Ford Global Technologies, LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 13, 202014920456 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 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. 14/920,456 10/22/2015 Pietro Buttolo 83581000 7589 28395 7590 05/13/2020 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL 1000 TOWN CENTER 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER VO, NGUYEN THANH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2646 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/13/2020 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 PIETRO BUTTOLO, STEPHEN RONALD TOKISH, JAMES STEWART RANKIN II, and STUART C. SALTER ________________ Appeal 2019-001090 Application 14/920,456 Technology Center 2600 ________________ Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JASON V. MORGAN, and SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–11 and 13–20. Claim 12 is canceled. Amend. 4 (filed Nov. 22, 2017). 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-001090 Application 14/920,456 2 Summary of the disclosure Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to a personal device that scans for in-vehicle components, identifies features of the in-vehicle components, and provides “feedback to the user of a notification, using at least one of the in-vehicle components, based on . . . preferences and features of the in-vehicle components.” Abstract. Representative claim (key limitations emphasized) 1. A system comprising: a personal device including a wireless transceiver; a memory storing user preferences; and a processor, programmed to scan, using the transceiver, for in-vehicle components of a seating zone of a vehicle in which the personal device is located, identify available features of the in-vehicle components, and provide feedback of an incoming communication to the personal device, using at least one of the in- vehicle components, based on the preferences and the available features. The Examiner’s rejections and cited references The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, 5, 15, 16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper et al. (US 2015/0149042 A1; published May 28, 2015) (“Cooper”) and Gopinath (US 2016/0165031 A1; published June 9, 2016). Final Act. 3–5. Appeal 2019-001090 Application 14/920,456 3 The Examiner rejects claims 2 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper, Gopinath, and Kirsch (US 2012/0197523 A1; published Aug. 2, 2012). Final Act. 5–6. The Examiner rejects claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper, Gopinath, and Park et al. (US 2016/0021167 A1; published Jan. 21, 2016). Final Act. 6. The Examiner rejects claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper, Gopinath, and Divon (US 2006/0103590 A1; published May 18, 2006). Final Act. 6–7. The Examiner rejects claims 7–11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper, Gopinath, and Friedl et al. (US 2013/ 0191902 A1; published July 25, 2013) (“Friedl”). Final Act. 7–9. The Examiner rejects claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper, Gopinath, Friedl, and Kirsch. Final Act. 9–10. The Examiner rejects claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper, Gopinath, and Kobayashi (US 5,963,877; issued Oct. 5, 1999). Final Act. 10. ADOPTION OF EXAMINER’S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was taken, and we concur with the Examiner’s conclusions. We have considered Appellant’s arguments, but do not find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for emphasis. Appeal 2019-001090 Application 14/920,456 4 DETERMINATIONS AND CONTENTIONS Cooper discloses a mobile computing device that can identify and control in-vehicle components such as a speaker. See Cooper ¶ 111 (cited in Final Act. 3). Gopinath discloses adjusting speaker audio settings in response to a mobile device receiving a call. See Gopinath ¶ 34 (cited in Final Act. 3). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify Cooper’s system based on the teachings and suggestions of Gopinath to respond to “an incoming communication . . . directed toward the mobile device” by “selectively adjusting one or more audio settings of [a] speaker in the vehicle based on a proximity of that speaker to the location of the mobile device.” Final Act. 3–4 (citing Gopinath ¶ 6); see also Ans. 12. Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “Cooper does not disclose or suggest that ‘at least one of the in-vehicle components’ that are scanned for ‘using the transceiver’ are also ‘in-vehicle components’ that are used to ‘provide feedback of an incoming communication.’” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant further argues “Gopinath also does not disclose or suggest that ‘at least one of the in-vehicle components’ that are scanned for ‘using the transceiver’ are also the ‘in-vehicle components.’” Id. at 8. Although the Examiner responds that “one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references” (Ans. 14 (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981))), Appellant submits the appeal addresses Cooper, Gopinath, “and their alleged combination” (Reply Br. 2). Specifically, Appellant argues “the Examiner is unable to point to any teaching in the references or what is known in the art that shows that one would use the same ‘in-vehicle components’ that are scanned for ‘using the Appeal 2019-001090 Application 14/920,456 5 transceiver’ to ‘provide feedback of an incoming communication.’” Id. Appellant argues “the Examiner is attempting to take an advantage of the invention itself and use that as motivation to make the alleged combination,” and thus the Examiner relies on “improper hindsight reasoning.” Id. ANALYSIS The Examiner “should be aware, of course, of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). But a “person of ordinary skill is . . . a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. Thus, it is sufficient that the Examiner articulate “reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Id. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Here, the Examiner finds that Gopinath suggests “selectively adjusting one or more audio settings of [a] speaker in the vehicle based on a proximity of that speaker to the location of the mobile device.” Final Act. 4 (citing Gopinath ¶ 6). The Examiner’s finding is supported by Gopinath’s disclosure of “determining that an incoming communication is directed toward the mobile device, and, for more than one speaker in the vehicle, selectively adjusting one or more audio settings of that speaker in the vehicle based on a proximity of that speaker to the location of the mobile device.” Gopinath ¶ 6. Moreover, Cooper discloses mobile device automation of the functionality of in-vehicle components—such as speakers—based on the location of the mobile device in the vehicle. Cooper ¶ 111 (cited in Final Act. 3). Appeal 2019-001090 Application 14/920,456 6 Thus, the Examiner’s rejection does not rely on impermissible hindsight reasoning, but instead represents the “combination of familiar elements according to known methods” to do “no more than yield predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to modify Cooper’s mobile device to adjust (i.e., to automate) speakers in response to the mobile device receiving an incoming communication. See Final Act. 3–4. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1, and the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 2–11 and 13–20, which Appellant argues are patentable for similar reasons. See Appeal Br. 9–13 (arguing that additional references relied on by the Examiner fail to cure the alleged deficiencies of Cooper and Gopinath). Appeal 2019-001090 Application 14/920,456 7 CONCLUSION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed 1, 4, 5, 15, 16, 18 103 Cooper, Gopinath 1, 4, 5, 15, 16, 18 2, 17 103 Cooper, Gopinath, Kirsch 2, 17 3 103 Cooper, Gopinath, Park 3 6 103 Cooper, Gopinath, Divon 6 7–11, 13 103 Cooper, Gopinath, Friedl 7–11, 13 14 103 Cooper, Gopinath, Friedl, Kirsch 14 19, 20 103 Cooper, Gopinath, Kobayashi 19, 20 Overall Outcome 1–11, 13–20 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation