FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 16, 2020

2019003242 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 2020)

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.
15/253,177 08/31/2016 John Naum VANGELOV 83641981 9032
28395 7590 11/16/2020
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
SERRAO, RANODHI N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2444
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/16/2020 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 JOHN NAUM VANGELOV, JASON MICHAEL MILLER,
SANGEETHA SANGAMESWARAN, and
JOHN WILLIAM SCHMOTZER
_____________

Appeal 2019-003242
Application 15/253,177
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, the real party in interest is
Ford Global Technologies, LLC. See Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-003242
Application 15/253,177

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2
Introduction
Appellant’s claimed invention relates generally to “a method and
apparatus for efficient data transfer protocol in a limited-bandwidth vehicle
environment.” (Spec., Title, emphasis and capitalization omitted).

Representative Independent Claim 1
1. A system comprising:
a processor configured to:
receive a 29-bit request transmitted over a vehicle
controller area network (CAN) bus;
identify a vehicle electronic control unit (ECU) as a
target recipient based on a target identifier included with the
request;
identify a source which sent the request based on a
source identifier included with the request;
verify the identified source as permitted to send the
request to the ECU; and
responsive to the verification, route the request to an
ECU application, executing on the ECU, identified by an
application identifier included with the request.
Appeal Br. 9, Claims App., disputed limitations emphasized.

2 We herein refer to the Final Office Action, mailed July 20, 2018 (“Final
Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed Dec. 17, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s
Answer, mailed Jan. 18, 2019 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief, filed Mar. 18,
2019 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2019-003242
Application 15/253,177

3
Rejections3
A. Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as being
anticipated by Han et al. (US 2015/0089236 A1, published Mar.
26, 2015 (hereinafter “Han”)). See Final Act. 7.

ANALYSIS
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Brief, the principal and
dispositive issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting exemplary
claim 1 turns on whether Han expressly or inherently discloses the claim
limitations “identify a source which sent the request based on a source
identifier included with the request; [and] verify the identified source as
permitted to send the request to the ECU” (hereinafter “the disputed source
limitation”). Appeal Br. 7, 8; Reply Br. 2. Independent claims 10 and 14
recites similar subject matter.4
We adopt the findings of facts made by the Examiner in the Final
Office Action and Examiner’s Answer as our own. We concur with the
decision reached by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer for the specific
reasons discussed below. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellant contends Han does not disclose the disputed source
limitation. Appeal Br. 7. In particular, Appellant contends that ¶ 80 of Han
“is silent on source identification, and instead relates to verifying an ID

3 The rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been withdrawn by
the Examiner. Ans. 3.

4 Appellant did not provide separate, substantive arguments with respect to
the patentability of claims 2–9, 11–13, and 15–20.
Appeal 2019-003242
Application 15/253,177

4
included in the message. This is not a source ID, however, this is rolling
crypto ID that is replaced and reverified for every frame.” Id.
Appellant also contends that in Han “any source with credentials can
generate the message, the specific source is unknown.” Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner has identified the relevant portions of Han and has
provided sufficient explanation with corresponding citations to various parts
of the reference for disclosing the disputed source limitation (Final Act. 4–6,
8; Ans. 4, 5). In particular, the Examiner relies upon ¶ 84 of Han:
[0084] IA-CAN protocol introduced above authenticates both
sender entities and messages. Only an authorized
sender/receiver can generate/identify a valid anonymous ID
using a shared secret key and a random nonce. The frames
broadcast by a valid sender will be received by only a valid
receiver whose filter contains a matching precomputed
anonymous ID.

The Examiner further finds:
As shown above, Han clearly discloses identifying a source
(sender) which sent the request based on a source identifier
(ID) included with the request since the IA-CAN protocol
authenticates both sender entities and messages and only an
authorized sender/receiver can generate/identify a valid
anonymous ID using a shared secret key and a random nonce.

Ans. 4.
As an initial matter of claim construction, we turn to the Specification
for context, and find no explicit definition for the claim term “a source.”
Claim 1 (emphasis added). Instead of a definition, we find Appellant’s
description of a “source” in the Specification (¶¶ 37 and 47) is merely
exemplary and non-limiting.
Appeal 2019-003242
Application 15/253,177

5
The table in ¶ 37 of the Specification describes that a “source” is used
“to define the module that 10 bits will be sending the message transmitted.”
Spec. ¶ 37 (emphasis added). Also, ¶ 47 of the Specification describes “[a]
Source parameter defines an originating module for the OVTP message. For
messages originating at the Client, the Source may be defined as the Client
that is sending the information to the Server. Typically, for requests the
Source is the Client, and for responses the Source is the Server.” Spec. ¶ 47
(emphasis added).
Given the absence of a limiting definition in the claim or Specification
regarding the disputed source limitations, on this record, we are not
persuaded the Examiner’s reading is overly broad, unreasonable, or
inconsistent with the Specification.5 Based on our review of Han (¶ 84) and
consistent with the Examiner’s stated position (Ans. 4), we interpret the
disputed source limitation using the broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with Appellant’s disclosure – to include the sender disclosed in
Han. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
On this record, and based upon a preponderance of the evidence, we
are not persuaded of error regarding the Examiner's finding of anticipation
regarding the rejection of independent representative claim 1.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
representative independent claim 1 and the rejection of grouped independent
claims 10 and 14, which recite similar limitations of commensurate scope.

5 We emphasize that, because “applicants may amend claims to narrow their
scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the
applicant or patentee.” In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374,
1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Appeal 2019-003242
Application 15/253,177

6
The remaining grouped dependent claims also rejected (and not argued
separately) fall with their respective independent claim 1, 10, or 14.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of
claims 1–20 over Han.

CONCLUSION
Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred with respect to the
anticipation rejection of claims 1–20, over the cited prior art of record, and
we sustain the rejection.
DECISION SUMMARY6
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 102 Han 1–20

6 We have decided the appeal before us. Should there be further prosecution
of this application, with respect to claim 1, the Examiner may consider a
rejection of claim 1 as being a single means claim.

Appeal 2019-003242
Application 15/253,177

7
FINALITY AND RESPONSE
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED