Google Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 13, 2021

2020002226 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2021)

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.
15/382,260 12/16/2016 Fabian John Tamp 1133-976US02 9989
98449 7590 07/13/2021
Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A.
1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100
Woodbury, MN 55125
EXAMINER
DESROSIERS, EVANS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/13/2021 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):
pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte FABIAN JOHN TAMP
____________

Appeal 2020-002226
Application 15/382,260
Technology Center 2400
____________

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

BOUDREAU, 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 1–3, 6–11, 14–18, and 20.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Google LLC as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 The Examiner indicates that claims 4, 5, 12, 13, and 19 would be allowable
if rewritten in independent form. Final Act. 9.
Appeal 2020-002226
Application 15/382,260

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to a “vehicle head unit that includes a
combination of hardware and software, such as a touchscreen display and
one or more applications,” and more specifically to “authenticating multiple
users with a vehicle head unit and storing data generated by the vehicle head
unit during a shared session to multiple user accounts.” Spec. ¶¶ 2–3.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added):
1. A vehicle head unit of a vehicle, the vehicle head unit
comprising:
at least one processor; and
a storage device that stores at least one module operable
by the at least one processor to:
authenticate a first user at the vehicle head unit;
responsive to authenticating the first user:
establish a session, and
associate the session with a user identifier
associated with the first user;
authenticate a second user at the vehicle head unit;
responsive to authenticating the second user,
associate the session with a user identifier associated with
the second user, wherein the user identifier associated with
the first user and the user identifier associated with the
second user are concurrently associated with the session;
and
while the user identifiers associated with the first
and second users are concurrently associated with the
session, store location information to both a first user
account associated with the first user and a second user
Appeal 2020-002226
Application 15/382,260

3
account associated with the second user, wherein the first
user account is different from the second user account.
Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.).
REJECTION
Claims 1–3, 6–11, 14–18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Chmaytelli3 and Tseng.4 Final Act. 3–9.
OPINION
Appellant argues that the combination of Chmaytelli and Tseng fails
to teach or suggest
while the user identifiers associated with the first and
second users are concurrently associated with the session, store
location information to both a first user account associated with
the first user and a second user account associated with the
second user, wherein the first user account is different from the
second user account
as recited in independent claims 1 and 17 and similarly recited in
independent claim 9. Appeal Br. 9, 15–16.
For that limitation, the Examiner relies upon Tseng. Final Act. 4–5
(citing Tseng ¶¶ 17, 40–42, 58, Fig. 4A); Ans. 11–12. Specifically, the
Examiner cites Tseng’s disclosure of a shared mobile computing device that
loads a user’s cached information upon successful login to display a
personalized user interface. See Tseng ¶ 42. The Examiner further cites
Tseng’s disclosure of a “heightened privacy mode, wherein the shared
mobile computing device is configured to detect when someone other than

3 Chmaytelli et al., US 2003/0139192 A1 (pub. July 24, 2003).
4 Tseng et al., US 2013/0160141 A1 (pub. June 20, 2013).
Appeal 2020-002226
Application 15/382,260

4
the logged-in user is looking at or picking up or attempting to utilize the
shared mobile computing device” and “either hide the logged-in user’s
screen or simply log the user out and present a login UI for the second user
to log in.” Id. ¶ 58. The Examiner additionally cites Tseng’s disclosure of
“data storages . . . used to store various types of information.” Id. ¶ 17.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown that the
cited portions of Tseng teach or suggest that user identifiers associated with
first and second users may be “concurrently associated with [a] session” or
storing location information to both first and second user accounts while the
first and second user identifiers are concurrently associated with the session.
See Appeal Br. 9. Even if we were to find that first and second users might
be deemed momentarily to be associated concurrently with a session while
the “mobile computing device . . . determine[s] that the second user is not
the logged-in user” in the context of Tseng’s heightened privacy mode (see
Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 11–12), the Examiner does not show, and we do not
discern, where Tseng teaches or suggests storing location information to first
and second user accounts during that time, i.e., while the user identifiers
associated with the first and second users are concurrently associated with
the session.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
independent claims 1, 9, and 17 and claims 2, 3, 6–8, 10, 11, 14–16, 18,
and 20 dependent from them.
Appeal 2020-002226
Application 15/382,260

5
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 6–11, 14–18, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

REVERSED

Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 6–11,
14–18, 20
103 Chmaytelli,
Tseng
1–3, 6–11,
14–18, 20