BUTTOLO, Pietro et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 21, 2019

14949121 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2019)

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.
14/949,121 11/23/2015 Pietro BUTTOLO 83598604 4101
28395 7590 08/21/2019
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
HONG, DUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2643
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/21/2019 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PIETRO BUTTOLO, STEPHEN RONALD TOKISH,
JAMES STEWART RANKIN II, YIFAN CHEN,
STUART C. SALTER, and JAMES J. SURMAN
____________

Appeal 2019-000312
Application 14/949,1211
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1 and 3–18, all of the pending claims.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Appellants indicate the real party-in-interest is Ford Global Technologies
LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Appeal 2019-000312
Application 14/949,121
2

BACKGROUND
The disclosed invention relates to connection and disconnection of a
personal device with a vehicle computing system. Spec. ¶ 1, Abstract.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, which is representative of the subject matter of the appeal
and is reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, reads as
follows:
1. A system comprising:
a personal device including
a wireless transceiver; and
a processor, programmed to
determine a location of the personal device using signal
strength information between the wireless transceiver
and a plurality of in-vehicle components of a vehicle,
responsive to the location being the driver seating zone,
request connectivity information from the plurality of
in-vehicle components, the connectivity information
including at least one of a network address of a hands-
free audio system or a credential for connection to the
audio system, responsive to receiving the connectivity
information from at least one of the plurality of in-
vehicle components, programmatically connect to the
audio system of the vehicle using the connectivity
information when the location is a driver seating zone
and the personal device is not connected to the audio
system, and
disconnect from the audio system when the location is not
the driver seating zone and the personal device is
connected to the audio system.

Appeal 2019-000312
Application 14/949,121
3

REJECTIONS ON APPEAL AND APPLIED PRIOR ART
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 13–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Harris et al. (US 2010/0197359 A1, pub. Aug. 5, 2010)
and Okigami (US 2010/0231958 A1, pub. Sept. 16, 2010).
Claims 3, 11, 12, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Harris, Okigami, and Murayama et al. (US 2007/0201389
A1, pub. Aug. 30, 2007).
Claims 4 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Harris, Okigami, and Tadayon et al. (US 2012/0214471 A1, pub. Aug.
23, 2012, “Tadayon”).
Claims 7 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Harris, Okigami, and Demeniuk (US 2014/0163774 A1, pub. June 12,
2014).
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Harris, Okigami, Demeniuk, and Okayasu (US 2013/0116012 A1, pub. May
9, 2013).
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Harris, Okigami, and Brickman (US 2013/0079951 A1, pub. March 28,
2013).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of the arguments
in the Appeal Brief, the Examiner’s Answer, and arguments in the Reply
Brief. Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of error in the rejections.
We highlight and address specific findings and arguments below for
emphasis.
Appeal 2019-000312
Application 14/949,121
4

The Examiner finds that Harris teaches many of the limitations of
claim 1, including a personal device including a processor, programmed to
determine a location of the personal device using signal strength information
between the wireless transceiver and a plurality of in-vehicle components of
a vehicle, and responsive to the location being the driver seating zone
connecting to a hands-free audio system of the vehicle. See Final Act. 7
(citing Harris ¶¶ 16, 19, 20, 22; Figs. 1, 2). In particular, Harris discloses
use of a Bluetooth® remote/hands free device in an automobile, and pairing
the remote/hands-free device and automobile. See Harris ¶¶ 11, 14–16, 18–
20, 23, 25.
The Examiner acknowledges that Harris does not disclose details
regarding the personal device requesting connectivity information from a
plurality of in-vehicle components, the connectivity information including
either a network address of the audio system or a credential for connection to
the audio system, and responsive to receiving the connectivity information,
connecting to the audio system, as required by claim 1. See Final Act. 8.
The Examiner cites to the teachings of Okigami as evidence that it was
known to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that
connecting devices using Bluetooth® protocol includes the step of
requesting and receiving addresses between devices. See id. (citing Okigami
¶¶ 85–97, Figs. 3A, 3B). The Examiner concluded that it would have been
obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
modify the teachings of Harris to have Harris’s wireless device exchange
address information to establish wireless communications, as taught by
Okigami, because it would have amounted to the application of a known
Appeal 2019-000312
Application 14/949,121
5

