Ex Parte Hirsch et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 12, 201512710870 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 2015) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation