Ex Parte Miller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2017

13116347 (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.
13/116,347 05/26/2011 Thomas Lee Miller 83163143 5277
28395 7590 02/01/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER BECK, LERON
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
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):
docketing @brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS LEE MILLER and ROBERT BRUCE KLEVE
Appeal 2016-002624
Application 13/116,3471
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—20, which constitute the only claims pending.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to detecting a personal communication device
(PCD) in a vehicle having driver and passenger zones. Abstract; Fig. 2.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal
(disputed limitation emphasized):
1 The real party in interest is identified as Ford Global Technologies, LLC.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-002624
Application 13/116,347
1. A system for detecting a personal communication device (PCD)
in a vehicle having a driver zone and a passenger zone, the system
comprising:
a camera configured to transmit a first signal indicative of a
captured image of an object in the driver zone;
a controller configured to:
receive the first signal;
receive a status signal indicative of the PCD being in one
of a sleep mode and a wake up mode;
receive a motion signal indicative of the PCD being in
one of a stationary mode and a motion mode; and
detect that the PCD is in the driver zone in response to
the captured image of the object corresponding to the PCD and
one of the status signal indicating that the PCD is in the wake
up mode and the motion signal indicating that the PCD is in the
motion mode.
App. Br. (Claims Appendix 1).
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1—3, 8—15, and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Haley (US 2011/0105082 Al, pub. May
5, 2011) in view of Tibbitts et al. (US 2011/0021234 Al, pub. Jan. 27, 2011)
(“Tibbitts”). Final Act. 2—6.
Claims 4—7 and 16—19 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Haley in view of Tibbitts and further in
view of Fujioka et al. (US 2007/0120948 Al, pub. May 31, 2007)
(“Fujioka”). Final Act. 6—8.
ANAFYSIS
Appellants argue Haley and Tibbitts do not disclose the claim 1
limitation controller configured to . . . detect that the PCD is in the driver
2
Appeal 2016-002624
Application 13/116,347
zone in response to the captured image of the object corresponding to the
PCD” (emphasis added). App. Br. 5—7; Reply Br. 1—3.
According to Appellants, Haley “merely provides an image of an
object that is ‘adult-human-like’ or ‘two live-adult-like objects’” and these
objects “do not correspond to the PCD.” App. Br. 6 (citing 1105) (emphasis
omitted); see also Reply Br. 1—3 (citing H 41, 42). Appellants further argue
the Examiner’s interpretation “is not reasonable in light of the broadest
reasonable interpretation in view of Appellant's specification.” App. Br. 6—
7. In particular, Appellants refer to the Specification:
In operation 44, the controller 16 monitors data received from the
camera 22. As noted above, the camera 22 may be orientated or
positioned on the driver in the driver zone 26 and transmit data
regarding the same to the controller 16. For example, the camera 22
may capture an image of the driver while in the driver zone 26 and
process data to detect any gesture or motion that indicates PCD usage
(e.g., manual entry on the PCD 18, the viewing of a screen/display, or
holding of the PCD 18 to an ear of the driver).
App. Br. 6—7 (citing Spec. 131) (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner finds Haley teaches “that the transmitter sends a signal
in the vehicle when it detects the presence of live adult like objects” and
“[tjherefore, a signal was transmitted to indicate ... an object in the driver
zone.” Ans. 11 (citing 1105). The Examiner finds a camera is coupled to
the image processor and determines an object being in view. Id. The
Examiner finds “Haley teaches . . . that when the phone is in the hands of the
driver, a signal is sent,” the detection of the phone (PCD) is when the phone
is near the driver.” Id. at 11—12 (citing H 41, 42). In particular, the
Examiner finds “[sjince the driver and passenger are interpreted as the
objects in [0105], the phone being in the driver's hand would be a
3
Appeal 2016-002624
Application 13/116,347
correspondence to the PCD” and “[tjhese citations alone are evidence that a
PCD is detected in the driver zone as claimed by appellants.” Id. at 12.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. In particular, the
Examiner presents insufficient evidence that Haley or Tibbitts teaches a
camera which captures an image from which captured image a PCD is
detected in the driver zone. Rather, Haley teaches cameras that sense human
presence (warmth) at the driver seat and another seat, but does not teach the
PCD location is detected through and in response to such cameras. See
Haley 1105. Tibbitts is not relied upon by the Examiner for the disputed
limitation controller configured to . . . detect that the PCD is in the driver
zone in response to the captured image of the object corresponding to the
PCD’ ’ (emphasis added). Final Act. 2-4 (citing Haley 1 69); see also Ans.
12-13).
In view of the above, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and
independent claims 13 and 20 which recite limitations similar to the disputed
limitation of claim 1. We also do not sustain the rejections of dependent
claims 2—12 and 14—20 as Fujioka is not cited by the Examiner for the
disputed limitation, discussed supra. Cf. In reFritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266
(Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[Dependent claims are nonobvious if the independent
claims from which they depend are nonobvious . . .”). Because our decision
with regard to the disputed limitation is dispositive of the rejection of all
pending claims, we do not address additional arguments raised by
Appellants.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20.
4
Appeal 2016-002624
Application 13/116,347
REVERSED
5