15144165 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2019)

John Naum. Vangelov

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 2, 2019

15144165 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2019)

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. 15/144,165 05/02/2016 John Naum VANGELOV 83636095 3191 28395 7590 08/02/2019 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL 1000 TOWN CENTER 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER LOUIE, JUE WANG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2121 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/02/2019 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 JOHN NAUM VANGELOV ____________ Appeal 2018-009214 Application 15/144,165 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Ford Global Technologies, LLC. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2018-009214 Application 15/144,165 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention “generally relate to a method and apparatus for regional delivery of software updates based on vehicle connection network location.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 1. A system comprising: a server including a hardware processor programmed to: identify, based on an originating address of a request from a vehicle for software updates, a regional software delivery network to serve the software updates to the vehicle, determine the software updates to apply to the vehicle based on the request, and send a manifest to the vehicle including links to the software updates served by the regional software delivery network. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Tobolski (US 2015/0242198 A1; Aug. 27, 2015) and Schmidt (US 2013/0227141 A1; Aug. 29, 2013). Final Act. 2–4. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 8, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Tobolski, Schmidt, and Goldman (US 2014/0149578 A1; May 29, 2014). Final Act. 4–6. The Examiner rejected claims 3 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Tobolski, Schmidt, Goldman, and Stolorz (US 2008/0215718 A1; Sept. 4, 2008). Final Act. 7. The Examiner rejected claims 4, 5, 14, 15, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Tobolski, Schmidt, and Tonogai (US 8,869,236 B1; Oct. 21, 2014). Final Act. 8–13. Appeal 2018-009214 Application 15/144,165 3 The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Tobolski, Schmidt, and McGuire (US 6,493,871 B1; Dec. 10, 2002). Final Act. 13. The Examiner rejected claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Tobolski, Schmidt, Goldman, and Tonogai. Final Act. 14–16. The Examiner rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Tobolski, Schmidt, Goldman, and McGuire. Final Act. 16–17. The Examiner rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Tobolski, Schmidt, Tonogai, and Stolorz. Final Act. 17. The Examiner rejected claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Tobolski, Schmidt, Tonogai, and McGuire. Final Act. 17–18. ANALYSIS THE § 103 REJECTION BASED ON TOBOLSKI AND SCHMIDT Claims 1 and 6 Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that claims 1 and 6 are unpatentable over Tobolski and Schmidt. Appellant contends that the combination of Tobolski and Schmidt fails to teach or suggest “send a manifest to the vehicle including links to the software updates served by the regional software delivery network.” App. Br. 5–7. According to Appellant, “in Schmidt the software update URL is predetermined (e.g., ‘www.abcde.de/software-update/V1’), and DNS is used Appeal 2018-009214 Application 15/144,165 4 to determine a server,” whereas in claim 1 “the software update location is determined in part according to the ‘originating address of a request’ itself.” App. Br. 6–7; see also Reply Br. 2. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive as it fails to consider the Examiner’s combination of Tobolski with Schmidt. Namely, the Examiner relies on Tobolski for teaching determining software updates and sending a manifest. Final Act. 2–3; Ans. 3; see also, e.g., Tobolski ¶ 35 (disclosing that Tobolski checks for required updates and creates a manifest that “may specify network locations at which each of the specified update binaries may be retrieved.”). The Examiner then relies on Schmidt for the limited purpose of identifying a regional software delivery network based on the originating address of the request and including the link to the software updates served by the identified regional software delivery network. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 3–5. Schmidt, in particular, discloses, “[t]o provide a most suitable download of the software-update for a user, the location of the user may be taken into account. . . .” Schmidt ¶ 3; see also Schmidt ¶ 5 (“When a user [] requests www.abcde.de/software-update/Vl the user location may [be] taken into account by a cache selection logic via the IP-address from which the DNS request, i.e. the request for accessing www.abcde.de/software- update/V1, was transmitted.”); Ans. 4 (discussing that Schmidt teaches using “local location information of the client, which can include client’s IP address.”). As such, Schmidt at least suggests determining a local server based on the originating address of a request. The Examiner combines these teachings of Schmidt with Tobolski’s sending a manifest including network locations where the requested content may be retrieved to satisfy the claimed Appeal 2018-009214 Application 15/144,165 5 sending a manifest to the vehicle including links to the software updates served by the regional software delivery network. Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s determination. We find Appellant’s argument that Schmidt teaches away from the cited combination likewise unavailing. See App. Br. 7. As the Examiner explains, Schmidt, in paragraphs [0008]-[0010], discusses the proposal to modify the DNS protocol for solving IP-address of host-names by adding the client’s IP-address to the DNS-protocol. Schmidt states that these modification[s] are cost-intensive and have a problem of privacy protection of the user. However, disclosing disadvantages of modifying DNS protocols by adding client’s IP address is discussion directed to one specific method of using the client’s IP address (by modifying DNS protocols), it is not disparaging the use of client’s IP address itself to determine the hosting server to provide the requested content. Ans. 5. Moreover, Schmidt recognizes at least some benefits of using a client’s IP address to determine a more suitable server. See Schmidt ¶ 8. Therefore, we are not persuaded that Schmidt teaches away from the claimed combination. See DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A reference does not teach away . . . if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention[.]”). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and dependent 6 as unpatentable over Tobolski and Schmidt. Appeal 2018-009214 Application 15/144,165 6 THE REMAINING § 103 REJECTIONS Claims 2–5 and 7–18 Appellant does not present separate arguments of patentability of claims 2–5 and 7–18 and, instead, relies on the arguments presented for claim 1. See App. Br. 8–11. As discussed above, we find these arguments unpersuasive. As such, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2–5 and 7–18 as unpatentable over the cited combinations of prior art and affirm the rejections. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–18. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED