Ex Parte Cuddihy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2018

14623686 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2018)

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.
14/623,686 02/17/2015 Mark A. Cuddihy 83501788 1784
28395 7590 03/01/2018
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET
EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER MACASIANO, JOANNE GONZALES
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2197
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2018 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 MARK A. CUDDIHY, MANOHARPRASAD K. RAO, and
KWAKU O. PRAKAH-ASANTE
Appeal 2017-009441
Application 14/623,686
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 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 affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. (App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2017-009441
Application 14/623,686
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to an application and environment for
presentation, initiation, ending and management of multiple vehicle-related
applications (Spec. 131). Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A system comprising:
a processor configured to:
load a dashboard application including control over a
secondary application;
determine, via the dashboard application, a vehicle-state
condition associated with a launch of the secondary application;
determine if the condition has occurred; and
upon occurrence of the condition, instruct launch of the
secondary application from the dashboard application.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 10, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as
anticipated by Gerlach et al. (US 2016/0034238 Al; published Feb. 4, 2016)
(“Gerlach”) (see Final Act. 2—6).
Claims 2—6, 11—15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Gerlach and Feit et al. (US 2016/0062635 Al; published
March 3, 2016) (“Feit”) (see Final Act. 7—15).
Claims 7—9 and 16—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Gerlach, Lee et al. (US 2012/0173978 Al; published July
5, 2012) (“Lee”), and Chen et al. (US 2014/0310817 Al; published Oct. 16,
2014) (“Chen”) (see Final Act. 15-20).
2
Appeal 2017-009441
Application 14/623,686
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments in Appellants’ Appeal Brief and Reply Brief that the Examiner
has erred. We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ contentions and concur with
the findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner as explained below.
Independent Claims 1, 10, and 19
Appellants contend Gerlach fails to teach “determine, via the
dashboard application, a vehicle-state condition associated with a launch of
the secondary application,” and “upon occurrence of the condition, instruct
launch of the secondary application from the dashboard application,” as
recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 10 and 19 (see App. Br. 6).
More specifically, Appellants argue the deep link disclosed in Gerlach fails
to teach the claimed “secondary application” because Gerlach discloses that
a deep link is a specific application context within a mobile application as
opposed to a mobile application itself, and Gerlach fails to teach that an
application is launched based on an environment or state change (see id.).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ contention. We agree with the
Examiner that Gerlach teaches that activation of a deep link includes
launching of a mobile application as well as a subsequent navigation of the
launched mobile application to a specific application context (see Ans. 2-4
(citing Gerlach | 6)). Thus, Gerlach’s activating a deep link launches a
mobile application, and therefore, Gerlach teaches the aforementioned
elements of claim 1, and similarly recited elements of claims 10 and 19.
Appellants additionally argue even if Gerlach’s activation of a deep
link in response to a specific vehicle state teaches the claimed “launch of the
3
Appeal 2017-009441
Application 14/623,686
secondary application” upon an occurrence of “a vehicle-state condition,” as
recited in claim 1, claims 10 and 19 are still patentable over the cited prior
art (see Reply Br. 2). Appellants assert that claims 10 and 19 respectively
recite “an environment-state condition,” and “a driver-state condition,”
whereas Gerlach fails to teach an activation of a deep link in response to
either an environmental state or a driver state (id.).
This argument is entitled to no consideration because it was not
presented for the first time in the opening brief, and Appellants have not
shown good cause why it should be considered, as required by our
procedural rule. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2012); Optivus Technology,
Inc. v. Ion Beam Applications S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(argument raised for the first time in the reply brief that could have been
raised in the opening brief is waived); accord Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d
1473, 1473—74 (BPAI 2010) (informative opinion) (absent a showing of
good cause, the Board is not required to address an argument newly
presented in the reply brief that could have been presented in the principal
brief on appeal). Even if the argument was entitled to consideration, the
argument is not persuasive because the Examiner correctly found, and we
agree, that Gerlach also teaches the claimed “environment-state condition”
and “driver-state condition,” respectively recited in claims 10 and 19 (see
Final Act. 4, 6 (citing Gerlach || 91, 92, 97, 99)).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Gerlach teaches all the
elements of claims 1,10, and 19. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claims 1, 10, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
4
Appeal 2017-009441
Application 14/623,686
Remaining Claims
No separate arguments are presented for the remaining dependent
claims (see App. Br. 7). We therefore sustain their rejections for the reasons
stated with respect to independent claims 1,10, and 19.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,10, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—9, 11—18, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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
5