Ex Parte Berry et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2016

12983601 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/983,601 01/03/2011
28395 7590 06/02/2016
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Joseph J. Berry
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
83176673 1711
EXAMINER
PHAN, HAI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2016 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 JOSEPH J. BERRY, MARK J. SCALF,
DOUGLAS R. V ANDAGENS, FRANCIS LUK, and
TIMOTHY ROBERT NIXON
Appeal2014-008404
Application 12/983,601
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of Claims 1-26. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM. 2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a method and apparatus for notifying an
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Ford Global Technologies, Inc. as the real
party in interest. (Br. 2)
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed November 26, 2013, "App. Br."), the
Examiner's Answer (mailed May 23, 2014, "Ans."), the Final Action
(mailed April 24, 2013, "Final Act."), and the Specification (filed January 3,
2011, "Spec.") for their respective details.
Appeal2014-008404
Application 12/983,601
emergency vehicle. See Abstract.
Claims 1, 19 and 23 are independent. The claims have not been
argued separately and therefore stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). An understanding of the invention can be derived from a
reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below with disputed
limitations italicized and some paragraphing added:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
determining, using a vehicle computing system (VCS) in
communication with at least one vehicle sensor, that the vehicle
sensor has detected an emergency condition; and
using the VCS to wirelessly instruct a cellular telephone
in proximity to the VCS to establish direct, two-way, verbal
communication with a 911 operator for responding to the
detected emergency condition.
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as evidence in support of the
rejections as follows:
Tendler
Lappe
Kumar
Balachandran
us 5,555,286
us 7,580,697
us 2006/0217105
us 6,073,004
2
Sept. 10, 1996
Aug. 25, 2009
Sept. 28, 2006
June 6, 2000
Appeal2014-008404
Application 12/983,601
The claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 1, 19, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tendler and Lappe. Final Act. 2.
2. Claims 2-5, 7-10, 13, 14, 20, 21, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tendler, Lappe, and Kumar.
Final Act. 3.
3. Claims 6, 11, 12, 15-18, 22, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Tendler, Lappe, Kumar, and
Balachandran. Final Act. 5.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1-26 in light of
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in this
decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any
other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in
the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We are
not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Upon consideration
of the arguments presented in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, we agree
with the Examiner that all the pending claims are unpatentable over the cited
combination of references. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons
set forth in the rejection from which this appeal is taken and in the
Examiner's Answer. We provide the following explanation to highlight and
address specific arguments and findings primarily for emphasis.
We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 5---6.
3
Appeal2014-008404
Application 12/983,601
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 1, 19, AND 23:
OBVIOUSNESS OVER TENDLER AND LAPPE
Appellants contend Claim 1 recites, inter alia, "instruct a cellular
telephone in proximity to the VCS to establish direct, two-way, verbal
communication with a 911 operator." Br. 5. Appellants argue the Examiner
repeatedly ignores the claim term "instruct" and instead, paraphrases the
limitation as "utilizes a cellular telephone." Id. Appellants contend that
each of Tendler and Lappe fail to teach a vehicle computing system that
instructs a phone. Rather, Appellants contend that each of Tendler (Id.,
citing Tendler, col. 5, 11. 56-57) and Lappe teach specialized phones that
detect an emergency condition and act independently of the vehicle
computing system. Id.
The Examiner finds Tendler teaches a VCS module that is not a part
of the phone. Rather, Tendler refers to the VCS as a separate "module" that
is coupled to the cellular phone. Ans. 10-11.
We agree with the Examiner. Tendler teaches a cellular phone which
includes a keypad, microphone, earpiece, and an antenna. Tendler, col. 5, 11.
51-52. Tendler teaches that an emergency vehicle location system (EVLS)
and dialer module is coupled to the phone. The term "coupled" suggests the
EVLS/ dialer module is not a portion of the phone, itself, but is a separate
module. Appellants do not file a reply brief in rebuttal of the Examiner's
finding.
Appellants contend that whereas the remote activation components
(such as a deployed airbag) may "activate" the EVLS, there is no teaching
that utilization of any remote activation component causes the VCS to
4
Appeal2014-008404
Application 12/983,601
"instruct" the phone to establish any communication as claimed. Br. 5.
Appellants argue that both T endler and Lappe teach a signal is sent to the
phone and the phone decides what to do in response to the signal, but that
the phone does not receive external instruction as claimed. Id.
The Examiner finds Tendler teaches "the result of such external
activation is the same in that the dialer and activation detector 24 [part of
module 20] detects the external activation signal and causes [VCS
instructing] the telephone/dialer to go off-hook and to dial the appropriate
number." Ans. 11 (citing Tendler, col. 7, 11. 1---6). We agree with the
Examiner.
Appellants do not file a reply brief to rebut these findings. Appellants
have not persuaded us the Examiner errs in rejecting independent Claims 1,
19, and 23.
CLAIMS 2-5, 7-10, 13, 14, 20, 21, 24, AND 25:
OBVIOUSNESS OVER TENDLER, LAPPE, AND KUMAR
Appellants contend these Claims are patentable in view of their
dependence on one of Claims 1, 19, or 23. Br. 6. In view of our forgoing
discussion, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting these claims.
CLAIMS 6, 11, 12, 15-18, 22, AND 26: OBVIOUSNESS
OVER TENDLER, LAPPE, KUMAR, AND BALACHANDRAN
Appellants contend these Claims are patentable in view of their
dependence on one of Claims 1, 19, or 23. Br. 6. In view of our forgoing
discussion, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting these claims.
5
Appeal2014-008404
Application 12/983,601
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6