technique to a known device, method, or product that is ready for
improvement, and would yield predictable results. See id.
Appellants contend that because the Final Office Action
acknowledges that Harris does not disclose requesting connectivity
information from the plurality of in-vehicle components, the connectivity
information including either a network address of the audio system or a
credential for connection to the audio system, and responsive to receiving
the connectivity information, connecting to the audio system, “Harris fails to
disclose or suggest ‘responsive to the location being the driver seating zone,
request connectivity information from the plurality of in vehicle
components, the connectivity information including at least one of a network
address of a hands-free audio system or a credential for connection to the
audio system,’ and ‘responsive to receiving the connectivity information
from at least one of the plurality of in-vehicle components,
programmatically connect to the audio system of the vehicle using the
connectivity information when the location is a driver seating zone and the
personal device is not connected to the audio system.’” Appeal Br. 6–7
(emphasis added); see Reply Br. 2 (same argument). Appellants further
argue, “Okigami, taken alone or in alleged combination with Harris, fails to
disclose or suggest at least ‘responsive to the location being the driver
seating zone, request connectivity information from the plurality of in-
vehicle components, the connectivity information including at least one of a
network address of the audio system or a credential for connection to the
audio system’ as recited by amended claim 1” because “Okigami does not
disclose or suggest an ‘audio system’ or a ‘plurality of in-vehicle
components’ or any operations performed ‘responsive to the location being
Appeal 2019-000312
Application 14/949,121
6

the driver seating zone.’” Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis added); see id. at 7–8
(reproducing Okigami ¶¶ 85, 89, 92, 93); see also Reply Br. 2–3 (citing
Okigami Fig. 1, arguing Okigami relates to printers). Appellants further
contend that because “Okigami lacks a ‘plurality of in-vehicle components’
an ‘audio system,’ and a ‘driver seating zone,’” Okigami also “fails to
disclose or suggest” “‘responsive to receiving the connectivity information
from at least one of the plurality of in-vehicle components,
programmatically connect to a hands-free audio system of the vehicle using
the connectivity information when the location is a driver seating zone and
the personal device is not connected to the audio system’ as further recited
by claim 1.” Appeal Br. 8; see Reply Br. 3 (same argument).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of error because Appellants
address the teachings of Harris alone and the teachings of Okigami alone,
instead of addressing the teachings of Harris, as modified by the knowledge
of one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention regarding the
Bluetooth® connection process, as evidenced by Okigami. One cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Circ. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCPA 1981).
Appellants also argue that the combination of Harris and Okigami is
improper because Okigami is non-analogous art. See Appeal Br. 9.
Specifically, Appellants contend that, because Okigami relates to an image
forming device, such as a photocopier, which Appellants characterize as
having no relation to “in-vehicle components” or a “driver seating zone,”
Okigami is not from the same field of endeavor as that of Harris. See id.
Appeal 2019-000312
Application 14/949,121
7

Appellants further contend that “Okigami is not ‘reasonably pertinent’ to the
subject matter of the instant application” because “Okigami lacks a ‘driver
seating zone’ or any functionality that relates to ‘a location of the personal
device’ being within a ‘driver seating zone.’” Id.
As an initial matter, whether the secondary reference is in the same
field of endeavor as the primary reference is not a relevant inquiry as to
whether a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention. A reference is
analogous art if it is either in the field of the applicant’s endeavor or is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was
concerned. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987 (Fed. Cir. 2006); In re Bigio,
381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We are not persuaded that Okigami is
not reasonably pertinent to the inventor’s particular problem because
“Okigami lacks a ‘driver seating zone’ or any functionality that relates to ‘a
location of the personal device’ being within a ‘driver seating zone.’” A
reference is reasonably pertinent if it “logically would have commended
itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” In re Clay, 966
F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “[T]he problem examined is not the specific
problem solved by the invention but the general problem that confronted the
inventor before the invention was made.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988
(citation omitted). The particular problem with which the inventor was
concerned involves simplified connection of a personal device, such as a
smartphone, to vehicle computing systems, and disconnection therefrom.
See Spec. ¶¶ 1–2. As pointed out by the Examiner, Okigami is relevant
because it describes the process of how two Bluetooth® devices can be
paired by requesting/response signaling between devices to exchange
connection information. See Ans. 10–11. Accordingly, we are not
Appeal 2019-000312
Application 14/949,121
8

persuaded by Appellants’ suggestion that Okigami’s teachings of pairing
two Bluetooth® devices by requesting/response signaling to exchange
connection information is limited to communications between a mobile
phone and a photocopier. And we are not persuaded that Okigami’s
teachings of pairing two Bluetooth® devices by requesting/response
signaling to exchange connection information is not reasonably pertinent to
the problem with which the inventor was involved––simplified connection
of a personal device, such as a smartphone, to vehicle computing systems,
and disconnection therefrom. Finally, we are unmoved by Appellants’
following attorney argument: “[t]hat Bluetooth may be usable in an
implementation having connected devices is simply irrelevant.” Reply Br. 3.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
rejection of claim 1. Appellants do not present separate substantive
arguments addressing independent claims 6 and 13, and dependent claims
3–5, 7–12, and 14–18. Accordingly, for the same reasons as those explained
above with respect to claim 1, we are not persuaded of error in the rejections
of claims 3–18.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1 and 3–18.
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