Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 2, 2021

2020003367 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 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.
15/864,291 01/08/2018 Mahmoud Yousef Ghannam 83928106;
67186-544 PUS1
1076
46442 7590 04/02/2021
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Ford
400 W. MAPLE RD.
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
BERGNER, ERIN FLANAGAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1713
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2021 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):
cgolaw@yahoo.com
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte MAHMOUD YOUSEF GHANNAM
and CLARA BENNIE
_________

Appeal 2020-003367
Application 15/864,291
Technology Center 1700
___________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant1 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 13 and 16–25. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART and enter new grounds of rejection.
The claims on appeal are directed to a method of wiping a rear window
based on a plurality of factors. Along with vehicle speed and information from a

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. Appeal Brief dated December 10, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”), at 1.
Appeal 2020-003367
Application 15/864,291

2

front wiper rain sensor, the Appellant discloses that factors include a user input, a
signal from a front camera, a gear position, a signal from a rear camera, a vehicle-
to-vehicle message, and a shape of an exterior of a motor vehicle body. Spec. ¶ 11.
A controller is configured to run a rear wiper based on a plurality of those factors.
Spec. ¶ 36. In one example, the controller assigns weights to a plurality of factors
and instructs the rear wiper to run at a predefined speed for a predefined time based
on a weighted sum of the factors. Spec. ¶ 37; see also Appeal Br. 1 (explaining
that the factors are not all equal and thus they are weighted). After the predefined
period of time lapses, a new weighted sum may be calculated and the rear wiper is
instructed accordingly. Spec. ¶ 52.
The controller compares the weighted sum to a number of thresholds. Spec.
¶ 41. In one example, three threshold values are set and stored on the controller,
i.e., an upper threshold, a lower threshold, and an intermediate threshold between
the upper and lower thresholds. Spec. ¶ 42. When the value of the weighted sum
is greater than or equal to the upper threshold, a relatively high level of rear
window wiping is needed. Spec. ¶ 43. A lower level of wiping is needed when the
value of the weighted sum is less than the upper threshold and greater than or equal
to the intermediate threshold, and an even lower level of wiping is needed when
the value of the weighted sum is less than the intermediate threshold and greater
than or equal to the lower threshold. Spec. ¶ 43. No wiping is needed when the
value of the weighted sum is below the lower threshold. Spec. ¶ 43.
The Appellant discloses that the weights assigned to the factors may be
adjusted over time. Spec. ¶ 40. For example, if the controller notices that the
driver routinely overrides the controller in the same types of conditions, the
controller can adjust the weights to accommodate the preferences of the driver.
Spec. ¶ 40.
Appeal 2020-003367
Application 15/864,291

3

Independent claims 13 and 21 are reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix to the Appeal Brief.
13. A method, comprising:
wiping a rear window by running a rear wiper at a predefined
speed for a predefined time period based on a plurality of factors;
assigning weights to the plurality of factors;
running the rear wiper based on a weighted sum of the plurality
of factors; and
changing the weights over time.
Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis added).
21. A method, comprising:
wiping a rear window by running a rear wiper at a predefined
speed for a predefined time period based on a plurality of factors,
wherein the plurality of factors include a vehicle speed, information
from a front wiper rain sensor, and at least one additional factor.
Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis added).
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection on appeal:2
(1) claims 13, 16–19, and 21–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Shiraishi3 in view of Tsukamoto;4
(2) claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Shiraishi in view
of Tsukamoto, further in view of Donoughe;5
(3) claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Shiraishi in view
of Tsukamoto, further in view of Stam;6 and

2 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 16–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
in the Examiner’s Answer dated March 13, 2020 (“Ans.”), at 17.
3 US 4,881,019, issued November 14, 1989, to Shiraishi et al.
4 US 2006/0228001 A1, published October 12, 2006, to Tsukamoto.
5 US 2009/0066285 A1, published March 12, 2009, to Donoughe et al.
6 US 2004/0143380 A1, published July 22, 2004, to Stam et al.
Appeal 2020-003367
Application 15/864,291

4

(4) claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Shiraishi in view
of Tsukamoto, further in view of Fusco.7
B. DISCUSSION
1. Claims 21–23
Claim 21 recites the step of “wiping a rear window by running a rear wiper
at a predefined speed for a predefined time period based on a plurality of factors,
wherein the plurality of factors include a vehicle speed, information from a front
wiper rain sensor, and at least one additional factor.” Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis
added). Claim 22 depends from claim 21 and recites that “the at least one
additional factor includes information from a front view camera, information from
a rear backup camera, a vehicle gear position, information from a transceiver, and
an exterior body shape of a vehicle.” Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds Shiraishi discloses wiping a rear window based on
vehicle speed and information from a front wiper rain sensor but does not disclose
an additional factor as recited in claim 21. Final Act. 17;8 see also Appeal Br. 6
(recognizing that “Shiraishi teaches one to control a rear wiper based on vehicle
speed and a rain sensor”). The Examiner finds Tsukamoto discloses a method of
wiping a window based on information from a front camera. Final Act. 17. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to modify Shiraishi’s method to include the additional factor disclosed in
Tsukamoto for the same purpose. Final Act. 18.
The Appellant argues that “Tsukamoto merely teaches a specific type of rain
sensor and does not relate to rear wiper control at all.” Appeal Br. 6. The

