Ex Parte Rhode et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 29, 2018

14268401 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/268,401 05/02/2014 113140 7590 08/31/2018 Bejin Bieneman PLC Ford Global Technologies, LLC 2000 Town Center Suite 800 Southfield, MI 48075 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Douglas Scott Rhode 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. 83438298(65080-1219) 6861 EXAMINER ZIAEIANMEHDIZADEH, NA VID ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3669 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/31/2018 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): docket@b2iplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte DOUGLAS SCOTT RHODE, SHANE ELWART, NANJUN LIU, and THOMAS EDWARD PILUTTI Appeal 2018-001357 Application 14/268,401 1 Technology Center 3600 Before EDWARD A. BROWN, PAUL J. KORNICZKY, and BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1---6, 8, and 11-20, which are all the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 Ford Global Technologies, LLC ("Appellant") is the applicant, as provided by 3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 1.46, and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2018-001357 Application 14/268,401 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 10, and 18 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, and reads: 1. A vehicle system comprising: a sensor configured to detect a first road feature; and a processor programmed to determine a location of a vehicle in response to detecting the first road feature and control an adjustable suspension system by applying a suspension profile to the adjustable suspension system prior to the vehicle arriving at a second road feature, wherein the suspension profile is associated with the second road feature and wherein a location of the second road feature is determined from the location of the vehicle at a time the first road feature is detected, wherein the first road feature and the second road feature represent road roughness measured during previous trips along a route. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS Claims 1, 6, 8, 11, 16-18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I02(a)(2) as anticipated by Giovanardi (US 2014/0297119 Al, pub. Oct. 2, 2014). Claims 2-5, 12-15, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Giovanardi and Miyajima (US 2007/0021886 Al, pub. Jan. 25, 2007). ANALYSIS Anticipation of Claims 1, 6, 8, 11, 16-18, and 20 Claims 1. 6. and 8 For claim 1, the Examiner finds that Giovanardi discloses, inter alia, a processor programmed to determine a location of a vehicle in response to detecting a first road feature ("the corresponding GPS location of the vehicle based on the detected feature -i.e. event- is measured") (id. at 2-3 ( citing 2 Appeal 2018-001357 Application 14/268,401 Giovanardi ,r 32)), and to determine a location of a second road feature from the location of the vehicle at a time the first road feature is detected ("predicting future events such as smooth road approaching based on statistical analysis and predicting second road features such as turns, road transition and the like based on the location of the vehicle at a time [ of] the first road feature detection, i.e. using stored information and road profiles as well as the corresponding GPS location of the first event to prepare for the upcoming event ... extrapolating road profile based on the past history") (id. at 3 ( citing Giovanardi ,r,r 28, 32, 107 ( emphasis added)). Appellant contests the finding that Giovanardi teaches the limitation "wherein a location of the second road feature is determined from the location of the vehicle at a time the first road feature is detected." Appeal Br. 4. 2 Appellant contends the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation is, "a location of the second road feature is determined from the location of the vehicle" "when the vehicle is at the location of the first road feature." Id. at 5; Reply Br. 2. Appellant contends that Giovanardi treats each "event" as distinct and "does not determine any subsequent event, much less 'a location of a second road feature,' at a time of detection of one event such as 'at a time that the first road feature is detected."' Appeal Br. 7. Rather, Appellant contends, Giovanardi waits until the event is detected via look-ahead sensors, or until the vehicle arrives at the location of the event as determined by GPS data. Id. ( citing Giovanardi ,r,r 32, 115) The Examiner agrees with Appellant's proposed claim interpretation, but disagrees that Giovanardi fails to disclose the second road feature 2 This limitation is also referred to herein as "the second road feature location limitation." 3 Appeal 2018-001357 Application 14/268,401 location limitation. Ans. 3. The Examiner submits that Giovanardi detects the second road feature (i.e., a "bad event") and its distance to the first road feature, by relying on a drive history map or sensor signals, as similarly provided in Appellant's Specification. Id. at 4 (citing Spec. ,r 17). In support, the Examiner highlights the following description: For example, the control algorithm may store every event where the level of discomfort exceeds a certain threshold, and the corresponding GPS location is measured. This may then allow preparing for possible large events by detecting an approaching stored 'bad event' position. Id. (quoting Giovanardi ,r 32 (emphasis omitted)). Appellant replies that this description "'does not link detection of a location of the second road feature' to 'a time the first road feature is detected."' Reply Br. 2. We agree with Appellant that this description in Giovanardi does not disclose determining the location of a second road feature ("bad event") from the location of the vehicle at the time a first road feature ("event") is detected, but indicates only that an approaching "bad event" position can be detected based on its stored position. The Examiner also determines that paragraph 31 of Giovanardi "teaches the first and second road features as well as the temporal relationship thereof' based on the following description: If the road has been bad for the last few seconds, it is likely to at the very least remain that way, and thus performance of the active suspension might be adapted to slowly increase if the benefit has been underestimated over the past period of time. Ans. 5 (quoting Giovanardi ,r 31 (emphasis omitted)). The Examiner determines that "the road features of 'the last few seconds' can be reasonably construed to correspond to the claimed 'location of the vehicle at the time the first road feature is detected" and "the subsequent features (i.e. 4 Appeal 2018-001357 Application 14/268,401 after the last few seconds) can be reasonably construed to correspond to the claimed 'second road feature."' Id. The Examiner adds that the "second road feature" location is determined from the GPS data and both the "first road feature" and "second road feature" "are along the same path." Id. (citing Giovanardi ,r 32 ("approaching 'bad event' position")). According to the Examiner, "the detection of one event (i.e. 'the last few seconds') does trigger Giovanardi's system to query the map for any other events (i.e. 'the upcoming event')." Id. at 6. Appellant replies that the description in paragraph 31 highlighted by the Examiner does not support the Examiner's position, but instead, clarifies that "Giovanardi uses past events ("the road has been bad for the last few seconds") to predict how the road might be in the future ("[the road] is likely to at the very least remain that way"). Reply Br. 3. Appellant contends that those predictions cannot correspond to the claimed "second road feature" "because Giovanardi discloses that the past events and the predictions resulting from those past events occur during the same trip," whereas claim 1 requires "the second road feature [to] represent road roughness measured during previous trips along a route." Id. ( citing Giovanardi ,r 31 ). Further, Appellant contends, because Giovanardi makes predictions of future events based on the detection of earlier events after the vehicle is no longer at the location of the earlier events, the predictions are not made "when the vehicle is at the location of the first road feature" as recited in claim 1. Id. Appellant's contentions regarding the Examiner's reliance on paragraph 31 of Giovanardi are also persuasive. The Examiner's position is premised on finding that detecting a past event (i.e., a "bad" road) and predicting a future event (i.e., the road remaining at least that bad), during 5 Appeal 2018-001357 Application 14/268,401 the same trip of a vehicle, meet the claim limitations of "location of the vehicle at the time the first road feature is detected" and the "second road feature." This position does not take into account that claim 1 requires the first road feature and the second road feature to represent road roughness that was measured during previous trips along a route. The Examiner also submits that the highlighted description in paragraph 31 of Giovanardi shows "the detection of one event (i.e. 'the last few seconds') does trigger Giovanardi' s system to query the map for any other events (i.e. 'the upcoming event')." Ans. 6. We disagree that this description shows Giovanardi's system is triggered by one event (i.e., detecting "bad" road "for the last few seconds") to query the map for another event (i.e., an "upcoming event"). Paragraph 32 of Giovanardi discloses detecting an approaching "bad event" based on its stored position. Paragraph 31 does not disclose that the system determines whether any stored "bad event" of a known location is approaching in response to detecting "bad" road. Rather, the description indicates that the active suspension performance might be adapted to slowly increase in response to detecting "bad" road. Accordingly, the Examiner has not established that Giovanardi discloses a processor programmed to determine the second road feature location, or to use road roughness information for first and second road features that was measured during previous trips, as claimed. For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Giovanardi discloses all limitations in claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or of claims 6 and 8 depending from claim 1, as anticipated by Giovanardi. 6 Appeal 2018-001357 Application 14/268,401 Claims 11. 16. and 17 Claim 11 also recites the second road feature location limitation and the first and second road features "represent road roughness measured during previous trips along a route." Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.). For the same reasons as those for claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 11, or of dependent claims 16 and 17, as anticipated by Giovanardi. Claims 18 and 20 Claim 18 is directed to a method and recites, inter alia, the second road feature location limitation and the first and second road features "represent road roughness measured during previous trips along the route." Appeal Br. 13 ( Claims App.). For reasons similar to those for claim 1, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not established that Giovanardi discloses these limitations. Appeal Br. 8-9; Final Act. 4--5. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 18, or of dependent claim 20, as anticipated by Giovanardi. Obviousness of Claims 2-5, 12-15, and 19 The Examiner's application of Miyajima in rejecting dependent claims 2-5, 12-15, and 19 fails to cure the deficiencies of Giovanardi with respect to parent claim 1, 11, or 18. Final Act. 6-8. We do not sustain the rejection of these dependent claims as unpatentable over Giovanardi and Miyajima. DECISION The rejections of claims 1-6, 8, and 11-20 are reversed. REVERSED 7