ZONAR SYSTEMS, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 15, 2021

2020003198 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 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.
15/679,064 08/16/2017 BRYAN HUNT ZONA0166 2805
17867 7590 03/15/2021
Continental Automotive Systems, Inc.
Patents & Licenses
21440 W Lake Cook Road
Deer Park, IL 60010
EXAMINER
MUSTAFA, IMRAN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/15/2021 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):
michele@intproplaw.com
patentsus@continental-corporation.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRYAN HUNT
Appeal 2020-003198
Application 15/679,064
Technology Center 3600
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, 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, 3, 5, 6, and 8–11. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

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 Zonar Systems,
Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-003198
Application 15/679,064
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “[e]mergency event based vehicle data
logging.” Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. In a telematics system for use in a road vehicle, the
telematics system being configured to collect and log at least
one type of vehicle data during operation of the vehicle, and
comprising:
(a) a geographical position sensing component for
collecting geographical position data from the road vehicle
during vehicle operation, the geographical position data being
time indexed;
(b) a memory for storing road vehicle data;
(c) a real time wireless data link;
(c) a processor for implementing the functions of:
(i) collecting and logging vehicle data at a
first collecting and logging frequency, according to a
predefined data logging paradigm and periodically using the
real time wireless data link to send this data to a remote
computing device;
(ii) the improvement comprising, in
response to the activation of an item of emergency equipment at
the vehicle, increasing the amount of vehicle position data
collected per unit of time by collecting and logging data at a
second collecting and logging frequency that is higher than said
first collecting and logging frequency, the item of emergency
equipment comprising at least one element from a group
consisting of:
(A) an emergency siren;
(B) an emergency light;
Appeal 2020-003198
Application 15/679,064
3
(C) an emergency communications
data link; and
(D) a panic button; and
(iii) returning to the predefined data logging
paradigm to collect vehicle data at said first collecting and
logging frequency, once the item of emergency equipment is
deactivated.
Appeal Br. (Claims App. 2).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
McMillan US 6,064,970 May 16, 2000
Pierce US 2005/0083404 A1 Apr. 21, 2005
Hershey US 2009/0082919 A1 Mar. 26, 2009
Johnson US 2014/0167954 A1 June 19, 2014

