Ex Parte Baum et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2015

11956142 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2015)

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.
11/956,142 12/13/2007 Alan M. Baum P000283-RD-MJL 6962
65798 7590 03/24/2015
MILLER IP GROUP, PLC
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
42690 WOODWARD AVENUE
SUITE 300
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304
EXAMINER
REVAK, CHRISTOPHER A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2431
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/24/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte ALAN M. BAUM and
ANSAF I. ALRABADY
1

________________

Appeal 2012-011683
Application 11/956,142
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
GARTH D. BAER Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Invention
Appellants invented
[a] method for providing a secure communications link between
a home PC and a vehicle through a wireless access point. . . .
The method . . . includes causing [a] vehicle communications

1
General Motors is the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2012-011683
Application 11/956,142

2

system to send an authentication challenge to the PC, such as
identifying a user name and password, to authorize the user to
communicate with the vehicle communications system, and
establishing a secure communications link between the vehicle
communications system and the PC if the user responds to the
challenge with a correct response.
Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is
illustrative:
1. A method for securing a communications link between a
vehicle communications system and a computer through a
wireless access point, said method comprising:
providing a wireless connection between the vehicle
communications system and the wireless access point;
providing a connection between the computer and the
wireless access point;
causing a user of the computer to initiate a
communication with the vehicle communications system
through the wireless access point;
causing the vehicle communications system to send a
challenge to the computer to authenticate the user; and
establishing a secure communications link between the
vehicle communications system and the computer if the
computer responds to the challenge with a correct response.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1–8, 10–14, and 16–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Woodings (US 7,761,232 B2; July 20,
2010). Final Act. 4–7.
Appeal 2012-011683
Application 11/956,142

3

The Examiner rejects claims 9 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Woodings and Spaur (US 7,366,892 B2; Apr. 29,
2008). Final Act. 7–8.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Woodings discloses “causing the
vehicle communications system to send a challenge to the computer to
authenticate the user,” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Woodings’ subscription
access point requirement for a password or member login discloses causing
the vehicle communications system to send a challenge to the computer to
authenticate the user. Ans. 4 (citing Woodings col. 3, ll. 4–15); see also
Final Act. 3, 5. Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Woodings
does not disclose a “vehicle communications system sending a challenge to
the computer to authenticate the user.” App. Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 2.
We agree with Appellants the Examiner erred. Specifically, the
relied-upon use of a password or member login in Woodings relates to
access to data network 20. See Woodings col. 3, ll. 2–15, Fig. 3. However,
the Examiner’s findings do not show data network 20 represents a vehicle
communication system.
The Examiner further finds Woodings’ vehicle “establishes a network
link with the access point enabling communications with the remote
computer, such as a PDA, through the access point.” Ans. 4 (citing
Woodings col. 3, ll. 16–26, 37–41). However, Appellants correctly note the
cited portions of Woodings relate to “vehicle 10 logging into the access
point 30, not a user at a computer wirelessly logging into a vehicle” (i.e., not
Appeal 2012-011683
Application 11/956,142

4

to a vehicle communications system sending a challenge to a computer to
authenticate a user). Reply Br. 2. The relied-upon disclosure in Woodings,
in fact, discloses vehicle 10 may transmit location information to an
endpoint such as “a computer, a personal digital assistant, a cell phone, an
email address, a website, the police, or any other destination in
communication with the data network 20.” Woodings col. 3, ll. 39–41. The
Examiner’s findings do not show that such a transmission includes a
challenge from the vehicle communication system to a computer to
authenticate a user.
For these reasons, the Examiner’s findings (see Ans. 5) do not show
Woodings discloses “causing the vehicle communications system to send a
challenge to the computer to authenticate the user,” as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection
of claim 1, and claims 2–8, 10–14, and 16–20, which contain similar
recitations. The Examiner does not show Spaur cures the noted deficiency.
Therefore, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 9 and 15.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20.
REVERSED
msc