7 US 6,454,178 B1, issued September 24, 2002, to Fusco et al.
8 Final Office Action dated August 14, 2019.
Appeal 2020-003367
Application 15/864,291

5

Appellant argues that “[t]ogether, [Shiraishi and Tsukamoto] teach at best the
factors of a rain sensor (Shiraishi and Tsukamoto) and vehicle speed (Shiraishi) but
no more.” Appeal Br. 6.
The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. Regardless
of the fact that Tsukamoto’s camera is described as a “rain sensor,” the rain sensors
disclosed in Shiraishi and Tsukamoto operate differently and provide different
information. The rain sensor disclosed in Shiraishi is not a camera and detects rain
by vibration. Shiraishi, col. 7, ll. 1–19; Final Act. 17. Tsukamoto’s rain sensor, on
the other hand, is a camera and detects rain as well as mud splashes. Tsukamoto
¶ 10; see also Spec. ¶ 39 (“information from the front and rear cameras may be
used to detect whether rain or muddy conditions are present”). Thus, on this
record, it is reasonable to find that Tsukamoto discloses “at least one additional
factor” (i.e., information from a front camera) within the scope of claim 21.
Moreover, it is not fatal to the obviousness rejection on appeal that
Tsukamoto’s camera is used to operate a front wiper rather than a rear wiper as
claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the
information provided by Tsukamoto’s camera to also operate a rear wiper as
disclosed in Shiraishi. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)
(“if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same
way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or
her skill”).
As to claim 22, the Appellant argues that the Examiner has not established
that Shiraishi and Tsukamoto teach each of the additional factors recited in claim
22. Appeal Br. 7. The Examiner disagrees with the Appellant’s interpretation of
Appeal 2020-003367
Application 15/864,291

6

claim 22 and concludes that claim 22 does not require that the rear window be
wiped based on all of the recited factors. Ans. 19.
We recognize that claim 22 recites several factors and uses the word “and”
to connect those factors (i.e., “information from a front view camera, information
from a rear backup camera, a vehicle gear position, information from a transceiver,
and an exterior body shape of a vehicle”). Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis added).
Nonetheless, claims 21 and 22 each recite “at least one additional factor.” Thus,
only one selection from the list of factors recited in claim 22 is needed to satisfy
the limitation of claim 22.
For the reasons set forth above, the obviousness rejection of claims 21–23 is
sustained.9
2. Claims 13, 16–20, and 25
The Examiner finds Shiraishi discloses “wiping a rear window by running a
rear wiper at a predefined speed for a predefined time period based on a plurality
of factors.” Final Act. 5 (emphasis omitted). Those factors are vehicle speed and
information from a rain sensor. Final Act. 5; see also Appeal Br. 6 (stating that
“Shiraishi teaches one to control a rear wiper based on vehicle speed and a rain
sensor”). The Examiner finds Shiraishi “does not teach assigning weights to the
plurality of factors; and running the rear wiper based on a weighted sum of the
plurality of factors, and changing the weights over time” as recited in claim 13.
Final Act. 5 (original emphasis omitted).
Tsukamoto discloses a rain sensor comprising a camera for taking an image
through a windshield of a vehicle and a processor unit for detecting rain based on

9 The Appellant does not present arguments in support of the separate patentability
of claim 23.
Appeal 2020-003367
Application 15/864,291

7

the pixels in the image. Tsukamoto ¶ 9. In one embodiment, Tsukamoto assigns
weights based on the amount of rain on specific areas of the windshield. Final Act.
5–6. For example, greater weight is given for an area of the windshield which is
significant for keeping the driver’s vision and less weight is given for an area of
the windshield which tends to suffer from external disturbance. Tsukamoto ¶ 66;
Final Act. 6.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify Shiraishi’s method
to include assigning weights to the plurality of factors [i.e., vehicle
speed and information from a rain sensor]; and running the rear wiper
based on a weighted sum of the plurality of factors, and changing the
weights over time because [Tsukamoto] teaches that sensor data used
to control[] the windshield wiper speed can be weighted based on the
sensors [sic, sensor’s] significance to provide higher accuracy through
simple supplemental calculations and use of known technique to
improve similar methods in the same way is obvious.
Final Act. 7 (original emphasis omitted).
The Appellant argues that Tsukamoto does not teach assigning weights to a
plurality of factors or changing those weights over time. Appeal Br. 4–5. “While
Tsukamoto generally describes a weighted sum of its pixels,” the Appellant argues
that “Tsukamoto does not teach changing the weights over time.” Appeal Br. 5.
The Examiner does not direct us to any portion of Tsukamoto disclosing that
weights are changed over time. Likewise, the Examiner does not explain, in any
detail, why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change
the weights assigned to the areas of the windshield in Tsukamoto over time.
Therefore, the obviousness rejection of claims 13 and 16–19 is not sustained.
Appeal 2020-003367
Application 15/864,291

8

The Examiner does not rely on Donoughe or Fusco to cure the deficiencies
identified above. Therefore, the obviousness rejections of claims 20 and 25 also
are not sustained.
3. Claim 24
Claim 24 depends from claim 13 and recites the step of “changing the
weights based on an occurrence of a manual user override.” Appeal Br. 11.
The Examiner finds Stam “teaches [that] changing weights used for
automatic control of vehicle operation, including vehicle light control and
windshield wipers, based on user overrides can provide[] a better experience for
the individual driver based on their own particular preferences.” Final Act. 13.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to change the weights of the factors in Shiraishi’s modified method based
on an occurrence of a manual user override for the same reason taught by Stam.
Final Act. 13.
On appeal, the Appellant does not address the obviousness rejection of claim
24 and thus does not demonstrate reversible error in the Examiner’s factual
findings or legal conclusions based on Stam. For that reason, the obviousness
rejection of claim 24 is sustained.
4. New grounds of rejection
a. Claims 13 and 16–20
We conclude that the step of “changing the weights based on an occurrence
of a manual user override” recited in claim 24 is encompassed by the broader step
of “changing the weights over time” recited in claim 13. See Appeal Br. 10–11.
Therefore, by sustaining the obviousness rejection of claim 24 based on the
combination of Shiraishi, Tsukamoto, and Stam, we also sustain the obviousness
rejection of claim 13 based on the same combination of references. See Ormco
Appeal 2020-003367
Application 15/864,291

9

Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 498 F.3d 1307, 1319–20 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (explaining
that when dependent claims “were found to have been obvious, the broader claims
. . . must also have been obvious”).
To simplify any subsequent prosecution or request for rehearing, however,
we designate the obviousness rejection of claim 13 based on the combination of
Shiraishi, Tsukamoto, and Stam a new ground of rejection.
On appeal, the Appellant does not present arguments in support of the
separate patentability of any of claims 16–20. Therefore, we also enter new
grounds of rejection for (1) claims 16–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the
combination of Shiraishi, Tsukamoto, and Stam for the reasons set forth on pages
7–9 of the Final Office Action,10 and (2) claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
the combination of Shiraishi, Tsukamoto, Stam, and Donoughe for the reasons set
forth on pages 10–11 of the Final Office Action.
b. Claim 25
We enter a new ground of rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Shiraishi in view of Tsukamoto, further in view of Stam.
Claim 25 depends from claim 13 and recites the step of “changing the
weights based on frequent manual user overrides occurring under similar
conditions.” Appeal Br. 12.
The Examiner finds Stam “teaches [that] changing weights used for
automatic control of vehicle operation, including vehicle light control and
windshield wipers, based on user overrides can provide[] a better experience for
the individual driver based on their own particular preferences.” Final Act. 13.
We find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that changing

10 Final Office Action dated August 14, 2019.
Appeal 2020-003367
Application 15/864,291

10

the weights of Shiraishi’s factors based on “frequent manual user overrides
occurring under similar conditions,” as recited in claim 25, would also provide a
better experience for a driver. For that reason, we conclude that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the weights of the factors
in Shiraishi’s modified method as recited in claim 25. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417
(“if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same
way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or
her skill”).
C. DECISION SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed in part. We also enter new grounds of
rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed New
Ground
13, 16–19,
21–23
103 Shiraishi,
Tsukamoto
21–23 13, 16–19
20 103 Shiraishi,
Tsukamoto,
Donoughe
20
24 103 Shiraishi,
Tsukamoto, Stam
24
25 103 Shiraishi,
Tsukamoto, Fusco
25
13, 16–19,
25
103 Shiraishi,
Tsukamoto, Stam
13, 16–
19, 25
20 103 Shiraishi,
Tsukamoto, Stam,
Donoughe
20
Overall
Outcome
21–24 13, 16–20,
25
13, 16–
20, 25
Appeal 2020-003367
Application 15/864,291

11

This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides, “A new ground of rejection pursuant to
this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the
following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to avoid
termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of
the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so
rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in
which event the prosecution will be remanded to the examiner. . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard
under §41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. . . .
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 IN PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)