Ex Parte Spahl et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2017

14101573 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2017)

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.
14/101,573 12/10/2013 Robert Spahl 83389099 5481
28866 7590 09/01/2017
MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC - FORD
ONE MARITIME PLAZA - FIFTH FLOOR
720 WATER STREET
TOLEDO, OH 43604
EXAMINER
YANG, JAMES J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2017 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 @ mstfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT SPAHL and JOHN R. VAN
WIEMEERSCH
Appeal 2017-005635
Application 14/101,573
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC B. CHEN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—12 and 16—23. Final Act. 1. Claims 13—15 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1—3, 5—7, and 16—19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over McBride (US 2007/0200672 Al; Aug. 30, 2007). Final Act.
2-9.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over McBride
and Youngs (US 8,731,475 Bl; May 20, 2014). Final Act. 9.
Claims 8—12, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over McBride and Sahai (US 2005/0190041 Al; Sep. 1, 2005).
Final Act. 10—15.
Appeal 2017-005635
Application 14/101,573
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over McBride and Kolling (US 2013/0073349 Al; Mar. 21, 2013). Final
Act. 15-20.
We affirm-in-part.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to “activation of a welcoming function
such as courtesy lighting when a user approaches a vehicle.” Claim 1 is
illustrative and reproduced below:
1. Vehicle apparatus comprising:
a convenience controller activating a user welcoming function in
response to a detected arrival of an authorized user of a vehicle into an
approach region around the vehicle, wherein the welcoming function does
not include a door unlocking function;
a short range transmitter broadcasting a polling signal covering the
approach region and having an approach pending mode wherein the polling
signal is broadcast according to a first predetermined repetition and a
baseline mode wherein the polling signal is broadcast according to a second
predetermined repetition which is lower than the first predetermined
repetition, and wherein the short range transmitter operating in the approach
pending mode has a first power drain;
a short range receiver detecting a response from a first user-carried
wireless device, wherein the short range receiver has a predetermined
accuracy for detecting a proximity of the user-carried wireless device;
a wireless communication system configured to monitor for user
activity outside the approach region when the first user-carried wireless
2
Appeal 2017-005635
Application 14/101,573
device is outside the range of the short range transmitter, wherein the
detected user activity corresponds to a potential entry into the approach
region, wherein monitoring by the wireless communication system has a
second power drain less than the first power drain, wherein the wireless
communication system has a coarser accuracy than the predetermined
accuracy for detecting the proximity of the user-carried wireless device, and
wherein the wireless communication system is configured to communicate
with a second user-carried wireless device with a range greater than the short
range transmitter;
wherein if the short range transmitter is in the baseline mode when the
user activity is detected, then the short range transmitter switches to the
approach pending mode.
ANALYSIS
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1-3,5-7, and 16-19 over
McBride
The Examiner finds McBride teaches all limitations of claim 1. Final
Act. 3—6. Appellants’ invention is illustrated in Figures 3 and 5, with Figure
3 depicting a vehicle 30, a user 33, and wireless communication systems 35,
36, and 39, and with Figure 5 depicting operation. McBride’s technique is
illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 of McBride, with McBride’s Figure 1 depicting
zones 36 and 46, and McBride’s Figure 2 depicting operation.
Appellants present the following principal argument:
Until the user in McBride enters the first zone corresponding to
the welcoming function, nothing in the vehicle would have any
indication of the user’s status or location at all. Therefore, the
system detecting entry to the welcoming zone would always be
3
Appeal 2017-005635
Application 14/101,573
on full alert in McBride. When the receiver in McBride detects
the mobile unit in the larger zone, the welcome function is
immediately activated (steps 62-66 in McBride). The claimed
invention changes a monitoring status upon detection of a user
who has been coarsely determined to be outside but approaching
the welcoming zone.
App. Br. 4—5; see also Reply Br. 2 (“When antennae 40 transmit an
interrogation signal, the actual presence of the mobile unit has already been
detected within the first zone and the welcome function has already been
activated.”).
In response, the Examiner explains McBride’s antenna 40 has a
baseline mode when it is not transmitting, and an approach pending mode
when it is transmitting. See Ans. 3; see also Final Act 3^4 (citing McBride
124). McBride (| 24) discloses: “In one embodiment, the second antennae
40 transmits the second interrogation signal only after the detection device
22 detects that the mobile unit 24 is within the first zone 36 to conserve
energy.”
Appellants’ argument persuades us that the Examiner erred in finding
McBride teaches all limitations of claim 1. In particular, claim 1 recites
“activating a user welcoming function in response to a detected arrival of an
authorized user of a vehicle into an approach region around the vehicle,
wherein the welcoming function does not include a door unlocking
function.” Claim 1 recites “a short range transmitter... covering the
approach region and having an approach pending mode... and a baseline
mode.” Claim 1 recites “a wireless communication system configured to
monitor for user activity outside the approach region.” Claim 1 recites “if
the short range transmitter is in the baseline mode when the user activity is
detected, then the short range transmitter switches to the approach pending
4
Appeal 2017-005635
Application 14/101,573
mode.” Thus, according to claim 1, the short range transmitter switches to
the approach pending mode before the user enters the approach region, and
when the user arrives in the approach region, the welcoming function (not a
door unlocking function) is activated.
