Ex Parte Elliott

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 26, 2016

13167869 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/167,869 06/24/2011
28395 7590 08/30/2016
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Doron M. Elliott
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.
83189018 8951
EXAMINER
HANIDU, GANIYU A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2016 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 DORON M. ELLIOTT
Appeal2015-001898
Application 13/167,869
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1-8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appeal2015-001898
Application 13/167,869
INVENTION
Appellant's invention is directed to a method and apparatus for
Bluetooth functionality verification. Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1 is exemplary of the
subject matter on appeal:
1. A method comprising:
pairing a BLUETOOTH device and a vehicle computing
system (VCS);
setting the device to a preferred device;
streaming audio from the device to the VCS, such that the
audio is played by the VCS:
suspending the VCS;
verifying that the VCS and the device are disconnected;
resuming the suspended VCS;
if the audio does not resume play, instructing the audio to
play from the VCS;
instructing the audio to move to a next track, using the
VCS in conjunction with an audio video remote control profile
(A VRCP); and
validating the operability between the device and the VCS
contingent at least on the verified discontinuation of audio
playback when the VCS is suspended and the reestablishment of
an audio connection with the device resulting in audio playback
upon resumption of the suspended VCS.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1 and 4--7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Narayan (US 7,366,934 Bl; Apr. 29, 2008),
Ketari (US 2010/0056055 Al; Mar. 4, 2010), and Douthitt (US
2009/0326949 Al; Dec. 31, 2009).
2
Appeal2015-001898
Application 13/167,869
Claims 2, 3, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Narayan, Ketari, Douthitt, and Simon (US
2005/0281414 Al; Dec. 22, 2005).
ISSUE
Appellant's contentions present us with the following issue: Did the
Examiner err in finding the combination of Narayan, Ketari, and Douthitt
teaches or suggests validating the operability between the device and the
VCS contingent at least on the verified discontinuation of audio playback
when the VCS is suspended and the reestablishment of an audio connection
with the device resulting in audio playback upon resumption of the
suspended VCS ("validation" limitation), as recited in independent claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends the combination of Narayan, Ketari, and Douthitt
fails to teach or suggest the "validation'' limitation recited in claim 1. See
Br. 3--4. In particular, Appellant argues the claim requires more than mere
suspension of playback, but rather require validating the operability based on
the observed/claimed behavior, there is no such teaching present in Douthitt,
and the Examiner fails to cite a portion of Douthitt as allegedly teaching this
limitation. Br. 3. Appellant further argues the claim requires validation
contingent on the claimed two factors and the validation step depends on
their occurrence or non-occurrence. Br. 4.
We are not persuaded of error. The Examiner finds, and we agree,
that the combination of cited references, and in particular the combination of
Douthitt and Narayan teaches or suggests the disputed limitations. See Ans.
13-17. The cited sections of Douthitt teach if the user is playing back music
3
Appeal2015-001898
Application 13/167,869
when the mobile phone receives a call, the system may be configured to
pause music playback (discontinuation of audio playback when the VCS is
suspended)), and then subsequently, the user can disconnect the call and
have the music playback automatically resume (reestablishment of an audio
connection with the device resulting in audio playback upon resumption of
the suspended VCS). See Douthitt i-f 32. We also agree with the Examiner
(Ans. 16) that the cited sections of Narayan teach a user receiving immediate
feedback if a command cannot be executed. See Narayan 8: 16-25.
Appellant does not convince us that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
"validating" requires anything more than the successful execution of both
commands, which one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
could be validated as taught by Narayan. 1
For the reasons stated above, Appellant fails to persuade us of error in
the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 4--7, which are not argued
separately.
With respect to dependent claims 2, 3, and 8, Appellant merely
contends the additional reference used in the rejection of these claims
(Simon) does not make up for the purported deficiencies present in the
rejection of independent claims 1. App. Br. 4. As discussed supra,
Appellant fails to establish any deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1.
1 We further observe that one skilled in the art would have understood the
user in Douthitt can also manually "validate" the claimed behavior by
observing the pause of the music playback during the call, and the successful
resumption of the music playback after the call is disconnected.
4
Appeal2015-001898
Application 13/167,869
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 2, 3, and
8.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-8.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
5