FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 31, 2020

15298125 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 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.
15/298,125 10/19/2016 Jonathan GREGORY 83732498 7860
28395 7590 03/31/2020
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
PATEL, HEMANT SHANTILAL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2653
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2020 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 JONATHAN GREGORY
____________

Appeal 2019-001538
Application 15/298,125
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 15–19, which are
all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We affirm.

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 2019-001538
Application 15/298,125

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to the control of an entertainment system
of a motor vehicle. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 6–23.
Claims 1, 9, and 15 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method of controlling a vehicle entertainment system
comprising:
establishing an identity of one or more occupants of the
vehicle using at least one of a seat fore-aft position sensor and a
seat mass sensor;
automatically selecting, from a number of saved playlists,
a customized playlist based upon the identity and providing an
audio output from the customized playlist; and
automatically selecting the audio output based upon the
identity of the vehicle occupants.
Claims Appx. 1.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–5, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 15–19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wada (US 2009/0325557 A1;
pub. Dec. 31, 2009) in view of Abuelsaad et al. (US 2014/0343796 A1; pub.
Nov. 20, 2014). Final Act. 2–7; Ans. 3–5.2

2 We note that the Examiner’s Answer contains incorrectly numbered pages,
starting over with the number 3 in the “Response to Argument” section, after
unnumbered page 8. We follow these page numbers in our citations to the
Answer, and refer here and elsewhere to the second set of pages numbered
3–5, which would otherwise have been numbered 9–11.
Appeal 2019-001538
Application 15/298,125

3
OPINION
The Examiner finds that Wada teaches automatically selecting a
customized playlist based upon the identity of one or more occupants of a
vehicle. Final Act. 2 (citing Wada Figs. 6A–B, 9, 10A-D; ¶¶ 74–77, 80, 91,
103, 117–119, 126); Ans. 3. The Examiner further finds that Abuelsaad
teaches identifying an occupant of a vehicle by using a seat fore-aft position
sensor and a seat mass sensor. Final Act. 3 (citing Abuelsaad ¶¶ 12, 14–16,
18, 20–22); Ans. 4. The Examiner then finds that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Wada to identify a vehicle
occupant by using at least one of a seat fore-aft position sensor and a seat
mass sensor, as taught by Abuelsaad, so that “the vehicle occupant does not
have to carry special equipment to make his/her presence known to the
vehicle,” which would “make it very convenient for the user.” Final Act. 3;
Ans. 4.
Appellant argues that the proposed combination of references changes
Wada’s principle of operation and renders Wada unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose. Appeal Br. 2, 4. Specifically, Appellant argues that
Wada identifies vehicle occupants using registered radio communication
devices and that Wada’s principle of operation, which, according to
Appellant, is “identification via registration,” would be altered by the
combination with Abuelsaad. Id. at 3–4 (citing Wada ¶¶ 75, 77, 91).
Appellant also argues that Wada “allows for a plurality of users to register
and log in, while the proposed combination reduces the number of users . . .
to the number of seats in the vehicle.” Id. at 4. According to Appellant,
“using biometric information to identify users defeats the purpose of using
Appeal 2019-001538
Application 15/298,125

4
radio communication” and “frustrates the purpose of a system designed for a
plurality of users.” Id. at 5.
The argument that a proposed combination of references would render
one of the references unsuitable for its intended purpose, or would change
its principle of operation, is a teaching away argument. See In re Gordon,
733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (concluding that “[i]n effect, French
teaches away from the board's proposed modification” because “if the
French apparatus were turned upside down, it would be rendered inoperable
for its intended purpose”). The Federal Circuit has held that “[a] reference
may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the
reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the
reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was
taken by the applicant.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(quoting In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). Appellant has not
proffered any portion of Wada or Abuelsaad that discourages, criticizes, or
otherwise discredits identifying vehicle occupants by using a seat fore-aft
position sensor or seat mass sensor in order to select a customized playlist,
as recited in the claims.
Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that both Wada and
Abuelsaad disclose saving customized settings for a plurality users. See
Ans. 5 (citing Wada Fig. 2; Abuelsaad ¶¶ 16–17, 24–25); see also Abuelsaad
Abstr. (“electronic storage device includes one or more driver profiles”).
Thus, the proposed combination would predictably result in automatic
selection of a customized playlist based upon the identity of one or more
occupants of a vehicle as determined by at least one of a seat fore-aft
position sensor and a seat mass sensor, and substituting one method of
Appeal 2019-001538
Application 15/298,125

5
identifying vehicle occupants (i.e., using a seat fore-aft position sensor or a
seat mass sensor) for another (i.e., using radio communication devices)
would not affect Wada’s selection of a customized playlist based upon the
identity of occupants of a vehicle, even in the case of a plurality of users.
See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Appellant argues that, in the proposed combination, Wada would
require a “redesign,” “reprogramming,” and “substantial reconstruction to
include biometric data for a plurality of users, rather than identification data
previously stored on a radio communication device.” Appeal Br. 4–5. This
argument is not persuasive, as Appellant does not explain with any
specificity why the proposed modification of Wada would have been beyond
the technical grasp of a person having ordinary skill in the art. “A person of
ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). In the
absence of such explanation, we agree with the Examiner that one skilled in
the art readily could have substituted Abuelsaad’s biometric data in place of
Wada’s identification data as a “numerical key” for looking up associated
playlist data. See Ans. 3–4.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 15–19 as unpatentable
over Wada and Abuelsaad. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2019-001538
Application 15/298,125

6
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 15–19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
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).

Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 8, 9, 12,
13, 15–19
103 Wada, Abuelsaad 1–5, 8, 9, 12,
13, 15–19

AFFIRMED