Ex Parte Danz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 22, 2012

10564371 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 10/564,371 07/19/2006 Christian Danz 10191/4030 7826 26646 7590 10/22/2012 KENYON & KENYON LLP ONE BROADWAY NEW YORK, NY 10004 EXAMINER FAN, HONGMIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2685 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/22/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte CHRISTIAN DANZ and CYRILLE BOLLENGIER ____________ Appeal 2010-006386 Application 10/564,371 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and TRENTON A. WARD, Administrative Patent Judges. WARD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 12, and 14-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to determining the position of a vehicle during a parking operation, an anticipated parking trajectory of the vehicle, Appeal 2010-006386 Application 10/564,371 2 and the anticipated parking position. See generally Spec. 5:2-27. Claim 11 is illustrative: 11. A method for determining at least one of a position and an anticipated position of a vehicle during a parking operation in relation to an oncoming lane of a multi-lane roadway, comprising: determining a position of the oncoming lane in relation to the vehicle at a beginning of the parking operation; determining an anticipated final parking position of the vehicle using at least one electronic sensor; determining an anticipated parking trajectory of the vehicle using the anticipated final parking position of the vehicle determined by the at least one electronic sensor; determining at least one potential intersection of the anticipated parking trajectory with the oncoming lane; and providing a signal in the presence of at least one actual intersection of the parking trajectory with the oncoming lane, the signal being processed. THE REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 11, 12, and 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shimizu (US 2002/0041239 A1; published Apr. 11, 2002) in view of Pawlicki (US 7,038,577 B2; published May 2, 2006; filed Apr. 30, 2003). Ans. 3-6.1 THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER SHIMIZU AND PAWLICKI Based on arguments for claims 11, 12 and 14-20, we select claim 11 as representative. The Examiner finds that Shimizu discloses every recited feature of representative claim 11 except for determining the potential intersection with an oncoming lane and proving a warning signal, but cites 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed Aug. 24, 2009; (2) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed Nov. 24, 2009; and (3) the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed Jan. 26, 2010. Appeal 2010-006386 Application 10/564,371 3 Pawlicki as teaching these features in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 5. Appellants argue that Shimizu and Pawlicki do not suggest anything about: “determining a position of the oncoming lane in relation to the vehicle at a beginning of the parking operation; . . . ; determining at least one potential intersection of the anticipated parking trajectory with the oncoming lane; and providing a signal in the presence of at least one actual intersection of the parking trajectory with the oncoming lane.” App. Br. 5 (quoting claim 11 (emphases omitted) (ellipsis in original)). Specifically, Appellants argue that “the lane-departure warning system of Pawlicki is fundamentally unrelated to the present claimed invention . . . .” App. Br. 6. ISSUE Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 11 by finding that Shimizu and Pawlicki collectively would have taught or suggested determining a position of the oncoming lane in relation to the vehicle at a beginning of the parking operation; determining at least one potential intersection of the anticipated parking trajectory with the oncoming lane; and providing a signal in the presence of at least one actual intersection of the parking trajectory with the oncoming lane? ANALYSIS On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of representative claim 11. The Examiner finds that Shimizu discloses “a display unit to visually display to a driver a target parking Appeal 2010-006386 Application 10/564,371 4 position, a subject vehicle position, an expected parking position in the case where the subject vehicle travels with a predetermined steering angle . . . .” Ans. 4. The Examiner concedes that Shimizu does not disclose determining a potential intersection with an oncoming lane and providing a warning signal, but finds that it would have been obvious to combine the lane departure warning system disclosed in Pawlicki with the parking aid system disclosed in Shimizu to arrive at the claimed invention of claim 11. First, Appellants argue that “the lane-departure warning system of Pawlicki has absolutely nothing to do with a parking-assistance technique, and there is clearly no suggestion in Pawlicki regarding determination of an intersection of ‘the anticipated parking trajectory with the oncoming lane.’” App. Br. 5 (quoting claim 11 (emphases omitted)). Contrary to the Appellants arguments, the record establishes that Pawlicki is related to a parking-assistance technique