FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 16, 20202019004307 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2020) Copy Citation 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 Br. 2. 2 Claims 13–20 were withdrawn in response to a restriction requirement.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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation