14804067 - (R) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2019)

SHAH, Jitendra et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 27, 2019

14804067 - (R) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 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. 14/804,067 07/20/2015 Jitendra SHAH 83548453 4744 28395 7590 09/27/2019 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL 1000 TOWN CENTER 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER NGUYEN, CUONG H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3665 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/27/2019 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 JITENDRA SHAH, CHRISTIAN RESS, and STEFAN WOLTER ___________ Appeal 2018-008298 Application 14/804,067 Technology Center 3600 __________ Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 has filed a Request for Rehearing (“Request”) under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, of our Decision dated June 7, 2019 (“Decision”), affirming the rejection of claims 1, 3–8, 10–15, and 17–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Appellant is the Applicant, Ford Global Technologies, LLC, identified in the Appeal Brief as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2018-008298 Application 14/804,067 2 Requests for Rehearing are limited to points that Appellant believes have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board. 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1). Appellant asserts that the Board committed clear error in “ignor[ing] the limitation ‘responsive to input at the device matching the code stored by the device, transmitting the code from the device to the vehicle such that the vehicle unlocks.’” Request 2 (emphasis omitted). Appellant takes issue with the reliance in the Decision on paragraph 98 of Zhou2 as disclosing this limitation, arguing that “nothing in Zhou suggests that, once the cryptographic key is input to the external device 606, the external device 606 transmits the cryptographic key to robot 602 or copter 608.” Id. Instead, Appellant postulates that, in Zhou, the external device 606 itself, or an off- site server in communication with the external device, validates the cryptographic key, and then external device 606 sends an unlock command, and not the cryptographic key, to robot 602. Id. Appellant provides no citation to any part of Zhou evidencing that its version of the processing of the cryptographic key input to external device 606 actually takes place, and we find none. In stark contrast, paragraph 98 in question explicitly states that “the customer would be able to present the robot 602 with the cryptographic key . . . by entering it via the external device 606. The presented cryptographic key is validated and . . . the robot 602 unlocks the mail or goods 604.” Zhou ¶ 98 (emphasis added). This disclosure evidences that it is the cryptographic key itself, and not merely 2 US 2014/0254896 A1, published Sept. 11, 2014. Appeal 2018-008298 Application 14/804,067 3 some unlock command that is presented to, and thus received by, robot 602, via a communication device in the form of external device 606. Appellant’s Request has been considered, but fails to apprise us of any point or points misapprehended or overlooked, and thus provides no reason to change the Decision. The Request is therefore denied. REHEARING DENIED