FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 25, 2020

2019002602 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 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.
14/589,749 01/05/2015 Krishnaswamy Venkatesh PRASAD 83505445 6636
28395 7590 11/25/2020
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
EL-BATHY, IBRAHIM N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/25/2020 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 KRISHNASWAMY VENKATESH PRASAD, BRYAN ROGER
GOODMAN, ERIC H. WINGFIELD, and MICHAEL JAMES WHITENS1
____________________

Appeal 2019-002602
Application 14/589,749
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3, and 6 through 23. We have jurisdiction 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, Ford Global Technologies LLC is the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002602
Application 14/589,749

2
INVENTION
The invention relates generally to a vehicle reservation system which
includes a server with a transceiver to communicate data with a remote
vehicle computer system and a car-reservation system and a processor to
utilize the data to output a car-sharing social-graph, the car-sharing social-
graph including a vehicle for sharing, a vehicle-location, a user-location, and
a potential parking-spot for sharing the vehicle. Abstract. Claim 1 is
reproduced below.
1. A server comprising:
a transceiver configured to communicate data with a
remote vehicle computer system and a car-reservation system;
and
a processor configured to utilize the data to output on a
mobile phone a car sharing social-graph, the car-sharing social-
graph including graphical output depicting a vehicle for
sharing, a vehicle-location, a user-location, and a potential
parking-spot for sharing the vehicle, wherein the processor is
further configured to remotely unlock the vehicle utilizing
vehicle control data and determining the vehicle is rented and
an authorized user has rented the vehicle utilizing a car-sharing
community.
EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS23
The Examiner rejected claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being
indefinite. Final Act. 7.

2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed June 15, 2018
(“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed February 13, 2019 (“Reply Br.”) Final
Office Action mailed January 26, 2018 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed January 24, 2019 (“Ans.”).
3 The rejection of claims 1, 3, and 6–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Final Act. 8–
11) has been withdrawn. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2019-002602
Application 14/589,749

3
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 6, 10 through 18, and 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gutmann (US 2006/0259353 A1,
published November 16, 2006) and Iyer (US 9,194,710 B1, issued
November. 24, 2015). Final Act. 13–27.
The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Gutmann, Iyer and Behr (WO 2016/040888 A1,
published March 17, 2016). Final Act. 27–29.
The Examiner rejected claims 8, 9, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Gutmann, Iyer and Beaurepaire (US 2016/0189098
A1, published June 30, 2016). Final Act. 29–32.
The Examiner rejected claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Gutmann, Iyer and Lohmeier (US 2015/0371153 A1,
published December. 24, 2015). Final Act. 32–23.
The Examiner rejected claims 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Gutmann, Iyer and Lee (US 2017/0228945A1, published
August 10, 2017). Final Act. 33.
ANALYSIS
Indefiniteness Rejection.
Appellant argues the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of claim 21
is in error as:
[P]aragraph 40 of the specification states that an ideal user may
be a “recommendation” that is “based on the social graph.”
Thus, it can be interpreted that an “ideal user” is a user that is
based on a recommendation from the social graph.
Appeal Br. 3.
The Examiner states that the term “ideal user” is a term of degree and
that the Specification does not provide a standard to for measuring the term
Appeal 2019-002602
Application 14/589,749

4
of degree such that the skilled artisan can determine the scope of the claim.
Ans. 4 (citing MPEP § 2173.05(b), Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure Inc.,
600 F.3d 1357, 1367, (Fed. Cir. 2010); Enzo Biochem, Inc., v. Applera
Corp., 599 F.3d 1325, 1332, (Fed. Cir. 2010); Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Indus.
Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, (Fed. Cir. 1984 ).) Further the
Examiner identifies that paragraph 40 of the Specification “doesn’t elaborate
to give [a] boundary meaning for the term ‘ideal’, how can one distinguish
what is expected to be an ‘ideal’ user, it could be a range of interpretations
such as a tech savvy user to a novice user, one cannot determine what is the
expectancy is of an ‘ideal’ user.” Ans. 4.
We concur with the Examiner that the claimed term “ideal” is a term
of degree and do not find that paragraph 40 provides any guidance as to how
the “ideal user” is differentiated from any other user. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
being indefinite.

Obviousness Rejections
Appellant argues the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent
claim 1 is in error as the claim recites a processor to remotely unlock the
vehicle which is not taught by the combination of the references. Appeal Br.
6–7. Appellant argues that Gutmann, the reference the Examiner relies upon
for this limitation, teaches that a card reader may be able to communicate
with a central reservation system but the reference “never explains that [the
card reader] is for unlocking the vehicle as the claims require.” Id. at. 6.
Further, the Appellant states:
Thus, the server of Gutmann is not able to remotely unlock the
Appeal 2019-002602
Application 14/589,749

5
vehicle. Instead, the card reader is capable of unlocking the
vehicle only when it is in close proximity. Just because the card
reader can obtain reservation information remotely, does not
mean that the server of Gutmann is capable of “remotely
unlocking the vehicle.” Therefore, the Examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Id. 7.
Appellant further argues that
The claims require that the processor is utilized to remotely
unlock the vehicle, or in other words, unlock the vehicle
without being in a vicinity of the vehicle. Instead, the Examiner
admits that Guttman requires in paragraph 55 that [an]
“identification card [communicates] with the vehicle as the user
approaches the vehicle.” (Examiner’s Answer, p. 5.) For at least
this reason, the relevant claims are allowable.
While Guttman describes that the card reader does the
unlocking and communicates with the central reservation
system, the central reservation system fails to ever show that it
is configured to “remotely unlock the vehicle[”] as the claims
require. The claims require that a remote object unlock the
vehicle (e.g. a server) but Guttman requires that the key card
unlock the vehicle, as the vehicle does not unlock until the key
card is near the vehicle. The Specification also distinguishes
between local unlocking and remote unlocking:
The door lock/unlock may be local access only when
returned or returned. Additionally, remote locking and
unlocking may be enabled when rented, however, the
vehicle or server may communicate any change in status
(e.g. was it enabled or disabled) when the vehicle has
returned.
(Specification at paragraph 41.)

Reply Br. 1– 2. Appellant argues the rejection of independent claims 11 and
13 is in error as they similarly recite remotely unlocking the vehicle.
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive
Appeal 2019-002602
Application 14/589,749

6
response to Appellant’s arguments on pages 5 and 6 of the Answer, which
we have reviewed and concur with. Additionally, we note that Appellant’s
arguments, cited above, are premised upon the recitation of the term
“remote” to differentiate Gutmann’s teaching of unlocking the vehicle from
the card reader “in the vicinity” of the vehicle or as the user approaches the
vehicle. We do not find that the independent claims recite such a distinction.
Appellant’s Specification does not define remote or provide bounds as to as
to how far something needs to be to be considered remote, and we construe
the term “remote” as merely meaning from a distance. Appellant’s
Specification does discuss remote communication as being performed using
Bluetooth and WiFi networks, which are both protocols for relative short
distance wireless communication, thus suggesting that the remote
communication may be with devices in close proximity. (See Spec. ¶¶ 21,
26).
In the arguments cited above, Appellant acknowledge Gutmann’s
teaches the card reader, which communicates with the car reservation system
and vehicle computer system, may be in the vicinity of the vehicle. Further,
Gutmann teaches that the card reader is used to unlock the vehicle. See
Gutmann ¶ 55. Under a broad but reasonable interpretation, we consider
Gutmann’s card reader to meet the claimed remote unlocking of the vehicle
as it is unlocking the vehicle from a distance, as the Specification does not
compel an interpretation of remote being a distance beyond “in the vicinity.”
In as much as Appellant’s arguments on page 2 of the Reply Brief assert that
the rejection is in error, arguing that Gutmann does not teach the central
reservation system remotely unlocks the vehicle, we are not persuaded of
error as the argument is not commensurate with the claim (the claims do not
Appeal 2019-002602
Application 14/589,749

7
recite the central reservation system unlocking the vehicle). Accordingly,
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 1, 11, and 13, or dependent claims 3, 6, 10,
12, 14 through 18, and 22 which are grouped therewith.
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 7
through 9, 19 through 21 and 23 are in err for the same reasons as claims 1,
11, and 13. Appeal Br. 7–8. As we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 11, and 13, we similarly sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 7 through 9, 19 through 21 and 23.

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, and 6 through 23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In summary:
Claim
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§ 
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
21 112 (b) Indefiniteness 21
1, 3, 6,
10–18, 22
103 Gutmann, Iyer 1, 3, 6,
10–18, 22

7, 19 103 Gutmann, Iyer,
Behr
7, 19
8, 9, 20 103 Gutmann, Iyer,
Beaurepaire
8, 9, 20
21 103 Gutmann, Iyer and
Lohmeier
21
23 103 Gutmann, Iyer, Lee 23
Overall
Outcome
1, 3, 6–23
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
Appeal 2019-002602
Application 14/589,749

8
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED