Ex Parte Demeniuk

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2017

13916687 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2017)

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.
13/916,687 06/13/2013 Christopher Joseph Demeniuk 83375990 6085
28395 7590 05/02/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER HEINLE, COURTNEY D
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2017 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 CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH DEMENIUK
Appeal 2015-003378
Application 13/9
Technology Center 3600
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, AMANDA F. WIEKER, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Christopher Joseph Demeniuk (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1—20. We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 3 (filed Aug. 11, 2014).
Appeal 2015-003378
Application 13/916,687
INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to “a vehicle information system.” Spec.
12.
Claims 1,10, and 16 are independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed invention:
1. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium,
storing instructions that, when executed by a processor,
configure the processor to:
establish communication with a handheld device within a
vehicle, the device having an offline vehicle configuration
application;
recognize that the device is associated with a driver and
download an infotainment system configuration from the
handheld device, having been preconfigured on the handheld
device, prior to connection; and
configure infotainment system settings in accordance with
the downloaded configuration.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
I. The Examiner rejected claims 1—4, 7—11, and 16—19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cox (US
2009/0075624 Al, pub. Mar. 19, 2009) and Divine (US
2013/0030645 Al, pub. Jan. 31, 2013).
II. The Examiner rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cox, Divine, and Eich (US
2009/0009983 Al, pub. Jan. 8, 2009).
2
Appeal 2015-003378
Application 13/916,687
III. The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cox, Divine, and Schneider (US
2011/0166748 Al, pub. July 7, 2011).
IV. The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cox, Divine, and Gautama (US
2012/0115446 Al, pub. May 10, 2012).
V. The Examiner rejected claims 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cox, Divine, Schneider, and Chien (US
2013/0274997 Al, pub. Oct. 17, 2013).
VI. The Examiner rejected claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cox, Divine, and
Schneider.
VII. The Examiner rejected claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cox, Divine, and Chien.
ANALYSIS
Addressing Rejection I, Appellant argues the Examiner erred by
relying on Cox to disclose, “a handheld device . . . having an offline vehicle
configuration application” and a processor configured to “configure
infotainment system settings in accordance with the downloaded
configuration,” and on Divine to disclose a processor configured to
“recognize that the device is associated with a driver,” as claim 1 requires.
Appeal Br. 7—11. Appellant has not presented arguments for the
patentability of claims 2-4, 7—11, and 16—19 apart from claim 1. See id.
Therefore, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), we select claim 1
3
Appeal 2015-003378
Application 13/916,687
as the representative claim, with claims 2—4, 7—11, and 16—19 standing or
falling with claim 1.
Appellant’s arguments regarding Cox are unpersuasive because they
depend on claim interpretations that are not commensurate with scope of
claim 1. Appellant asserts claim 1 requires, “a handheld device [that] is used
to configure infotainment system setting offline and sent to the processor
without the use and connection of a PC having application software to
communicate with the infotainment system.” Appeal Br. 8. Cox is therefore
deficient for disclosing the claimed handheld device, according to Appellant,
because it “is silent on having the application software reside on the RVIAI
to configure infotainment system settings independent of the PC
connection.” Id. The Examiner correctly responds, however, “this assertion
requires reading limitations into the claims that are not claimed.” Ans. 4.
We further agree, “[n]one of the limitations set forth in the claims explicitly,
implicitly, or inherently limit the handheld device application to one capable
of configuring the vehicle infotainment system without the use of a PC.” Id.
Nor has Appellant identified any persuasive evidence from the Specification
to support narrowly construing claim 1 to limit the application software on
the handheld device to a standalone program. Id.
Also unpersuasive is Appellant’s argument that the Specification
“discloses that the infotainment settings are not the same as the
‘infotainment settings’ disclosed in Cox.” Appeal Br. 9. According to
Appellant, “[a] skilled artisan would understand [from the Specification] that
infotainment system settings relate to configuring the setting of the
infotainment system and not preloading data for use by the infotainment
system.” Id. Appellant suggests the Specification would “guide” a skilled
4
Appeal 2015-003378
Application 13/916,687
artisan to an interpretation that does not cover what Cox discloses. See id.
Appellant, however, fails to even propose what definition would accomplish
this goal, or explain how the Specification clearly demonstrates
“infotainment setting” was intended to exclude the type of data/settings
Cox’s handheld device provides to the vehicle’s infotainment system. To
the contrary, we agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s Specification does
not provide any such definition or disavowel, but actually describes
“infotainment settings” broadly and includes the type of navigational and
entertainment settings Cox discloses. Ans. 5 (citing Spec. 44, 77).
Lastly, Appellant’s criticism of the Examiner’s reliance on Divine is
without merit. Appellant argues, “a skilled artisan would utilize the
teachings of Divine in a system where it is to block access to a driver device,
not for the purpose of utilizing the driver device in conjunction with
infotainment system settings.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant’s characterization,
however, ignores Divine also describes recognizing a device as a driver’s
device to identify a particular set of rules for the vehicle system to follow.
See Ans. 10 (citing Divine | 61). The Examiner correctly responds, “[t]his
purpose for driver device recognition is the same as Appellant’s: to give the
driver control over the infotainment system that supersedes the control of the
occupants.” Ans. 10 (citing Spec. 1 88). As a result, we are not persuaded
by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s rationale for combining the
teachings Cox and Divine in the manner claimed lacks a rational
underpinning.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, Appellant has failed to apprise
us of an error with the Examiner’s determination that claim 1 would have
5
Appeal 2015-003378
Application 13/916,687
been obvious over Cox and Divine. As a result, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—4, 7—11, and 16—19.
Regarding Rejections II—VII, Appellant relies on the arguments
presented supra for Rejection I and asserts that the additional references
Schneider, Eich, Gautama, and Chien fail to cure the deficiencies of Cox and
Divine. See Appeal Br. 11—12. For the same reasons discussed above, we
do not agree such deficiencies exist. Therefore, we likewise sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 5, 6, 12—15, and 20.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20 are 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