Google Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 13, 20212020002226 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2021) 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. 15/382,260 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation