Ex Parte Demeniuk

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 14, 2019

13709699 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/709,699 12/10/2012
28395 7590 02/19/2019
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christopher Joseph Demeniuk
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.
83257323 8715
EXAMINER
HEINLE, COURTNEY D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/19/2019 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 CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH DEMENIUK 1
Appeal2018-005250
Application 13/709,699
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1-9 and 17-20, which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies Ford Global Technologies, LLC as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-005250
Application 13/709,699
THE INVENTION
The Appellants' claimed invention is directed to vehicle information
display systems. (Spec., para. 1 ). Claim 1, reproduced below with the
reference numerals in brackets added, is representative of the subject matter
on appeal.
1. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing
instructions that, when executed, program a vehicle processor to:
[ 1] cause, in response to a network connection between a
nomadic device and a vehicle infotainment system, current
infotainment system settings to be displayed on the nomadic device;
and
[2] adjust, in response to an infotainment setting adjustment
received from the nomadic device being permitted by driver
restriction settings, the current infotainment system settings based
on the infotainment setting adjustment.
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 2, 4--6, 8, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(b) as anticipated by Chien ("Chien" US 2013/0274997 Al, pub.
Oct. 17, 2013.).
2. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Chien and Bauer ("Bauer" US 2008/0261643 Al, pub. Oct. 23, 2008).
3. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Chien and Chen ("Chen" US 2013/0066518 pub. Mar. 14, 2013).
4. Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Chen and Bowden ("Bowden" US 2011/0087385 Al, pub.
Apr. 14, 2011).
2
Appeal2018-005250
Application 13/709,699
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence2.
ANALYSIS
The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is improper because the cited prior art fails to disclose claim
limitations requiring:
[ 1] cause, in response to a network connection between a
nomadic device and a vehicle infotainment system, current
infotainment system settings to be displayed on the nomadic device;
and
[2] adjust, in response to an infotainment setting adjustment
received from the nomadic device being permitted by driver
restriction settings, the current infotainment system settings based
on the infotainment setting adjustment
(App. Br. 3).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection is proper,
and that the cited claim limitations are disclosed by Chien at paragraphs 44,
46, 60, and 66 (Ans. 3-7).
We agree with the Examiner. Claim limitation [ 1] requires causing
"current infotainment systems to be displayed on the nomadic device".
Chien at paragraph 44 discloses that the display of the mobile electronic
device may be transferred to the touch screen of the in-vehicle system, and
could be a mirror image. The claim language only requires that the cause is
in response to a "network connection" between the device and infotainment
2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
( explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
3
Appeal2018-005250
Application 13/709,699
system, not that one directs the other. Thus, to the extent claimed, the
infotainment settings in the vehicle are mirrored and thus also displayed on
the mobile electronic device meeting the argued requirements of claim
limitation [ 1].
Turning to argued claim limitation [2], Chien at paragraph 66
discloses that the infotainment system may restrict the transmission and
reception of data from the mobile device, and block out phone calls, music,
and text messages from the mobile device. Thus, setting changes are based
on an adjusted infotainment setting to the extent claimed. The Appellant
argues that in Chien the vehicle touch screen controls the mobile device, but
the opposite is shown in Chien. Specifically, Chien at paragraph 46
discloses that a user may activate a music player in the mobile electronic
device 301, and the music would be heard through the in-vehicle electronic
speaker. Thus, the system can be adjusted by the mobile electronic device,
and the argued claim limitation [2] is shown by the prior art citation.
For this reason, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. The Appellant
has provided the same or similar arguments for the remaining claims, and
the rejections of these claims are sustained as well.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejections section above.
4
Appeal2018-005250
Application 13/709,699
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-9 and 17-20 is sustained.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
5