because, as cited by the Examiner, Pawlicki suggests the use of its lane departure warning system to “assist the driver in changing lanes or parking the vehicle.” Pawlicki, col. 1, l. 22 (emphasis added). Second, Appellants argue that the disclosure of a warning regarding “oncoming traffic” in Pawlicki does not equate with the “oncoming lane” recited in claim 11. App. Br. 5-6. Based on the record before us, we see no error in the Examiner’s findings with respect to the “oncoming lane” in Pawlicki. Specifically, the Examiner finds that lane departure warning system in Pawlicki can “monitor the lane markings 113e along the road surface and monitor the potential presence of oncoming traffic in an adjacent lane or lanes.” Ans. 5. Figure 13 of Pawlicki, reproduced below, shows the Appeal 2010-006386 Application 10/564,371 5 lane markings 113e that are monitored by the lane departure warning system 110 in vehicle 12. Pawlicki’s Figure 13 shows a view of vehicle lane departure warning system 110 in vehicle 12 monitoring lane marking 113e. The embodiment illustrated in Figure 13 of Pawlicki illustrates the use of the lane departure warning system 110 “to monitor the lane markings and the potential presence of adjacent traffic . . . .” Pawlicki, col. 25, ll. 31-32 (emphasis added). In another embodiment disclosed in Pawlicki, and cited by the Examiner, the lane departure warning system 110 is used to “monitor the lane markings 113e along the road surface and monitor the potential presence of oncoming traffic in an adjacent lane or lanes.” Pawlicki, col. 25, ll. 11-13 (emphasis added). As found by the Examiner, the “lane marking 113e clearly defines ‘oncoming lane,’ regardless if there is oncoming traffic or no oncoming traffic.” Ans. 8. Appellants further contend that “the lane-departure warning system of Pawlicki is fundamentally unrelated to the present claimed invention . . . .” App. Br. 6. Contrary to this argument, Appellants’ own Specification Appeal 2010-006386 Application 10/564,371 6 expressly states that “[i]mage data of a video-based lane departure warning (LDW) system may be additionally used,” which can allow for an “accurate determination of the position of vehicle 10 within lane 18 . . . .” Spec. 5:12- 16. Accordingly, the parking aid system disclosed in Shimizu and a lane departure warning system, such as the one disclosed in Pawlicki, are related as is, in fact, admitted by Appellants’ Specification. Appellants also contend that “the overall teachings of Shimizu and Pawlicki contradict the modification asserted by the Examiner” because the “Shimizu reference clearly indicates that an object of the invention is to simplify and reduce the cost of its system.” App. Br. 7. Specifically, Appellants cite Shimizu’s statement that the system “‘can be realized with very low cost’” because “‘there is no need for an image processing device.’” Id. (quoting Shimizu, ¶ 0009 (emphasis omitted)). Although Shimizu discloses a “first embodiment” capable of “achieving a cost efficient parking aid system,” it further discloses a “second embodiment” that incorporates a “vehicle speed sensor” and other sensor devices. Shimizu, ¶¶ 0136-37, 0142. Accordingly, the disclosure in Shimizu teaches both a low-cost embodiment and a more complex embodiment, incorporating sensors similar to those used in Pawlicki’s lane departure warning system. Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s combination of Shimizu and Pawlicki. In their Reply Brief, Appellants contend that the Examiner’s finding that one of skill in the art would expect a vehicle to veer across the median line and often across into the oncoming lane during parking in a congested area is a “‘mere conclusory statement[]’ which the Supreme Court explicitly noted in KSR as being inadequate for sustaining an obviousness rejection.” Reply Br. 3. In addition to noting in KSR that a “mere conclusory Appeal 2010-006386 Application 10/564,371 7 statement” is inadequate for an obviousness finding, the Supreme Court further stated that “the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The Examiner’s findings with respect to a vehicle veering across the median line when parking in a congested area take into account the creative steps that a person of ordinary skill the art would employ. Ans. 7-8. In fact, the general knowledge of one of skill in the art regarding the expected crossing into an oncoming lane is expressly recognized in Appellants’ Specification. Appellants’ Specification states that “[i]t is often unavoidable that vehicle 10 crosses lane boundary 20 of its own lane 18 during the backward parking operation, thereby protruding into oncoming lane 16.” Spec. 4:21-23 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Examiner’s findings with respect to it being generally known that a parking operation may result in veering across a median line is not a “mere conclusory statement,” but supported by the disclosure in a cited reference and Appellants’ own Specification. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 11, 12, and 14-20 under § 103. Appeal 2010-006386 Application 10/564,371 8 ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 11, 12, and 14-20 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED babc