Ex Parte Puchert

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 2016

12997637 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/997,637 12/13/2010 27350 7590 06/02/2016 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP Box SA P.O. BOX 2480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Andre Puchert 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. 2008P06765 8052 EXAMINER GILLIARD, DELOMIA L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2665 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/02/2016 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): boxsa@patentusa.com docket@patentusa.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANDRE PU CHERT Appeal2014-003698 Application 12/997,637 Technology Center 2600 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., IRVINE. BRANCH, and JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from a final rejection of claims 14--26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. Appeal2014-003698 Application 12/997,637 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter is directed to a location signal that identifies the location of a track-bound vehicle. Spec., Abstract. Claim 14 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 14. A method for producing a location signal, which indicates a location of a vehicle, including a track bound vehicle, which comprises the steps of: identifying a previously stored reference object in an area around the vehicle; subjecting a reference object to a range measurement selected from the group consisting a split-image range measurement and a coincidence range measurement; and producing the location signal by evaluation of the range measurement. REJECTIONS Claims 14--16 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as anticipated by Shenton (WO 2007/091072 Al (Aug. 16, 2007)). Ans. 3-7. 1 Claims 17, 19, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Shenton and Seely (US 3,730,067 (May, 1, 1973)). Ans. 7-11. Claims 18, 20, 21, 22, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable Shenton, Seely, and Onuki (US 6,377 ,305 B2 (Apr. 23, 2002)). Ans. 11-15. OPINION Appellant specifically argues the rejection of claims 14 and 23 as anticipated by Shenton. Br. 4--9. 2 Appellant argues the remaining claims 1 Examiner's Answer mailed December 5, 2013. 2 Appellant's Appeal Brief filed October 7, 2013. 2 Appeal2014-003698 Application 12/997,637 based on arguments presented with respect to claims 14 and 23. Br. 9-10. Our Decision, therefore, turns on whether claims 14 and 23 are anticipated by Shenton. Appellant argues that: Shenton' s teaching of comparing the scenes from the images in order to determine the distance that the train has moved is not equivalent to subjecting a reference object to a range measurement. The distance from the train to a reference object is never determined. Thus, there is no teaching of subjecting a reference object to a range measurement. Br. 5 (referring to Shenton 2, 11. 1-20). Appellant further argues that Shenton does not describe "subjecting a reference object to a range measurement selected from the group consisting a split-image range measurement and a coincidence range measurement" as the terms are properly understood. Br. 5-8 (referring to Spec. 8, 1. 15-10, 1. 18, p. 12, 11. 11-33, and Figs. 13 and 14). Appellant further argues that Shenton does not describe "a previously stored reference object." Br. 8-9. We are unpersuaded of error for the reasons stated by the Examiner. Ans. 3-18. In particular, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection in view of Shenton's description of: [A] system for measuring train speed and position which uses an image capture device (one or multiple cameras) to take a sequence of timed images from the front or rear of the train. The images are then analysed [sic] to determine train speed and position. By comparing the scenes from images taken a short time apart, the distance that the train has moved can be determined. The time the train takes to move the distance between the images is used to determine the train speed. The images are also analysed [sic] to identify specific markers placed at the trackside at fixed known locations. When the system 3 Appeal2014-003698 Application 12/997,637 recognises [sic] that a particular marker has been passed, the position of the front or rear of the train is known. Shenton 2, 11. 1-10. We find that Shenton's disclosure of determining train speed and position by analyzing images taken of "specific markers" at "fixed known locations" meets Appellant's claimed "identifying a previously stored reference object" and "subjecting a reference object to a range measurement" as the Examiner finds. Ans. 3 (citing Shenton 1, 11. 5---6 and 2, 11. 1-20). To the extent Appellant argues that Shenton' s range measurement is not equivalent to the claimed "coincidence range measurement" (Br. 7) as the Examiner finds (Ans. 4), we are not persuaded of error. We find Appellant's argument amounts to an attempt to impermissibly incorporate limitations from Appellant's Specification into the claims (see In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ("limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification"), despite Appellant's urging to the contrary (Br. 7 ("Appellant is not attempting to incorporate limitations from the specification into the claims, but rather is attempting to assist the Honorable Board in understanding how the terms 'split-image range measurement' and 'coincidence range measurement' by the person of ordinary skill in the art")). Appellant argues that a "coincidence range measurement device 30' outputs sub images 160 and 165 and that when the sub images 160 and 165 completely overlap as is shown in figure 14, the distance between the rail vehicle 5 and the reference object 25 corresponds to the predetermined distance value xO." Id. (citing Spec. 12, 11. 11-33 and Figs. 13 and 14). But Appellant's arguments refer to "exemplary embodiments" (Spec. 6, 12), and Appellant has not persuasively established that these exemplary 4 Appeal2014-003698 Application 12/997,637 embodiments necessarily constrain the claimed invention to a particular construction of a "coincidence range measurement." In view of Appellant's expansive disclosure and broad claim language, we are not persuaded that the Examiner's broad construction of "coincidence range measurement" is unreasonable. Ans. 16-17; see In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("the PTO is obligated to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation during examination."). "Giving claims their broadest reasonable construction 'serves the public interest by reducing the possibility that claims, finally allowed, will be given broader scope than is justified."' Am. Acad. 367 F.3d at 1364 (internal citations omitted). Doing so "is not unfair to the applicant ... because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage." Id. Accordingly, because Appellant argues error based on the Examiner's construction (Br. 7 ("[ u ]pon proper interpretation of the claimed term[] 'coincidence range measurement', Appellant believes it is clear that Shenton's teaching ... is not equivalent to the claimed term[r)), we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection. In view of the foregoing, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's decision to reject claims 14--16 and 23 as anticipated by Shenton. We sustain the rejection of these claims, as well as the Examiner's rejections of the remaining claims, which Appellant argues on the same basis, only adding that Seely and/or Onuki do not make up for Shenton's deficiencies, which we do not find. Br. 9-10 DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 14--26 are affirmed. 5 Appeal2014-003698 Application 12/997,637 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6