Ex Parte Poltorak

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 11, 2014

10328767 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 2014)

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. 10/328,767 12/24/2002 Alexander I. Poltorak MI/AP/03 9405 7590 06/12/2014 General Patent Corporation Montebello Park 75 Montebello Road Suffern, NY 10901 EXAMINER SWARTHOUT, BRENT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2689 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/12/2014 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 ALEXANDER I. POLTORAK ____________________ Appeal 2011-013612 Application 10/328,767 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-013612 Application 10/328,767 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1, 45, 55, 98, 101, 104, 145, 155, 196, and 199 (App. Br. 5). Claims 2-44, 46-54, 56-97, 99, l00, 102, 103, 105-144, 146-154, 156-195, 197, 198, 200, and 201 have been withdrawn from consideration (id.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. A. INVENTION Appellant’s invention is directed to an apparatus and method for remotely controlling a traffic control device, including an input device, processor, and a transmitter; wherein, the input device is enabled to input at least one of a control code and a command code corresponding to a control operation to be performed on a traffic control device (Abstract). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. An apparatus for remotely controlling traffic control device, the apparatus comprising: an input device for inputting at least one of a control code and a command code corresponding to a control operation to be performed on a traffic control device; a processor for processing the at least one of a control code and a command code, wherein the processor generates a first control signal for performing a control operation on the traffic control device; and a transmitter for transmitting the first control signal to the traffic control device, wherein the traffic control device receives the first control signal and generates a second control signal, wherein the second control signal effectuates the control operation; and Appeal 2011-013612 Application 10/328,767 3 a positioning system; wherein: the apparatus is a vehicle computer located in a vehicle; the vehicle computer is configured to detect if the vehicle is approaching the traffic control device in the path of the vehicle, detect state of the traffic control device, and, in response to the state prohibiting travel in a direction of travel of the vehicle, generate the first control signal to effectuate the control operation in response to the state of the traffic control device being such that effectuating the control operation decreases travel delay of the vehicle. C. REJECTION1 The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Brown US 5,083,125 Jan. 21, 1992 Matta US 6,064,319 May 16, 2000 Morrison US 6,118,388 Sept. 12, 2000 Yee US 6,133,854 Oct. 17, 2000 Claims 1, 45, 55, 98, 101, 104, 145, 155, 196, and 199 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yee in view of Morrison, Matta, and Brown. II. ISSUE The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in determining that the combination of Yee, Morrison, Matta, and Brown teaches or would have suggested the vehicle computer is configured to detect if the vehicle is approaching the traffic control device in the path of the vehicle, 1 The Examiner has withdrawn his rejection to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Appeal 2011-013612 Application 10/328,767 4 detect state of the traffic control device, and, in response to the state prohibiting travel in a direction of travel of the vehicle, generate the first control signal to effectuate the control operation in response to the state of the traffic control device being such that effectuating the control operation decreases travel delay of the vehicle (claim 1, emphasis added). III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Matta 1. Matta discloses a method and system for regulating switching of a traffic light having a vehicle tracking unit 20 which determines whether a vehicle 12 has entered a virtual detection loop 22 and whether control of the traffic light 10 should be preempted (Figs. 2 and 3; col. 3, ll. 1-4). When traffic light 10 is to be preempted, vehicle tracking unit 20 sends an information signal 30 to a control system 32, which determines whether the traffic light 10 should be switched based on the content of the information signal 30 and the current status of the traffic light 10 (col. 3, ll. 4-10). If control system 32 determines that traffic light 10 should be switched, control system 32 sends a control signal 34 to the traffic light 10 to switch the light from one color to another (Figs. 2 and 3; col. 3, ll. 1-15). Brown 2. Brown discloses a true radar and telemetry-based emergency vehicle traffic signal control system having an intersection transmitter/receiver 10 that continuously monitors an intersection by sending Appeal 2011-013612 Application 10/328,767 5 an Access code (ACODE) and a Direction code (DCODE) signal to an approaching emergency vehicle 20 having a transponder which receives the A/DCODE, verifies the accuracy of the codes, and re-transmits the DCODE, along with a vehicle identification code (VID) to the intersection transmitter/receiver 10 for verification (Fig. 1; col. 2, ll. 10-32 and col. 3, ll. 30-38). If the vehicle is authorized, the control of the intersection is handed over to the vehicle by engaging a valid pre-empt signal which is output to the traffic light controller (col. 2, ll. 32-35). The ACODE is a fixed code used for system security and the DCODE is a variable preselected code used to identify a particular intersection direction (col. 2, ll. 20-23 and col. 3, ll. 35-38). IV. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 45, 55, 98, 101, 104, 145, 155, 196, and 199 Appellant contends the references taken separately or in any combination, do not disclose or suggest a vehicle computer configured (1) to detect the state of a traffic control device in the path of the vehicle, and, (2) in response to the state prohibiting travel in a direction of travel of the vehicle, generate a control signal to effectuate a control operation in response to the state of the traffic control device being such that effectuating the control operation decreases travel delay of the vehicle (App. Br. 24-25). In particular, Appellant contends Brown makes no mention of the DCODE changing with the state (e.g., red /green) of the traffic control signal; [and] Brown does not disclose or suggest that the DCODE carries any information relating to the state of the traffic control signal, Appeal 2011-013612 Application 10/328,767 6 such as red, green, or other states that change from time to time and allow or prohibit travel in a specific direction. (App. Br. 21). Appellant asserts “Brown describes that it is the intersection unit (intersection receiver 40) that determines when the vehicle is approaching the intersection” (App. Br. 23). However, the Examiner finds it is agreed that the transmitted codes of Brown do not include a red light status of a traffic signal, but rather provides the basic concept of transmitting a general traffic light status from a traffic control device to a vehicle in order that a vehicle can generate a reply signal to control operation of the traffic signal device (Ans. 9, FF 2). However, “the exact same function [claimed is] suggested by the Matta reference (except for location at a vehicle) whereby computing means 32 detects [the] state of traffic signal device 10 and if it detects a red light in vehicle direction, generates a signal to control the traffic signal light to change to a green light” (id.). We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As an initial matter, we note claim 1 merely recites a vehicle computer “configured to” detect the state of the traffic control device and generate a control signal (claim 1). We conclude such “configured to” language merely represents a statement of intended use of the vehicle computer comprised in the apparatus for remotely controlling traffic control devices, which does not limit the claim. Particularly, an intended use will not limit the scope of the claim because it merely defines a context in which the invention operates. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering- Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Thus, giving claim 1 Appeal 2011-013612 Application 10/328,767 7 its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim merely requires a vehicle computer capable of detecting the state of the traffic control device and generating a control signal in response to the state prohibiting travel which decreases travel delay of the vehicle. Nevertheless, we find no error with the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness. Matta is directed to a system for regulating switching of a traffic light having a vehicle tracking unit which determines whether a vehicle has entered a virtual detection loop and whether control of the traffic light should be preempted (FF 1). When traffic light is to be preempted, the vehicle tracking unit sends an information signal to a control system, which determines whether the traffic light should be switched based on the content of the information signal and the current status of the traffic light (id.). When the control system determines that the traffic light should be switched, the control system sends a control signal to the traffic light to switch the light from one color to another (id.). We agree with the Examiner’s finding Matta teaches “computing means 32 detects [the] state of traffic signal device 10 and if it detects a red light in vehicle direction, generates a signal to control the traffic signal light to change to a green light” (Ans. 9). That is, we find that Matta’s control system comprises a vehicle computer capable of detecting the state of the traffic control device and generating a control signal in response to the state prohibiting travel which decreases travel delay of the vehicle. Although Appellant contends Brown does not teach the claimed invention (App. Br. 21-23), since the Examiner rejects the claims as obvious over the combined teachings of Yee, Morrison and Brown in view of Matta, Appeal 2011-013612 Application 10/328,767 8 the test for obviousness is not what Brown shows individually but what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined teachings of Yee, Morrison, Matta, and Brown. Further, independent claims 45, 55, 98, 104, 145, 155, and 196, having similar claim language and claims 101 and 199 (depending from claims 98 and 196) which have not been argued separately, fall with claim 1. V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 45, 55, 98, 101, 104, 145, 155, 196, and 199 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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 kme