FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 16, 2020

2019004307 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 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.
15/098,754 04/14/2016 Oliver LEI 83634514 4852
28395 7590 12/16/2020
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
SCHWARTZ, JOSHUA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2642
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2020 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 OLIVER LEI and
ALLEN R. MURRAY

____________

Appeal 2019-004307
Application 15/098,754
Technology Center 2600
____________

BEFORE CARL L. SILVERMAN, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–12.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We Reverse.

1 Throughout this Decision, we use the word “Appellant” to refer to
“applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies Ford
Global Technologies, LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal. Br. 2.
2 Claims 13–20 were withdrawn in response to a restriction requirement.
Response to Restriction Requirement (dated 9/6/2017).
Appeal 2019-004307
Application 15/098,754
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to cellular network backup connectivity in
which wireless connectivity is identified as an alternative communication if
cellular communication is unavailable. Spec., Abstr., ¶¶ 1, 2, 4, 27, 31, 32,
33, 36–38, 43, Figs. 1, 2. Claim 1 reproduced below, is exemplary of the
subject matter on appeal (emphasis added):
1. A system comprising:
a processor configured to:
detect a presence of a wireless network access point
usable for vehicular communication;
connect to the wireless access point; and
report connection information relating to the connected
access point to an entity capable of establishing direct cellular
connection with a vehicle, identifying the connected access point
as an alternative communication method when cellular
communication is unavailable.
Appeal Br. 103 (Claims App.).

REFERENCES
Prior art relied upon by the Examiner:
Name Reference Date
Klein et al. US 8,248,931 B2 Aug. 21, 2012
Scheim et al. US 2014/0274069 Al Sept. 18, 2014
Harber US 2016/0112864 A1 Apr. 21, 2016
Yoshizawa US 2016/0183152 Al June 23, 2016
Dalke et al. US 2017/0094605 A1 Mar. 30, 2017

