ROBERT BOSCH GMBH

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 23, 2021

2020004680 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2021)

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. 15/329,307 01/26/2017 Takehito Torii 030413-3072-US01 1035 34044 7590 11/23/2021 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch) 790 N WATER ST SUITE 2500 MILWAUKEE, WI 53202 EXAMINER NIRJHAR, NASIM NAZRUL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2482 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/23/2021 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): mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte TAKEHITO TORII and YASUSHI YUI ____________ Appeal 2020-004680 Application 15/329,307 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ERIC B. CHEN, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, and 15. Claims 3–5, 8–10, 13, and 16 are canceled. See Claims App. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Robert Bosch GMBH. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-004680 Application 15/329,307 2 The present invention relates generally to a technique for a motorcycle rider that provides a warning in accordance with the motorcycle’s inclination angle. See Spec. Abstr. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is representative: 1. An information providing device for a motorcycle, the information providing device comprising: an image acquisition section that acquires an image of a road on which the motorcycle travels; a lane detection section that detects at least one of a left lane and a right lane from the image of the road acquired by the image acquisition section, a radius of curvature of the at least one detected lane, a lateral distance from the motorcycle to the at least one detected lane; a motorcycle trajectory curvature calculation section that calculates a radius of curvature of a motorcycle trajectory on the basis of the radius of curvature of the at least one detected lane and the lateral distance from the motorcycle to the at least one detected lane; a vehicle speed acquisition section that acquires a vehicle speed of the motorcycle; a motorcycle physical quantity calculation section that calculates an inclination angle of the motorcycle with respect to vertical on the basis the radius of curvature of the motorcycle trajectory and the vehicle speed; a warning determination section that determines whether a warning should be issued on the basis of the inclination angle of the motorcycle; and a warning signal generation section that generates a warning signal when the warning determination section determines that the warning should be issued, wherein the warning should be issued when the inclination angle of the motorcycle exceeds a threshold inclination angle set for the vehicle speed. Appeal 2020-004680 Application 15/329,307 3 REFERENCES The references relied upon by the Examiner are: Name Reference Date Ehmanns US 2007/0131471 A1 June 14, 2007 Kuehnle US 2010/0079590 A1 Apr. 1, 2010 Schiffmann US 2010/0076684 A1 Mar. 25, 2010 Slimi Advanced Motorcycle- Infrastructure-Driver Roll Angle Profile for Loss Control Prevention (Proceeding of the 12th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, St. Louis, MO, USA). Oct. 3–7, 2009 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 6, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Kuehnle, Ehmanns, and Slimi. Final Act. 4–11. Claim 2, 7, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Kuehnle, Ehmanns, Slimi, and Schiffmann. Final Act. 11–13. We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Appeal 2020-004680 Application 15/329,307 4 ANALYSIS Claim 1 recites, inter alia, a motorcycle trajectory curvature calculation section that calculates a radius of curvature of a motorcycle trajectory. See claim 1. With respect to this feature, Appellant contends “Kuehnle discloses measuring road curvature . . . There is no calculations of a trajectory of a motorcycle or other vehicle. Instead, only lane markings are tracked and used to detect road curvature and not the curvature of a vehicle’s trajectory.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant emphasizes that “[d]etermining a road curvature is simply not the same as determining a curvature of a vehicle’s trajectory” (id.)(emphasis omitted), and “there still is no mention of ever determining a vehicle’s trajectory.” Id. at 10. We agree with Appellant. As an initial matter, we note that the requirement of claim 1 “calculates a radius of curvature of a motorcycle trajectory” (see claim 1) is an intended use of the claimed motorcycle trajectory curvature calculation section, not a structural feature of the apparatus. