FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 20, 2021

2020005184 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 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.
15/671,832 08/08/2017 Ryan Andrew SIKORSKI 83831661 1081
28395 7590 05/20/2021
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
HUTCHINSON, ALAN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/20/2021 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RYAN ANDREW SIKORSKI
____________

Appeal 2020-005184
Application 15/671,832
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.

GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART, and we designate our affirmance of the
rejection of claims 10–14 as a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION pursuant to
our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).THE INVENTION

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Ford Global Technologies, LLC as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-005184
Application 15/671,832
2

Appellant’s invention relates to “methods and apparatuses for user
defined driving mode changes based on occurring conditions.” Spec. ¶ 1.
Claims 1, 10, and 19, reproduced below, are the independent claims on
appeal, and are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A system comprising:
a processor configured to:
receive a first set of user-selected parameters,
including first user-defined parameter values, the first set
defining a condition for engaging a specific user-selected
vehicle driving mode;
receive data indicating current parameter values;
and
automatically engage the user-selected vehicle
driving mode responsive to the current parameter values
matching the first user-defined parameter values.

10. A system comprising:
a processor configured to:
determine that a vehicle has entered an area, defined
by user-specified geographic coordinates;
determine that a secondary condition parameter,
specified by a user, includ[ing] a user-specified parameter
value, which is also associated by a user with a user-
specified drive mode, and which is also specified as being
associated, by a user, with the user-designated
coordinates,2 has been met; and
automatically engage the user-specified drive mode
responsive to the vehicle being in the area and the
secondary condition parameter being met.

2 The claim limitation, “the user-designated coordinates,” lacks antecedent
basis; for the purposes of this appeal, we construe “the user-designated
coordinates” as referring back to “user-specified geographic coordinates.”
Appeal Br. (App’x 2) (emphasis added).
Appeal 2020-005184
Application 15/671,832
3
19. A system comprising:
a processor configured to:
determine that a vehicle is entering or is located
within a user-defined geo-fenced area, the area having a
user-designated drive mode associated therewith; and
automatically engage the user-designated drive
mode responsive to determination.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
NAME REFERENCE DATE
Craig US 2009/0143936 A1 June 4, 2009
Uehara US 2015/0025731 A1 Jan. 22, 2015
Graham US 9,193,314 B1 Nov. 24, 2015
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. Claims 1–4, 7–9, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Graham.3
II. Claims 10 and 12–14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Graham.
III. Claims 5, 6, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Graham and Uehara.
IV. Claims 15–18 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Graham and Craig.

3 We consider the inclusion of claims 10 and 12–14 in the statement of the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as a typographical error, because there
are no findings directed to these claims in the analysis section of this
rejection; further, claims 7–10 and 12–14 are rejected separately by the
Examiner under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Graham. Final Act.
4–5.
Appeal 2020-005184
Application 15/671,832
4
OPINION
Rejection I
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2–4 and 7–9
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that
Graham’s first set of user-selected parameters includes: (i) the parameter of
the number of times a driver must adjust a vehicle function (i.e., vehicle
driving mode) to a certain value (i.e., normal, economy, sport modes), while
a condition occurs, for the vehicle control system (VCS), or processor, to
record the condition as defining a rule for automatically engaging the vehicle
function to that certain value each time this specific driver is identified by
the processor and the processor senses that the condition has reoccurred,
wherein this “threshold number of times” parameter may have a user-
defined numeric value (citing Graham 6:14–17); and (ii) the parameter of a
menu of vehicle functions (or systems) available to be monitored by the
processor for determining whether this specific driver has adjusted a vehicle
function to a certain value relative to the occurrence of a condition for the
preset number of times, wherein this “vehicle functions menu” parameter
may have a user-defined value (i.e., audio, vehicle mode selector, light
control, navigation systems (see, e.g., Graham 1:55–62)) (citing Graham
7:12–35). Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that Graham’s processor
automatically engages the user-selected vehicle driving mode responsive to
the current parameter values matching the user-defined parameter values.
Id. (citations omitted).
Appellant argues that, according to Graham’s methodology, the
parameters identified by the Examiner are used to define and record a
relationship between a specific driver’s behavior relative to monitored
Appeal 2020-005184
Application 15/671,832
5
vehicle functions and conditions that occur a preset number of times, but that
the values of the parameters identified by the Examiner are not subject to
any matching to current parameter values for automatically engaging a
vehicle function. Appeal Br. 5–7 (citations omitted).
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Graham’s disclosed
method involves:
(i) identifying a specific driver of the vehicle from a plurality of
potential drivers;
(ii) monitoring a user-settable function of the vehicle, where the
user-settable function preferably corresponds to a vehicle system
selected from the group consisting of . . . a vehicle mode selector
system . . . ;
(iii) detecting an occurrence of the specific driver adjusting the
user-settable function to a first setting;
(iv) determining an event corresponding to the occurrence of the
specific driver adjusting the user-settable function to the first
setting, wherein if the specific driver adjusts the user-settable
function to the first setting when said event re-occurs, and for
more than a preset number of times, . . . then the method further
comprises the step of automatically modifying the user-settable
function to the first setting each time the specific driver is
identified and the event re-occurs . . . .
Graham 1:51–2:8.
Thus, in Graham, the processor does not automatically engage a
specific user-selected vehicle driving mode (i.e., sport mode) in response to
a match between the user-defined parameter values, as identified by the
Examiner (i.e., the “threshold number of times” parameter value and the
“vehicle functions menu” with a value of “drive mode”). Graham discloses
that, if a user adjusts these parameter values as identified by the Examiner,
Graham’s methodology will respond by defining new conditions for
automatically engaging the user-selected driving mode based on the
Appeal 2020-005184
Application 15/671,832
6
modified threshold number of times a driver must repeat a behavior to
record a condition corresponding to the modified vehicle functions menu
selection. In sum, Graham’s methodology does not match a user’s preset
“threshold number of times” parameter value to a current “threshold number
of times” parameter value, or a user’s pre-set “vehicle function menu” value
to a current “vehicle function menu” value to automatically engage a vehicle
driving mode, but rather, Graham’s methodology uses such parameter values
to determine a rule for such automatic engagement when conditions relative
to the rule match current conditions.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Graham.
The Examiner’s findings relative to claims 2–4 and 7–9, which depend from
independent claim 1, do not cure the deficiencies in the Examiner’s findings
relative to Graham as applied to claim 1, and therefore, for essentially the
same reasons as stated supra, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 2–4 and 7–9.4 Final Act. 3–4.
Independent claim 19
Regarding independent claim 19, the Examiner finds that Graham
discloses, inter alia, that the processor is configured to “determine that a

