Ex Parte Laghrari et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 28, 201411773048 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 11/773,048 07/03/2007 Fahd Z. Laghrari P000718-OST-ALS 1640 60770 7590 04/29/2014 General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. P.O. BOX 4390 TROY, MI 48099-4390 EXAMINER HOLWERDA, STEPHEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3664 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/29/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte FAHD Z. LANGHRARI, KEVIN R. KRAUSE, and ROBERT J. MYERS ____________ Appeal 2012-004259 Application 11/773,048 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Yi (US 2008/0102854 A1, pub. May 1, 2008). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2012-004259 Application 11/773,048 2 Claimed Subject Matter Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the appealed subject matter. 1. A method of providing data-related services to a telematics-equipped vehicle, the method comprising the steps of: (a) sending a status request message to a wireless carrier system, the status request message includes a vehicle identifier and a status information type; (b) receiving a status response message from the wireless carrier system, the status response message includes status information corresponding to the vehicle identifier and the status information type; (c) utilizing the status information to determine if the telematics-equipped vehicle is able to receive the data-related services; and (d) if the telematics-equipped vehicle is able to receive the data-related services, then providing the data-related services to the telematics-equipped vehicle by establishing a mobile-terminated data connection with the telematics- equipped vehicle. OPINION Claims 1-11 With respect to the rejection of claim 1, the Appellants contend that the Examiner’s “rejection on § 102 grounds is improper” (App. Br. 6) because “[w]hile the Examiner identifies elements disclosed in Yi, the Examiner imputes attributes and functions(s) to those elements that are in no way supported by Yi” (Reply Br. 1 (emphasis added)). The Examiner finds, for example, that paragraphs [0018]-[0019] of Yi disclose limitation (a) of claim 1 “in that a person operating the vehicle (1) speaking to a person (86) working in the call center (20) via the wireless carrier system (14) must Appeal 2012-004259 Application 11/773,048 3 first be authorized to receive data before receiving data.” Ans. 11; see also id. at 4 and 10 (citing Yi, paras. [0018]-[0019]). The Appellants argue that “[n]either paragraphs [0018]-[0019] nor any other part of Yi discloses, either explicitly or implicitly, a call center that carries out authentication services described by the Examiner.” Reply Br. 2. We agree with the Appellants that the Examiner’s findings with respect to the Yi disclosure are unsupported by paragraphs [0018]-[0019] of Yi. The Appellants further argue, “Yi does not disclose that [Yi’s authentication process] has anything to do with the call center, a live advisor, or any other messages sent to or received from the wireless carrier system, as the Examiner submits.” Id. (emphasis added). We agree with the Appellants that the authentication process disclosed by Yi does not appear address claim limitation (a) of claim 1, which requires sending a status request message to a wireless carrier system. Thus, we are persuaded by the Appellants’ contention that the rejection is improper because the Examiner’s findings with respect to Yi are erroneous. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-11 which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), as anticipated by Yi. Claims 12-19 Independent claim 12 is directed to a method and includes, inter alia, a step, similar to step (a) in claim 1, of “sending a status request message from a call center to a wireless carrier system, the status request message includes a vehicle identifier.” App. Br., Clms. App’x. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 relies on the same erroneous findings discussed above Appeal 2012-004259 Application 11/773,048 4 with respect to claim 1. See Ans. 5 and 14. For similar reasons to those discussed above with respect to claim 1, Appellants’ contention as to error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 is persuasive. See App. Br. 7-8. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12, and claims 13-19 which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), as being anticipated by Yi. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection claims 1-19. REVERSED Klh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation