Ex Parte Hirsch et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 12, 2015

12710870 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 2015)

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.
12/710,870 02/23/2010 Eric Hirsch SS-746-17 9590
85481 7590 11/12/2015
Thomas E. Schatzel
Law Offices of Thomas E. Schatzel, P.C.
200 Altura Vista
Los Gatos, CA 95032
EXAMINER
PAULSON, SHEETAL R.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/12/2015 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 ERIC HIRSCH and PAUL W. MCBURNEY
____________

Appeal 2013-0056141, 2
Application 12/710,870
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1–10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
According to Appellants, the “invention relates to vehicle navigation
systems, and[,] more particularly[,] to road map correction feedback for
tightly coupled combinations of global position system (GPS) receivers and

1 Our decision references Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed Feb. 23,
2010), Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Dec. 20, 2012), and Reply Brief
(“Reply Br.,” filed Mar. 19, 2013), as well as the Examiner’s Answer
(“Answer,” mailed Feb. 15, 2013).
2 Under the heading Real Party in Interest, Appellants identify “eRide Inc.”
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2013-005614
Application 12/710,870

2

dead-reckoning in vehicles.” Spec. 1, ll. 13–16. Claims 1 and 9 are the only
independent claims on appeal. We reproduce claim 1 below.
1. A vehicle location system, comprising:
a GPS receiver carried aboard a vehicle and subject to
interruptions of signal transmissions from orbiting navigation
satellites;
a DR-computer coupled to the GPS receiver and providing
vehicle location solutions using range and heading information
computed by dead reckoning at least during periods of said
signal interruptions using rotational data related to the turning
of individual wheels that carry said vehicle;
wherein said rotational data is used to generate delta-range
information describing change in range, and delta-heading
information describing change in heading, related to
movements of said vehicle; and
wherein location information is received as a result of road
segment information of a road map database being matched to
said vehicle location solutions and is used to correct drifts in
dead reckoning vehicle location computations at least during
periods of GPS outages.
Appeal Br., Claims App.

REJECTION AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 1–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Geier (US 5,416,712, iss. May 16, 1995) and Streit
(US 5,774,824, iss. June 30, 1998). See Answer 2–6.

Appeal 2013-005614
Application 12/710,870

3

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection and determinations
supporting the rejection (see Answer 2–7), and Appellant’s arguments
against the rejection (see Appeal Br. 11–14; see also Reply Br. 2–4).
Inasmuch as we determine the Examiner’s rejection is not supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, we do not sustain the rejection.
Independent claim 1 requires that “location information is received as
a result of road segment information of a road map database being matched
to said vehicle location solutions and is used to correct drifts in dead
reckoning vehicle location computations at least during periods of GPS
outages.” Appeal Br., Claims App. The Examiner finds that Geier does not
disclose this limitation, and relies on Streit to remedy this deficiency. See
Answer 3. The Examiner provides a citation to Streit, but does not explain
in detail how the Examiner finds that Streit discloses the claim limitation.
See id. (citing Streit, col. 3, ll. 45–59, col. 4, ll. 4–14). Based on our review
of the cited portions of Streit, it is not apparent how Streit discloses the
claim limitation. For example, it is not apparent what element in Streit the
Examiner believes corresponds to the claimed location information, and it is
not apparent how the Examiner believes such location information is used
to correct dead reckoning drifts in vehicle location computation information.
See Appeal Br. 12–13; see also Reply Br. 2–3. In response to Appellants’
argument in the Appeal Brief that Streit does not disclose the claimed
location information, the Examiner provides no further citation to Streit, but
instead includes a paragraph that appears to be a paraphrase of disparate
portions of Streit. See Answer 6–7; see also Reply Br. 2–3. The paragraph
mentions a “navigator” that was not mentioned in the rejection of the claims,
Appeal 2013-005614
Application 12/710,870

4

but does not explain the relevance of Streit’s navigator to the claims. The
Examiner’s paragraph also includes what appears to be at least a portion of
Streit’s paragraph in column 4, line 15–25, for which the Examiner does not
provide a citation or otherwise discuss in either the Answer or Final Office
Action mailed on June 12, 2010. See id. Thus, we determine the Examiner
does not establish that the cited portions of Streit disclose the claimed
“location information . . . used to correct drifts in dead reckoning vehicle
location computations,” and we therefore do not sustain the rejection.
We also do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 9, which the
Examiner rejects for “similar reasons” as claim 1. See Answer 6. Further,
we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2–8 and 10, depending from
independent claims 1 and 9, respectively.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED

em