4 Although in the rejection of the dependent claims the Examiner appears to
rely on disclosures in Graham that define parameters other than the
parameters relied on from Graham as applied to claim 1 (i.e., weather and
traffic data parameters, as compared to the “threshold number of times” and
the “vehicle functions menu” parameters applied to claim 1), it is unclear
whether the Examiner’s additional parameters with respect to the dependent
claims would be in lieu of the parameters relied upon in claim 1, so as to
potentially cure the deficiencies in the Examiner’s reliance on the
parameters applied to claim 1. See Final Act. 3–4. We decline to reframe
the rejections.
Appeal 2020-005184
Application 15/671,832
7
vehicle is entering or is located within a user-defined geo-fenced area.”
Final Act. 4 (citing Graham 5:13–23, 6:35–45, 7:12–30, 9:20–45) (emphasis
added). The Examiner finds that “because the driver determines where the
vehicle is, . . . the geo-fenced area is user-defined.” Ans. 4.
Appellant argues that “the prior art geo-fenced area is not user-
defined, it is learned based on where the vehicle happens to be when the
drive mode is engaged for the Nth time.” Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 7.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument, because, as explained
infra, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s finding that
the driver’s behavior, at least indirectly, defines the geo-fenced area, and
therefore, the geo-fenced area is user-defined, as required by claim 19.
The Specification discloses that “[t]he processor is also provided with
a number of different inputs allowing the user to interface with the process,”
such as “a microphone 29, an auxiliary input 25 . . . , a USB input 23, a GPS
input 24, screen 4, . . . , and a BLUETOOTH input 15.” Spec. ¶ 13. The
Specification also discloses that “[i]llustrative embodiments allow a driver to
assign parameters to certain driving mode settings, so that when the
parameters are met, the vehicle automatically engages the driving mode.”
Spec. ¶ 30. The Specification further discloses a “drive-mode engagement
configuration process,” with reference to Figure 2:
In this example, the driver configures one or more driving mode
scenarios. This can be done via a vehicle display, via a phone, a
computer, or any other interfaceable object that allows for
parameter definition and which can eventually store the set of
parameters in a vehicle-accessible manner.
Id. ¶ 31. The Specification explains that
If the parameter is geographic in nature, the process may
display 207 a map including selectable areas so that the driver
Appeal 2020-005184
Application 15/671,832
8
can select a region in which to apply a mode. The driver could
also input coordinates or, for example, a building, location or city
name in which the mode would apply. . . . the process then
associates 211 the chosen mode with the coordinates.
If the mode has a non-geographic parameter associated
therewith, the process may present 213 a set of definable
parameters that can be associated with mode changes. This can
include, for example, speeds, weather detection, night-driving,
road conditions, etc. The driver selects any particular parameters
relevant to the mode selection, and the process receives 215
driver-defined values for those parameters. The process then
associates 217 those values with the particular driving mode and
saves 219 the instructed changes.
Id. ¶¶ 33–34. Thus, according to the Specification, a user selects a
parameter, for example, by choosing a parameter, via an interfaceable object
in communication with the processor, from parameters presented to the user
by the processor, and the user defines a corresponding parameter value, for
example, by entering data into the interfaceable object to give the parameter
value a meaning.
Claim 19, however, does not limit the way a parameter value, or here,
specifically, a geo-fenced area, may be user-defined or, put another way,
given a meaning by the user; for example, claim 19 does not recite an
interfaceable object as a component of the system. See Arlington Indus.,
Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., 345 F.3d 1318, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (it is
improper to read a limitation from the specification into the claims); In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“during patent prosecution when
claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and
breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed”).
Here, the Examiner finds that because the driver’s behavior is what
gives meaning to the value of the geo-fenced area (as a condition) sensed by
Appeal 2020-005184
Application 15/671,832
9
the processor—which is the very purpose of Graham’s methodology,
namely, to provide “a unique driving experience that is specifically and
automatically tailored to [a specific driver’s] driving style” (Graham 1:43–
45)—the driver defines the geo-fenced area, as required by claim 19. We
agree. In Graham, a user (or driver) gives a meaning to (or defines) the geo-
fenced area, at least indirectly, by adjusting a vehicle function relative to a
condition (i.e., a geo-fenced area), such that the processor determines a
relationship between the vehicle function and the condition (i.e., a geo-
fenced area) derived from the behavior of that specific driver as compared to
other drivers. See, e.g., Graham 5:13–20. In fact, Graham’s methodology
requires a preliminary step of identifying the driver, because each driver (or
driver’s behavior) defines the conditions (including a geo-fenced area)
relative to the specific’s driver’s behavior.
In the Reply Brief, for the first time, Appellant argues that, in
Graham, “the user [has not] designated a drive-mode to be associated with
that area.” Reply Br. 7. This is correct with respect to the specific examples
provided in Graham that identify a geo-fenced area as a condition, because
with respect to these examples, Graham identifies the user-selected functions
corresponding to the user-defined the geo-fenced area condition as (i)
opening the garage door opener, (ii) opening the charge port, and (iii)
turning on the vehicle’s lights, rather than adjusting into, for example, an
economy driving mode. See Graham 9:20–44. However, although Graham
may not expressly disclose the specific combination of user-selectable
vehicle function and condition claimed, Graham discloses that monitoring
the vehicle’s drive mode to detect a specific driver’s adjustments (i.e.,
normal, economy, sport modes) is an available user-selectable function for
Appeal 2020-005184
Application 15/671,832
10
monitoring and that location (i.e., geo-fenced area) is an available condition
defined by driver behavior. See, e.g., Graham 5:13–19. In any event, we
decline to decide whether these teachings in Graham render the specific
combination claimed anticipated, because this argument is untimely.
Appellant has not shown good cause why this argument was not presented
earlier, and thus, the argument has been waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2); see also Optivus Technology, Inc. v. Ion Beam Applications
S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (issue waived for the first time in a
reply brief is waived).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 19, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), as anticipated by Graham.
Rejection II
The Examiner finds that Graham discloses all of the limitations of
independent claim 10, except that “Graham does not however appear to be
explicit as to user-specified geographic coordinates.” Final Act. 4–5
(citations omitted). The Examiner reasons that this is within the capabilities
of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 5.
Appellant argues that claim 10 requires user-specified geographic
coordinates, user-specified parameters, user-specified parameter values,
user-specified drive modes, and a user-specified association between the
drive modes and coordinates, and that, in Graham, “the user gets to specify
virtually none of [the user-specified requirements of claim 10],” but rather,
relies “on coincidence of occurrence to eventually produce something that
approximates the rule.” Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 6.
As an initial matter, we construe claim 10 as implying that the user-
specified geographic coordinates is a primary parameter having a parameter
Appeal 2020-005184
Application 15/671,832
11
value, in view of the explicit recitation in claim 10 of a secondary condition
parameter with a parameter value. It is unclear from the Examiner’s
statement of the rejection which primary and secondary parameters and
parameter values in Graham the Examiner finds correspond to the claimed
primary and secondary parameters. However, consistent with Appellant’s
interpretation of the Examiner’s rejection, we agree that Graham’s
conditions, which are determined by Graham’s processor as having an
association with the specific driver’s user-settable vehicle function values,
correspond to the claimed parameters and parameter values. See Final Act.
4–5; Appeal Br. 5–9; Reply Br. 2–7.
We construe the claim term “user-specified geographic coordinates”
to mean geographic coordinates specified, or identified clearly and
definitely, by a user. We do not read into this claim term that the user must
separately define the geographic coordinates, for example, as the claim term
“user-defined” is recited in claims 1 and 19.
Graham’s method is set forth supra. Graham also discloses that the
method may optionally include “the step of requesting driver confirmation
prior to performing the step of automatically modifying the user-settable
function to the first setting each time the specific driver is identified and the
event re-occurs” (Graham 2:23–27), wherein the processor receives the
driver’s confirmation to use specific parameters and parameter values as
conditions for automatically engaging a certain user-settable function to a
first setting (i.e., a vehicle drive mode). Thus, we find that because Graham
presents parameters and their parameter values to a driver for specific
selection and identification for use as conditions for automatically engaging
Appeal 2020-005184
Application 15/671,832
12
vehicle functions, Graham discloses that such parameters and parameter
values are user-specified, as required by claim 10.5
Graham also discloses that a condition or event may correspond to
“each time that the vehicle is at, or within a preset distance of, a particular
coordinate as determined by controller 101 using global positioning system
(GPS) 129.” Graham 9:21–24. Thus, we find that the presentation of
geographic coordinates as a parameter having a parameter value by the
processor to a specific driver for confirmation as to whether the specific
driver wants to record the geographic coordinates as a condition for
automatic engagement of a vehicle function (i.e., a certain vehicle drive
mode), and the driver’s subsequent indication to use such geographic
coordinates as such a parameter having a parameter value, discloses that the
geographic coordinates are user-specified, as claimed.
We apply this same disclosure in Graham to the other terms in claim
10 that are required to be user-specified. Thus, in a case where Graham
presents to the driver geographic coordinates as well as a secondary
condition parameter having a parameter value associated with the automatic
engagement of a drive mode (for example, as disclosed as an available
combination of vehicle functions and associated driver behaviors by
Graham), and the driver confirms the rule, Graham discloses a user-
specified secondary condition parameter, a user-specified parameter value, a