Turing to McBride, when the user enters first zone 36 (Fig. 1), a
welcoming function is activated (block 66, Fig. 2). When the user enters the
second zone 46, the state of a closure changes to unlock-standby (block 72,
Fig. 2).
Thus, at best, because claim l’s welcoming function is required not to
include a door unlocking function, McBride’s first zone 36 maps to the
recited (claim 1) “approach region” and McBride’s welcoming function
maps to the recited (claim 1) “welcoming function.” Given this mapping,
we agree with Appellants that McBride’s system detecting entry into zone 36
is not disclosed as having more than one mode, let alone a baseline mode
and an approach pending mode as recited in claim 1.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We
also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 3, 5—7, and 16—19,
which depend from claim 1.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 4 over McBride and Youngs
The Examiner does not find Youngs cures the deficiencies of McBride
discussed above with respect to claim 1. See Final Act. 9.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4,
which depends from claim 1.
5
Appeal 2017-005635
Application 14/101,573
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 8-12,20, and 21 over McBride
and Sahai
The Examiner does not find Sahai cures the deficiencies of McBride
discussed above with respect to claim 1. See Final Act. 10-12.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8—12,
which depend from claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Appellants present the following principal
arguments:
i.
As defined in the present invention, the welcoming function
clearly excludes unlocking of the doors. Moreover, the
interrogation or polling used by McBride to initiate its welcome
function in step 66 (clearly preceding the subsequent unlocking
in step 72) is not disclosed to have anything other than a
continuous operation at whatever current draw is required by the
vehicle receiver used to monitor the first zone.
App. Br. 6—7; see also Reply Br. 2.
ii. “[N]o valid reason is given why one skilled in the art would
modify McBride.” App. Br. 7.
We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner.
Nor do we see any error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding Appellants’ argument (i), during examination of a patent
application, a claim is given its broadest reasonable construction “in light of
the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the
art.” In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally,
“[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by the
explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to
6
Appeal 2017-005635
Application 14/101,573
import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.” See
SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir.
2004).
In particular, claim 20 recites “activating the welcoming function
when the response is valid.” That said, unlike claim 1, claim 20 does not
require that the welcoming function not include a door unlocking function.
See Ans. 4; see also Final Act. 13—14.
Because claim 20’s welcoming function is not required to not include
a door unlocking function, McBride’s second zone 46 maps to the recited
(claim 20) “approach region” and McBride’s unlock function maps to the
recited (claim 20) “welcoming function.” Given this mapping, we agree
with the Examiner that McBride’s system detecting entry into zone 36
reasonably describes detecting user activity and increasing a rate of a polling
signal as recited in claim 20. See McBride 124 (“In one embodiment, the
second antennae 40 transmits the second interrogation signal only after the
detection device 22 detects that the mobile unit 24 is within the first zone 36
to conserve energy.”).
Regarding Appellants’ argument (ii), the Examiner’s reliance on
Sahai is for teaching a cellular telephone system and the relative accuracies
of the cellular telephone system and McBride’s low frequency signal. Final
Act. 14. In making the combination, the Examiner reasons:
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of filing to modify the system in McBride by
integrating the teaching of a cellular phone controlling a vehicle
control system as taught by Sahai.
The motivation would be to allow the user to designate
which functions he/she wants the vehicle to perform.
7
Appeal 2017-005635
Application 14/101,573
Final Act. 14 (citing Sahai 110); see also Ans. 4. Sahai (110) discloses:
“The vehicle 12 includes a receiver 14 for receiving commands from the
cellular phone 10.”
We see no reason why McBride would not have benefited from the
advantages of including Sahai’s cellular phone. Sahai’s cellular phone is
readily applicable to McBride because McBride discloses a radio frequency
signal for the first interrogation signal in first zone 36. See McBride 123.
As such, modifying McBride to include Sahai’s cellular phone would have
been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
functions — an obvious improvement. As the U.S. Supreme Court has
explained:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary
skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its
patentability. For the same reason, 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. Sakraida [v. Ag Pro, Inc.,
425 U.S. 273 (1976)] and Anderson’s-Black Rock[, Inc. v.
Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)] are illustrative — a
court must ask whether the improvement is more than the
predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.
KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20. We also
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21, which depends from 20, and is
not separately argued with particularity.
8
Appeal 2017-005635
Application 14/101,573
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 22 and 23 over McBride and
Rolling
The Examiner finds McBride and Rolling teach all limitations of
claim 22. Final Act. 15—19.
Like claim 1, according to claim 22, the short range transmitter
switches to the approach pending mode before the user enters the approach
region, and when the user arrives in the approach region, the welcoming
function (not a door unlocking function) is activated.
Thus, at best, because claim 22 ’s welcoming function is required to
not include a door unlocking function, McBride’s first zone 36 maps to the
recited (claim 22) “approach region” and McBride’s welcoming function
maps to the recited (claim 22) “welcoming function.” Given this mapping,
we agree with Appellants that McBride’s system detecting entry into zone
36 is not disclosed as having more than one mode, let alone a baseline mode
and an approach pending mode as recited in claim 22. See App. Br. 8—9,
Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner does not find Rolling cures the deficiencies of
McBride. See Final Act. 19, Ans. 4—5.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23, which depends
from claim 22.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—12, 16—19, 22, and 23 is
reversed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 20 and 21 is affirmed.
9
Appeal 2017-005635
Application 14/101,573
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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10