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does”). As such, the issue is not whether Kuehnle discloses calculating a radius of curvature of a motorcycle trajectory, but whether Kuehnle teaches that the apparatus of Kuehnle is capable of being used to calculate a radius of curvature of a motorcycle’s trajectory. The Examiner finds that in Kuehnle the “vehicle camera position compared to road curvature will accommodate calculation of vehicle trajectory . . . using geometry.” Ans. 14 (emphasis added). Here, the Examiner concludes that a “vehicle’s radius of curvature can be calculated Appeal 2020-004680 Application 15/329,307 5 using geometry from the vehicle trajectory [] drawn from the lateral distance from the lane trajectory calculated from every frame/timing point [T1, T2, T3, T4 . . . ].” Id. at 19 (emphasis added). In other words, the Examiner has not identified where Kuehnle’s system actually calculates a radius of curvature of a motorcycle’s trajectory but rather concludes that because Kuehnle detects road markings and determines if a vehicle is too close to the road markings, Kuehnle can accommodate calculation of a vehicle’s trajectory. However, we find that the Examiner’s aforementioned conclusion is based on improper hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in the factual basis. Here, claim 1 requires a vehicle trajectory curvature calculation section (see claim 1), which Appellant’s Specification indicates “can be realized when the CPU 2a executes a program that is stored in the ROM 2c.” Spec. ¶ 21; see also ¶¶ 31–32 and Fig. 2, element 2. So, we look for whether the Examiner has shown that Kuehnle teaches a CPU that executes a program that is capable of calculating a radius of curvature of a motorcycle trajectory. The Examiner directs our attention to Keuhnle’s Figure 2. See Ans. 13. Specifically, Kuehnle’s Fig. 2 illustrates detecting road markings, finding camera position relative to the road markings, and determining whether the vehicle is too close to the road markings, and if so, issuing a warning. See Keuhnle’s Figure 2. However, we agree with Appellant that “there simply is no calculation of a radius of curvature of a motorcycle trajectory” (Reply Br. 3) as “the Examiner presents no prior-art reference that supports the determination of a trajectory” (id.), but merely proposes that Kuehnle “will accommodate” and the trajectory “can be calculated” (id.) Appeal 2020-004680 Application 15/329,307 6 without directing our attention to any programs/algorithms in Keuhnle that is capable of calculating the same. We also agree with Appellant that “[w]hat the Examiner’s obviousness rejection amounts to is the Examiner modifying Kuehnle based on impermissible hindsight.” Id. Regarding Ehmanns, Appellant contends that “Ehmanns, much like Kuehnle, discloses determining the curvature of the driving surface the vehicle is traveling on, and not the radius of curvature of a trajectory of a vehicle.” Appeal Br. 11. We agree with Appellant. Here, the Examiner finds Ehmanns’ “‘radii of curves’ mentioned in [0010] is associated with road trajectory or vehicle trajectory . . . and distance to an object located ahead [lateral distance] will calculate a radius of curvature of a motorcycle trajectory.” Ans. 20. We disagree with the Examiner’s interpretation of Ehmanns. For example, Ehmanns merely discloses “[o]perational conditions for driving in the environment of the vehicle include, for example, the radii of curves, distance to an object ahead, (for example, an automobile driving ahead), indications of speed limits . . . weather . . . or the like.” Ehmanns ¶ 10. We find that Ehmanns fails to specifically teach or suggest a curvature of the motorcycle trajectory in paragraph [0010], as proffered by the Examiner. Instead, Ehmanns’ reference to “radii of curves” suggests curves (radii) on the road that lie ahead, not any motorcycle’s trajectory. See Ehmanns ¶ 11. The Examiner fails to direct our attention to any disclosure in Ehmanns that would suggest otherwise. Thus, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that at least Kuehnle and/or Ehmanns are capable of calculating a radius of curvature of a motorcycle trajectory, as recited in each of the independent claims 1, 6, 11, Appeal 2020-004680 Application 15/329,307 7 or 14. The Examiner also has not found any of the other references of record teach this feature. Since we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 15, and 15. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, and 15 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 6, 11, 14 103 Kuehnle, Ehmanns, Slimi 1, 6, 11, 14 2, 7, 12, 15 103 Kuehnle, Ehmanns, Slimi, Schiffman 2, 7, 12, 15 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15 REVERSED