Ex Parte Engel

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 28, 2019

14095282 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/095,282 12/03/2013
20151 7590 01/30/2019
HENRY M FEIEREISEN, LLC
HENRY M FEIEREISEN
708 THIRD A VENUE
SUITE 1501
NEW YORK, NY 10017
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sebastian Engel
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
ENGEL-4 5697
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, NGA X
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/30/2019 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):
INFO@FEIEREISENLLC.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEBASTIAN ENGEL 1
Appeal2017-004563
Application 14/095,282
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Sebastian Engel (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5 and 7-15. We have jurisdiction
over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). An oral hearing was conducted on
January 8, 2019, with Alexandra K. Pechhold, Esq., appearing on behalf of
Appellant.
We AFFIRM.
1 Audi AG is the applicant, and is identified as the real party-in-interest in
the Appeal Brief. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-004563
Application 14/095,282
THE INVENTION
Appellant's invention relates to a method and device for providing a
vehicle driver assistance system. Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A method of providing to at least one driver assistance
system of a vehicle a course of a road ahead in relation to a
geographical position and a direction of travel of the vehicle
using the road, the method comprising the steps of:
a) with a position detection device of the vehicle, determining
the geographical position of the vehicle and detecting the
direction of travel of the vehicle on the road;
b) with a control device of the vehicle, which communicates with
a data server spaced from the vehicle and remotely
communicating with the control device, and which is coupled
with at least one driver's assistance system, retrieving from the
spaced from the vehicle data server in remote communication
with the control device aerial image data of a predetermined
area around the position of the vehicle;
c) with the control device of the vehicle, evaluating the aerial
image data retrieved from the spaced from the vehicle data server
remotely communicating with the control device, for extracting
road data at least of the used road by way of edge detection in the
aerial image;
d) with the control device of the vehicle, determining the position
of the vehicle relative to the road by combining the road data
with the position of the vehicle;
e) with the control device of the vehicle, determining the course
of the road from the road data in relation to the direction of travel,
and
2
Appeal2017-004563
Application 14/095,282
f) with the control device of the vehicle, which communicated
with the spaced from the vehicle data server remotely
communicating with the control device, controlling the at least
one driver assistance system which intervenes in a vehicle
dynamics depending on the course of the road and the position
of the vehicle determined at steps d) and e) ;
wherein at step e) the course of the road is determined only from
road sections that are to be driven by the vehicle according to a
predetermined route within the next few seconds or minutes.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-5 and 7-15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Cooprider (US 2012/0296539 Al,
published Nov. 22, 2012) in view of Dorfman (US 2005/0216186 Al,
published Sept. 29, 2005).
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues claims 1-5 and 7-15 as a group, providing no
separate arguments for patentability of any particular claims. See Br. 5-7. 2
No Reply Brief was filed in connection with this appeal. We take claim 1 as
representative of the group, and claims 2-5 and 7-15 stand or fall with claim
1.
2 Unless otherwise indicated, reference herein to the Appeal Brief is to the
Appeal Brief dated July 5, 2016. A supplemental submission, filed October
3, 2016, titled "RESPONSE TO NOTIFICATION OF NON-COMPLIANT APPEAL
BRIEF," provides a compliant "SUMMARY OF THE CLAIMED SUBJECT
MATTER" section required in an Appeal Brief.
3
Appeal2017-004563
Application 14/095,282
The Examiner cites to Cooprider as disclosing most of the limitations
set forth in claim 1, and finds that Dorfman discloses the limitations not
found in Cooprider. Non-Final Act. 3-5. The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to modify Cooprider to employ a server remotely
communicating with a vehicle-based processor to evaluate retrieved aerial
image data and extracting the road data from the aerial image data, and to
associate the vehicle with the road, in the manner disclosed in Dorfman, in
order to improve control of the driver assistance system of Cooprider. Id. at
5.
Appellant's arguments begin with essentially a restatement of the
grounds of rejection propounded by the Examiner. Br. 5-6. Appellant next
acknowledges certain teachings present in the Dorfman reference, and
follows that with a statement that Dorfman does not disclose
that a control device of the vehicle, which controls the driver's
assistance system, remotely retrieves from a data server, which
is spaced from the vehicle and is in communication with the
control device of the vehicle, aerial image data of a
predetermined area around the position of the vehicle, and the
control device of the vehicle, which controls the driver's
assistance system, then evaluates the aerial image data received
from the data server, which is spaced from the vehicle and is in
communication with the control device of the vehicle, for
extracting road data at least of the used road by way of edge
detection in the aerial image, and eventually at the end of the
processing of all data, it also controls the driver's assistance
system. These novel features of the present invention are simply
not disclosed in any of the references and not suggested by them.
Id. at 6-7.
Not only does the Examiner not rely on Dorfman for aspects related
specifically to a driver assistance system, the entire assertion is essentially "a
4
Appeal2017-004563
Application 14/095,282
mere recitation of [certain] ... claim elements and a naked assertion that the
corresponding elements were not found in the prior art," and is not a
substantive argument sufficient to identify potential error in the rejection.
See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("we hold that the
Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive
arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and
a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the
prior art."). See also, In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B. V., 911 F.3d 1157,
1162 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Appellant additionally argues that Dorfman is directed to only
obtaining and representing data with a vehicle control device, but does not
involve receiving and processing data to control a driver assistance system
with the vehicle control device. Br. 7. As foretold above, the Examiner's
rejection does not rely on Dorfman as teaching a driver assistance system,
but rather relies on Cooprider for such aspects, and the argument is not
commensurate with or responsive to the rejection as articulated.
Appellant's arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner's
ground of rejection of claim 1. The rejection of claim 1 is sustained. Claims
2-5 and 7-15 fall with claim 1.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-15 is affirmed.
5
Appeal2017-004563
Application 14/095,282
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.I36(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6