Ex Parte Aunkofer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2017

13028905 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2017)

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.
13/028,905 02/16/2011 Markus Aunkofer 502901-769-295003.000 9662
27799 7590
Cozen O'Connor
277 Park Avenue, 20th floor
NEW YORK, NY 10172
EXAMINER
EUSTAQUIO, CAL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2017 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):
patentsecretary @ cozen. com
patentdocket@cozen.com
patentsorter@cozen.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARKUS AUNKOFER,
MARC MENZEL, and ULRICH STAHLIN
Appeal 2016-000949
Application 13/028,9051
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., SHARON FENICK, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1—11, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. (Appeal Br. 2.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b)(1).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Continental Automotive GmbH as the real party in
interest. (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal 2016-000949
Application 13/028,905
Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to traffic-related local information. A
vehicle includes a reception device to receive data sent from a device in
another vehicle in the vicinity. Traffic-related local information is
ascertained from this received data. (Spec. Abstract.)
Representative Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative:
1. A method for ascertaining at least one traffic-related local
information item for a first vehicle, comprising:
using a reception device of at least one first radio system
of the first vehicle to receive data including the at least one
traffic-related local information item that is transmitted from a
second radio system in at least a second vehicle in a vicinity of
the first vehicle defined by a reception range of the reception
device, wherein the reception device in the at least first radio
system is configured for vehicle-internal capture and evaluation
of data for at least a first operating variable from the one vehicle;
and
ascertaining the at least one traffic-related local
information item from the data received from the second radio
system,
wherein the at least one traffic-related local information
item is a vehicle density information item.
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5—7, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Logan (US 2007/0037605 Al; pub. Feb. 15,
2007) and Hutchins et al. (US 2005/0040970 Al; pub. Feb. 24, 2005)
(“Hutchins”). (Final Action 2—7.)
2
Appeal 2016-000949
Application 13/028,905
The Examiner rejects claims 2, 3, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Logan, Hutchins, and Aubel et al. (US 2003/0021330 Al;
pub. Jan. 30, 2003) (“Aubel”). (Final Action 7—9.)
The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Logan, Hutchins, and Gaddy et al. (US 2007/0063824 Al;
pub. Mar. 22, 2007) (“Gaddy”). (Final Action 9-10.)
Issues
Appellants raise the following issues:
(A) Did the Examiner err in finding that Logan, in combination with
Hutchins, teaches or suggests transmitting a traffic-related local information
item between vehicles?
(B) Did the Examiner err in finding that Hutchins, in combination
with Logan, teaches or suggests a monitoring apparatus in a vehicle?
ANALYSIS
Logan, cited by the Examiner in the rejection of claim 1, relates to
alerts regarding the relative position of a cell phone and another object.
(Logan, || 19-24, Abstract.) In one embodiment, rules may be established
by a user to determine an action which occurs as a result of a condition, with
the condition satisfied by relative positions of two of a plurality of electronic
devices. {Id. at || 85—89.) In one example, the user’s cell phone and the
user’s vehicle are two of the electronic devices. {Id. at || 90-91.)
Hutchins, which is also used by the Examiner in the rejection of claim
1, relates to a system for providing information in roadways and other traffic
ways. (Hutchins, Abstract.) Road sensors, which may sense traffic density,
3
Appeal 2016-000949
Application 13/028,905
are positioned along the roadway and convey signals regarding sensed road
conditions to a vehicle receiver. {Id. at 152.)
The Examiner finds that the combination of Logan and Hutchins
teaches or suggests all the elements of claim 1. (Final Action 3—6.)
Specifically, the Examiner finds that Logan discloses the claimed invention,
with the exceptions of (i) a disclosure of vehicle-to-vehicle communications
in Logan, and of (ii) the traffic-related local information item being a vehicle
density information item. {Id.) With respect to vehicle-to-vehicle
communications, the Examiner finds that the invention of Logan “surrounds
the interaction between two electronic devices . . . inside their respective
vehicles” and cites Logan’s embodiment in which a user has a hand held
cellular phone and the user’s automobile includes a second cellular link. {Id.
at 4—6.) Additionally, with respect traffic density information, the Examiner
concludes that Hutchins teaches or suggests a traffic density sensor
transmitting information regarding traffic density information. {Id. at 5—6.)
(A) Findings with Respect to Logan
Appellants argue, with respect to the Examiner’s findings regarding
Logan and the claimed first and second vehicles, that the Examiner maps a
cell phone and a Bluetooth-equipped watch to the first and second radio
systems, and that “there is no reason to consider putting a cell phone in a
first vehicle and a Bluetooth equipped watch linked to the cell phone in a
second vehicle.” (Appeal Br. 6.) However, we agree with the Examiner
(Answer 7—8) that this argument is unpersuasive, as it focuses on the watch
and cell phone embodiment of Logan, and does not address the Examiner’s
reliance on the disclosure in Logan that one possible device in
4
Appeal 2016-000949
Application 13/028,905
communication would be a cellular link in a user vehicle. (Final Action 4,
citing Logan H 90-91, Fig. 3.)
Appellants further argue that “there is no way to extrapolate” Logan’s
interdevice communication “to unrelated devices in separate vehicles.”
(Appeal Br. 7) and that Logan does not suggest “intervehicular
communication between devices that a user does not own and operate”
(Reply Br. 3.) However, these arguments are not commensurate with the
scope of the claim and thus unpersuasive, as the claim language does not set
forth a requirement of disjoint ownership of the first and second vehicles.
Appellants do not present further arguments with respect to the Examiner’s
findings regarding intra-vehicle communications taught or suggested by
Logan to one of ordinary skill in the art (see, generally, Appeal Br. 6—7;
Reply Br. 2—3), such as findings regarding the use of Logan’s inter-device
communication from cell phones in two vehicles to allow “one party in a
family to ascertain the location of another.” (Final Action 4.)
Appellants also argue that Logan’s disclosure of the calculation and
transmission of information regarding the distance between two devices
calculated in Logan is not properly analogous to traffic-related local
information. (Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 2—3.) However, Appellants’
Specification provides that “the traffic-related local information item can be
a vehicle density information item and/or a distance information item
relating to the other vehicle and/or a relative movement information item for
the one and the other vehicle or the other vehicles.” (Spec. 118, emphasis
added.) Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the transmission of a
distance calculation teaches or suggests the transmission of traffic-related
local information.
5
Appeal 2016-000949
Application 13/028,905
(B) Findings with Respect to Hutchins
Appellants argue, with respect to the Examiner’s findings regarding
Hutchins, that Hutchins discloses only a stationary monitoring apparatus.
(Appeal Br. 8.) However, the Examiner finds that Hutchins’ teaching that a
sensor may be positioned “in or along the highway” would teach or suggest
the positioning in other vehicles, in order to “forewarn other uninvolved
motorists” of the presence of a first responder at a traffic-density scene.
(Final Action 5; Answer 9—10.) We agree with the Examiner’s finding
(Final Action 5—6) that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found
Hutchins to teach or suggest that possibility for road sensors. We
additionally note that, while not cited by the Examiner, Hutchins contains a
description of a vehicle sensor which records that the vehicle “is stationary
and may be involved in an accident, or broken down,” and reports this event
to trigger warnings to vehicles elsewhere along the travel way. (Hutchins 1
50.)
We are, therefore, not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s findings
regarding the teachings and suggestions of the combination of Logan and
Hutchins and we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). Claim 7 is argued on substantially the same bases (Appeal Br. 9),
and we additionally affirm the Examiner’s rejection of that claim, and of
claims 2—6 and 8—11, not separately argued with particularity. (Appeal Br.
8-10.)
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable.
6
Appeal 2016-000949
Application 13/028,905
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv), no time period for taking any
subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended.
AFFIRMED
7