EVALUATION
METHOD, DRIVING SKILL EVALUATION PROGRAM, DRIVING
SKILL EVALUATION APPARATUS, AND VEHICLE PROVIDED
THEREWITH.” Spec. 1. Claims 13, 16, and 19 are independent. Appeal
Br. 22–29 (Claims App.). Claim 19, reproduced below with emphasis added
to a limitation central to our analysis, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
19. A driving skill evaluation apparatus comprising:
a controller configured or programmed to include:
a skill evaluation unit that evaluates a driving skill of a
driver based on a detection value of a vehicle state detected by a
vehicle state detector;
a component separating unit that separates the detection
value of the vehicle state detected by the vehicle state detector
into a driver’s operation component reflecting a driver’s motion
and a non-driver’s operation component without reflecting the
driver’s motion; and
a skill evaluation modifying unit that corrects or abandons
an evaluation of the driving skill based on at least one of an
amount of the driver’s operation component and an amount of
the non-driver’s operation component.
Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphasis added).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Kuramori US 2007/0290867 A1 Dec. 20, 2007
Iyoda US 2010/0076649 A1 Mar. 25, 2010
Huang US 2010/0209889 A1 Aug. 19, 2010

Appeal 2019-005974
Application 15/026,712

3
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 13–21, 23, and 24 as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kuramori in view of Huang, citing Iyoda as
evidence. Final Act. 3.
OPINION
The issue is whether the Examiner’s combination satisfies the claim
limitation, “a component separating unit that separates the detection value of
the vehicle state detected by the vehicle state detector into a driver’s
operation component reflecting a driver’s motion and a non-driver’s
operation component without reflecting the driver’s motion.” Appeal Br. at
Claims App. (Claim 19); see also id. (independent claims 13 and 16 (reciting
similar limitations)).
To address the claims, the Examiner cites to Kuramori’s Figure 2
(Final Act. 3), which we reproduce below:

Appeal 2019-005974
Application 15/026,712

4
Figure 2 is a schematic configuration view that depicts an embodiment of
Kuramori’s apparatus for evaluating a driver’s skill. Kuramori ¶ 31. The
Examiner finds that this Figure discloses the majority of the claimed
limitations. Final Act. 3. In particular, the Examiner makes the following
findings in addressing the claim limitations:
(1) Controller (CPU 48) configured or programmed to include;
(2) Skill evaluation unit that evaluates a driving skill of a driver
based on a detection value of a vehicle state (data processing
means 40);
(3) Component separating unit (driving skill level judging
section 44) that separates the detection value of the vehicle
state detected by the vehicle state detector into a driver’s
operation component reflecting a driver’s motion (physical
load measure means 30) and a non-driver’s operation
component without reflecting the driver’s motion (operation
quantity measurement means 20); and
(4) Skill evaluation modifying unit that corrects or abandons an
evaluation of the driving skill based on at least one of an
amount of the driver’s operation component and an amount
of the non-driver’s operation component (evaluation value
calculating section 42).
Id. The Examiner acknowledges, however, that Kuramori does not
explicitly teach a “vehicle state detector.” Id. The Examiner determines that
the Specification defines “vehicle state detector” as including “a stroke
sensor 61, a steering angle sensor 62, and a vehicle speed sensor 64.” Id. at
3–4 (citing Spec. ¶ 119).
To address the missing limitation, the Examiner relies on Huang for
disclosing a “vehicle state detector” (based on this definition) and cites
Huang’s disclosure of a maneuver identification processor that utilizes a
vehicle speed sensor, a steering wheel angle sensor, a steering angle sensor
Appeal 2019-005974
Application 15/026,712

5
at the wheels, and a suspension travel sensor. Id. at 4 (citing Huang ¶ 81).
The Examiner cites to Iyoda as evidence that Huang’s suspension travel
sensor is a stroke sensor. Id. (citing Iyoda ¶¶ 35, 36). Based on this
evidence, the Examiner finds that Huang teaches a “vehicle state detector”
as defined in the Specification, and proposes to modify Kuramori to meet the
limitation. See id.
In contesting the rejection, Appellant argues, “Kuramori does not
teach or suggest separating the detection value of the vehicle state into a
driver’s operation component and a non-driver’s operation component,” as
recited in the claims. Appeal Br. 5. Appellant explains, “the driver’s
operation component obtained from the physical load measurement means
30 and the non-driver’s operation component obtained from the operation
quantity measurement means 20 of Kuramori are separately detected and
then combined, and are not separated after being combined.” Id.
In response to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner cites to paragraph
80 of Kuramori (Ans. 3), which discloses in its entirety:
The mental quantity or the running state quantity
described above may be independently treated as evaluation
values. Moreover, total points obtained by adding the index
obtained from the physical load quantity information and the
operation quantity information to the index of the mental
quantity or the running state quantity may be used to
comprehensively evaluate the driving skill of the driver 12.
Kuramori ¶ 80 (italicized emphasis added). The Examiner explains that the
“mental quality” is “derived in part from Kuramori’s physical load
measurement means 30 and reasonably interpreted as Appellant’s ‘drivers
operational component reflecting drivers motion.’” Ans. 3. The Examiner
further explains that because the “mental quality” and “running state
Appeal 2019-005974
Application 15/026,712

6
quantity” “may be independently treated as evaluation values,” “they are
reasonably understood to be separated . . . [and this] is performed in
Kuramori’s ‘evaluation value calculating section 42 after values are
combined in Kuramori’s Driving skill level judging section 44 as illustrated
in FIG. 2.” Id. at 3–4 (emphasis omitted).
In the Reply Brief, Appellant contends that “the Examiner’s allegation
that values are separated in the evaluation value calculation section 42 . . . is
another clear factual error.” Reply Br. 3.
Appellant has the better position.
The claims explicitly require a “component separating unit” that
“separates the detection value of the vehicle state . . . into a driver’s
operation component reflecting a driver’s motion and a non-driver’s
operation component.” See, e.g., Appeal Br. at Claims App. (Claim 19).
We find nothing in Kuramori’s paragraph 80 to support the
Examiner’s position that the “mental quantity” (which the Examiner asserts
is derived from Kuramori’s physical load measurement means 30) and the
“running state quantity” (which the Examiner asserts is the claimed “driver’s
operational component”) are “reasonably understood to be separated” in
Kuramori’s driving skill level judging section 44. See Ans. 3–4; see also
Reply Br. 3 (arguing the same).
Critical to our analysis are the following Examiner findings:
(1) Kuramori’s physical load measurement means 30 satisfies the
claimed “driver’s operation component reflecting a driver’s
motion”;
(2) Kuramori’s operation quantity measurement means 20
satisfies the claimed “non-driver’s operation component”;
and
Appeal 2019-005974
Application 15/026,712

7
(3) Kuramori’s driving skill level judging section 44 satisfies the
claimed “component separating unit that separates.”
Final Act. 3 (citing Kuramori Fig. 2). As can be seen from Kuramori’s
Figure 2, however, and as argued by Appellant, “[a]t no point in the
operations performed by the evaluation value calculating section 42 and the
driving skill level judging section 44 of Kuramori are any of the above-
described values separated from another value.” Reply Br. 3. Rather,
Figure 2 depicts “driver’s operation component reflecting a driver’s motion”
(30) as initially being separate from “non-driver’s operation component”
(20) before both are sent to data processing means 40. The information is
then sent to evaluation value calculating section 42 to evaluate the driver for
judging at driving skill level judging section 44. See Kuramori ¶ 69
(explaining how evaluation value calculating section 42 uses physical load
quantity information—from measurement means 30—and operation quantity
information—from measurement means 20—to calculate a driver evaluation
value that represents the efficiency of the physical load on the driver to the
driving operation activity performed by the driver); see also id. at ¶ 71
(explaining how driving skill level judging section 44 compares the
evaluation value calculated by section 42 with a present evaluation value to
judge the driving skill of the driver); see also Reply Br. 3 (confirming the
same).
Because we do not find Kuramori’s “component separating unit”
(driving skill level judging section 44) as “separating” “a driver’s operation
component reflecting a driver’s motion” (physical load measurement means
30) from a “non-driver’s operation component” (operation quantity
measurement means 20), we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
Appeal 2019-005974
Application 15/026,712

8

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
13–21, 23, 24 103 Kuramori, Huang,
Iyoda (as evidence)
13–21, 23, 24

REVERSED