5 Similarly, we find that this optional driver confirmation step, as described
in Graham, also discloses that such parameters and parameter values are
user-selected, because Graham’s driver selects (or decides not to select) the
event as a condition of automatically engaging a vehicle function (i.e.,
vehicle drive mode). See, e.g., Graham 2:23–27; cf. Claim 1 (“user-selected
parameters”).
Appeal 2020-005184
Application 15/671,832
13
user-specified drive mode, and a user-specified association therebetween, as
required by claim 10.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10, and
because Appellant chose not to present arguments for the patentability of
claims 12–14 separately from the arguments presented for independent claim
10, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12–14 for essentially
the same reasons as presented supra. Appeal Br. 9. To the extent we have
relied on passages and findings in Graham that were not cited by the
Examiner, we designate our affirmance of claims 10 and 12–14 as a NEW
GROUND OF REJECTION to give Appellant a fair opportunity to respond.
Rejection III
Dependent claims 5 and 6
Claims 5 and 66 depend from independent claim 1, and the
Examiner’s reliance on Uehara for disclosing a vehicle speed parameter and
a vehicle speed parameter value does not cure the deficiencies in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as discussed supra.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5
and 6.
Dependent claim 11
Claim 11 depends from independent claim 10, and Appellant argues
that Uehara does not cure the deficiencies of Graham with respect to claim
10. Appeal Br. 10. Because we do not agree that the Examiner’s rejection is
deficient, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11. However,
because we rely on passages and findings from Graham not relied on by the

6 Claim 6 appears to have a typographical error in that claim 6 requires a
vehicle speed parameter and a time of day or day of week parameter value.
See Appeal Br. (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-005184
Application 15/671,832
14
Examiner in the rejection of claim 10, we designate our affirmance of claim
11 as a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION to give Appellant a fair
opportunity to respond.
Rejection IV
Dependent claims 15–18
Claims 15–18 depend from independent claim 10, and Appellant
argues that Craig does not cure the deficiencies of Graham with respect to
claim 10. Appeal Br. 10. Because we do not agree that the Examiner’s
rejection is deficient, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15–18.
However, because we rely on passages and findings from Graham not relied
on by the Examiner in the rejection of claim 10, we designate our affirmance
of claims 15–18 as a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION to give Appellant a
fair opportunity to respond.
Dependent claim 20
Claim 20 depends from independent claim 19, and Appellant argues
that that Craig does not cure the deficiencies of Graham with respect to
claim 19. Appeal Br. 10. Because we do not agree that the Examiner’s
rejection is deficient, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20, for
essentially the same reasons as stated supra.

Appeal 2020-005184
Application 15/671,832
15
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed New
Ground
of
Rejection
1–4, 7–9,
19
102(a)(1) Graham 19 1–4, 7–9
10, 12–
14
103 Graham 10, 12–
14
10, 12–14
5, 6, 11 103 Graham, Uehara 11 5, 6 11
15–18,
20
103 Graham, Craig 15–18,
20
15–18
Overall
Outcome
10–20 1–9 10–18

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
This decision contains a new ground 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 ground 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. . . .
Appeal 2020-005184
Application 15/671,832
16

Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1214.01.
AFFIRMED IN PART; 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b)