3 Our cites to the Claims Appendix continue the numbering from the Appeal
Brief.
Appeal 2019-004307
Application 15/098,754
3
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1–3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being
anticipated by Scheim. Final Act. 2–3.
Claims 4–6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Scheim and Yoshizawa. Final Act. 3–6.
Claim 8–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Scheim and Harber. Final Act. 6–8.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Scheim and Klein. Final Act. 8–9.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Scheim, Dalke, and Yoshizawa. Final Act. 9–11.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief that the Examiner has
erred, as well as the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments in the
Appeal Brief. As discussed below, we are persuaded by Appellant’s
contentions of Examiner error.
The § 102 rejection of claims 1–3 and 7
Appellant argues, inter alia, the Examiner errs in finding Scheim
discloses the claim 1 limitation “report connection information relating to
the connected access point to an entity capable of establishing direct cellular
connection with a vehicle” (also referred to as “disputed limitation”).
Appeal Br. 5–6 (citing Scheim ¶¶ 31, 32).
In the Final Action, the Examiner finds Scheim discloses “connect to
the wireless access point” because Scheim discloses the system searches for
an available connection and will connect to a preferred connection type.
Appeal 2019-004307
Application 15/098,754
4
Final Act. 3 (citing Scheim ¶ 32). The Examiner then finds Scheim teaches
the disputed limitation because the Scheim system has an offload server and,
when the system is connected, vehicle metrics are uploaded. Id. at 3 (citing
Scheim ¶ 31).
Appellant argues claim 1 relates to identifying an access point usable
as a cellular-alternative and reporting that access point connection
information to an entity otherwise capable of direct cellular communication
with the vehicle. Appeal Br. 5. According to Appellant, for example, if a
cellular connection to the vehicle is lost, the entity knows it can use the
access point to establish a secondary connection to the vehicle, because the
report will demonstrate that the access point is in communication range of
the vehicle and capable of connecting to the vehicle. Id. Appellant argues
Scheim discloses using a server, having a map of access points, to report
access point existence to a vehicle and this is not the report claimed. Id.
Appellant argues the report claimed is a report including “‘connection
information relating to the connected access point’ (which is detected by the
reporting entity and also which is connected to by the reporting entity), and
the claimed report is made to an entity capable of establishing direct cellular
connection with a vehicle.” Id. Appellant additionally argues that a vehicle
is not capable of establishing direct cellular connection with itself. Id.
Appellant further argues the claim recites that the processor both
detects and connects to the access point before reporting the existence of the
access point, neither of which is taught by Scheim’s “access point map.” Id.
at 6. According to Appellant, Scheim is about offloading cellular
communication when an access point (wireless connection) is available, but
Appeal 2019-004307
Application 15/098,754
5
the claims relate to identifying and reporting access points usable for non-
cellular communication when cellular communication is not available. Id.
In the Answer, the Examiner asserts Appellant’s argument is not
commensurate in scope with the claims and Appellant reads the Scheim
paragraphs in a vacuum. Ans. 4–7. The Examiner notes the claims do not
recite “reporting the existence.” Id. at 7. The Examiner notes the claims
recite “reporting connection information relating to the connected access
point...” [and] “[I]nformation relating to the connected access point” is far
broader than “reporting the existence of the access point” by virtue of the
word “related.” Id. According to the Examiner, “related” is a very broad
word and existence of the access point is but one narrow subset of
“information relating to . . . the access point.” Id.
The Examiner then applies the broad interpretation of “related” to
Scheim. Id. at 7 (citing Scheim ¶¶ 31, 32). According to the Examiner,
when paragraphs 31 and 32 are read together, Scheim discloses detecting
and connecting to an access point and then reporting information relating to
that connected access point. Id. The Examiner finds paragraph 32 of
Scheim incorporates paragraph 31 by reference in stating “[a]s before, if
vehicle 151 cannot obtain a non-cellular wireless Internet connection.” Id.
According to the Examiner
Scheim discloses the report related to that connected
access point. In ¶ 31 Scheim discloses that the vehicle
periodically sends its data requirement metrics and vehicle
metrics to the offload server. The "data requirement" metric is a
metric that is related to the data connection needed. The data
connection is across the access point. Scheim would disclose to
one of ordinary skill in the art information (data metric) related
to the data connection, said data connection being the access
Appeal 2019-004307
Application 15/098,754
6
connection, and thus read directly on "information relating to the
connected access point... ”
Examiner further notes that Appellants’ specification does
not provide any special definition for “relating”, so a plain
meaning interpretation was applied.
Id.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant reiterates and argues that the claim calls
for connection information relating to the connected access point. Reply Br.
2. According to Appellant, the vehicle that is doing the reporting must
already have connected to the access point about which the connection
information is provided and the Examiner’s citation to Scheim demonstrates,
unequivocally, that whatever “data metrics” arc considered to be, they are
plainly not “connection information relating to a connected access point.”
Id. Appellant argues, because the second sentence of paragraph 31 literally
says that after the data requirement metrics are reported, then the server
presents access point recommendations, which would be access points that
the vehicle could connect to, but which are plainly not access points to
which the vehicle is already connected, as required by the claims. Id.
Appellant additionally argues
Nothing in the Examiner’s Answer demonstrates even the
possibility of how the “date requirement metrics” are
“connection information relating to a connected (already
connected to the vehicle) access point,” because the whole point
of the cited portion is that the vehicle identifies what sort of
requirements it has, and then the server tells it which access
point could meet those requirements. The claims plainly call
for the same entity to: a) detect the access point; b) connect to
the access point; and c) then (which is why the claims say “the
connected access point”) report the information about the
connected point.
Id. at 2
Appeal 2019-004307
Application 15/098,754
7
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has not
presented sufficient evidence as required for anticipation.
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claims is found, either expressly or inherently described in a single prior
art reference, and arranged as required by the claim. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v.
Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation when reading claim language in light of the Specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Although we interpret
claims broadly but reasonably in light of the Specification, we nonetheless
must not import limitations from the Specification into the claims. See In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Our reviewing court
states that “the words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and
customary meaning.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations omitted). However, the broadest reasonable
interpretation differs from the broadest possible interpretation. In re Smith
Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The correct inquiry in
giving a claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
specification is “an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the
inventor describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation
that is ‘consistent with the specification.’” Id. at 1382–83 (quoting In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
The Examiner’s findings are premised on a claim interpretation that is
unreasonably broad. Claim 1 recites “detect a presence of a wireless
network access point . . .; connect to the wireless access point; and report
Appeal 2019-004307
Application 15/098,754
8
connection information relating to the connected access point to an entity
capable of establishing direct cellular connection with a vehicle, identifying
the connected access point as an alternative communication method when
cellular communication is unavailable. (emphasis added).” The term
“relating” refers to the connected wireless access point.
Although the term “related” is a broad term, Appellant’s arguments
are persuasive because the Examiner’s interpretation and application of that
interpretation to the disclosure of Scheim is not based on sufficient evidence.
The Examiner’s finding that the Scheim data requirement metric is a metric
that “is related to the data connection needed” ignores the claim requirement
that “relating” to refers to the connected wireless access point. See Ans. 7
(citing Scheim ¶¶ 31, 32). Instead, the Examiner unreasonably broadens the
term “relating to the connected wireless access point” to include relating to a
data connection needed. In addition to this interpretation being outside the
ordinary and customary meaning, it is not consistent with the Specification
which describes establishing a connected wireless access point and using
that connection when cellular communication is unavailable. Spec., ¶¶ 31,
32, 33, 36–38, 43, Figs. 1, 2.
The Examiner’s discussion of Scheim does not support the finding
that Scheim discloses “report connection information relating to the
connected (wireless) access point.” The Examiner does not present
sufficient evidence that the Scheim metrics, which provide data requirement
metrics and vehicle metrics, also provides information related to the
connected (wireless connection) which can be utilized as an alternative
communication method when cellular communication is unavailable, as set
forth in claim 1. Additionally, we note the Examiner does not identify that
Appeal 2019-004307
Application 15/098,754
9
successive locations of the vehicle in Scheim, which are ultimately
connected to a wireless access point, report connection information relating
to the connection after the connection is made. See Scheim, Figs. 1, 2, ¶¶
31, 32.
In view of the above, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of
claim 1, and dependent claims 2, 3, and 7.
Because our decision is dispositive of the rejections made, we do not
address additional arguments raised by Appellant.
The § 103 rejections
In the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 4–6 and 8–12 over
Scheim and the additional cited references Yoshizawa, Harber, Klein, and
Dalke, the Examiner provides no persuasive evidence to cure the deficiency
discussed supra. Therefore, on the record before us, we are constrained not
to sustain the rejection of claims 4–6 and 8–12.
CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 7 102(a)(1) Scheim 1–3, 7
4–6 103(a) Scheim,
Yoshizawa
4–6
8–10 103(a) Scheim, Harber 8–10
11 103(a) Scheim, Klein 11
12 103(a) Scheim, Dalke,
Yoshizawa
12
Overall
Outcome
1–12

REVERSED