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, and 8–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Pierce, Hershey, and McMillan. Final Act. 3–6.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Pierce, Hershey, McMillan, and Johnson. Final Act. 6–7.
OPINION
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 3, and 8–11 over Pierce, Hershey,
and McMillan
The Examiner finds Pierce, Hershey, and McMillan teach all
limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 3–6. In particular, the Examiner finds
Hershey teaches
Appeal 2020-003198
Application 15/679,064
4
collecting and logging data at a first collecting and logging
frequency and increasing the amount of vehicle data collected
per unit of item by collecting and logging data at a second
collecting and logging frequency that is higher than said first
collecting and logging frequency, and returning to the predefined
data logging paradigm to collect vehicle data at said first
collecting and logging frequency.
Final Act. 5 (citing Hershey ¶ 21).
Appellant presents the following principal arguments:
i. Hershey is non-analogous art because the Examiner has
fashioned “an Ersatz field of endeavor for the present application.” Appeal
Br. 3; see also Reply Br. 2–3. “The Ersatz field of endeavor, ‘obtaining data
from vehicle sensors and having a varied sampling rate’ bears a number of
significant problems.” Appeal Br. 4. “The Office cannot have it both ways,
assigning one field of endeavor to the present application for purposes of
supporting a claim that the Pierce reference is analogous prior art, but then a
separate field of endeavor for purposes of claiming that the Hershey
reference is analogous prior art.” Appeal Br. 4. “A reasonable field of
endeavor for the present application would be, ‘to modify the operation of an
emergency response road vehicle data logging system to deliver a more
detailed accounting of road vehicle emergency operations.’” Appeal Br. 4.
“[T]he ‘reality of the circumstances’ and ‘common sense’ indicate that a
person having ordinary skill in the art would not look in the aircraft art or the
art of ‘controlling combustion engines’ for references, but rather to art
relating emergency road vehicles, e.g. police cars and ambulances.” Appeal
Br. 4. “If the technique of fashioning a ‘field of endeavor,’ from the targeted
claim language were permitted, it would eviscerate the Bigio holding and
Appeal 2020-003198
Application 15/679,064
5
every reference would have to be considered analogous prior art.” Appeal
Br. 4.
ii. “The Hershey reference does not disclose altering the rate of
vehicle position data collection, and it is far too great a leap to assert that
changing the rate of data logging from vibration sensors, suggests changing
the rate of data logging for position sensors.” Appeal Br. 5; see also Reply
Br. 3.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
Regarding Appellant’s argument (i), the question of whether a person
of ordinary skill in the art would look to a reference—i.e., whether a
reference is analogous art—asks whether the particular reference is
analogous to Appellant’s claimed subject matter. More specifically, prior art
is analogous art to the claimed invention if either (1) the art is from the same
field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different
problem); or (2) the art is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the
inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed
invention). In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (emphasis
added); see also id. at 1325 (explaining that the first test “requires the PTO
to determine the appropriate field of endeavor by reference to explanations
of the invention’s subject matter in the patent application, including the
embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention.”).
The field of endeavor of the claimed invention is “[e]mergency event
based vehicle data logging.” Spec., Title. The problem faced by the inventor
is “to facilitate collecting relatively more data during unusual operating
Appeal 2020-003198
Application 15/679,064
6
conditions, and relatively less data during normal vehicle operation.” Spec.,
¶ 2.
We determine Pierce is in the same field of endeavor as Appellant’s
invention. See Pierce ¶ 84 ([I]n some constructions, EVENT recording is
initiated when the operator activates the siren 14 and/or the light bar 12,
and/or AUX input.”); see also Ans. 5 (“Pierce and Hershey are in the same
field of endeavor since both deal with collecting via sensors data on board a
vehicle or aircraft during a critical event.”).
We also determine Hershey is in the same field of endeavor as
Appellant’s invention. See Hershey ¶ 21 (“This period of a higher range of
readings is an example of a transient data segment, and once detected, may
trigger the data storage sampling rate component 16 to record data from all
the sensors at a more frequent rate in order to collect detailed data on how
the aircraft performs in turbulent conditions.”); see also Ans. 5 (“Pierce and
Hershey are in the same field of endeavor since both deal with collecting via
sensors data on board a vehicle or aircraft during a critical event.”).
We also determine Hershey is reasonably pertinent to the problem
faced by the inventor because Hershey collects relatively more data during a
transient (unusual operating) condition. See Hershey ¶ 21; see also Ans. 5–6
(“During this triggering of the emergency event the present application and
the Hershey reference increase the frequency in which data is collected in
order to collect[] detailed data during an emergency or critical event.”).
Thus, Appellant’s argument (i) does not show any reversible error in
the Examiner’s findings.
Regarding Appellant’s argument (ii),
[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
Appeal 2020-003198
Application 15/679,064
7
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the
art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Appellant’s particularized
arguments are directed to the individual references, while the contested
findings are based on the collective teachings of the references. Pierce
teaches collecting vehicle position data. See Pierce ¶ 72 (“The GPS engine
88 then transmits vehicle location data across line 58 or otherwise to the
controller 31 and the recording media 44 for storage on the recording
media 44.”). Hershey teaches collecting relatively more data during a
transient condition. See Hershey ¶ 21 (“This period of a higher range of
readings is an example of a transient data segment, and once detected, may
trigger the data storage sampling rate component 16 to record data from all
the sensors at a more frequent rate in order to collect detailed data on how
the aircraft performs in turbulent conditions.”). The Examiner provides a
reason to combine these teachings that is rational and supported by evidence
drawn from the record. See Final Act. 5 (“for the purpose of collecting more
data during a trigger event since a trigger event (emergency equipment
activated) is a time where the data collected would be more significant”); see
also Ans. 6 (“since the data collected at this time would be more
significant”), Hershey ¶ 21.
Thus, Appellant’s argument (ii) does not show any reversible error in
the Examiner’s findings.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appeal 2020-003198
Application 15/679,064
8
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 9, and 11, which
are not separately argued with particularity.2 See Appeal Br. 3–5; see also
Reply Br. 2–4.
Claims 8 and 10 each require returning to the first collecting and
logging frequency after at least one of the following events:
[(a)] the vehicle remains motionless for more than a
predetermined period of time;
[(b)] a predetermined period of time elapses;
[(c)] the vehicle arrives at a location corresponding to a
fleet vehicle storage yard; and
[(d)] the vehicle arrives at a location corresponding to an
emergency location.
Claims 8 and 10.
The Examiner finds Pierce teaches the further recited subject matter.
Final Act. 6 (citing Pierce ¶¶ 84, 86); see also Ans. 7.
Appellant presents the following principal argument:
A “predetermined time period” is disclosed, but only to preserve
data in the event the system is activated a little late. That is, a
minute of data (for example) is constantly recorded fresh, so that
the minute before the officer presses the siren button (for
example) will be available on the recording of the emergency
response. But this is very different [than] ‘timing out” the higher
data sampling rate, as indicated in paragraph (b) of claims 8 and
10. None of the other conditions appears at all.
Appeal Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 3–4.
Appellant’s argument persuades us the Examiner erred in finding
Pierce teaches the further recited subject matter of claims 8 and 10.

2 Claim 3 depends from claim 2, which is canceled. If prosecution continues,
claim 3 should be corrected.
Appeal 2020-003198
Application 15/679,064
9
Pierce discloses “the recording media 44 saves the previously
recorded data (up to 1 minute of data) and all data collected after
OPERATOR-INITIATED or EVENT recording is initiated until the
operator presses STOP in act 124 or act 126.” Pierce ¶ 86 (emphasis added).
Thus, Pierce discloses recording until the operator presses stop. In
contrast, the claims require returning to the first collecting and logging
frequency after at least one of certain events. Based on our interpretation of
the events listed in claim 8 and 10, these events are based on time or on a
state of the vehicle. None of the recited events encompass an action of an
operator as disclosed in Pierce at paragraph ¶ 86.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8
and 10.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 5 and 6 over Pierce, Hershey,
McMillan, and Johnson
Appellant does not present separate arguments for this ground of
rejection. See Appeal Br. 3–5; see also Reply Br. 2–4.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 6.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 11 is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 8 and 10 is reversed.
Appeal 2020-003198
Application 15/679,064
10
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 8–11 103(a) Pierce, Hershey,
McMillan
1, 3, 9, 11 8, 10
5, 6 103(a) Pierce, Hershey,
McMillan, Johnson
5, 6
Overall
Outcome
1, 3, 5, 6, 9,
11
8, 10

TIME PERIOD FOR 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 IN PART