Ex Parte ELZEIN et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2018

15157787 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/157,787 05/18/2016
28395 7590 10/02/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
HadiELZEIN
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.
83645034 7658
EXAMINER
BEHNAMIAN, SHAHRIAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2641
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2018 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 HADI ELZEIN and JEFFREY RAYMOND OSTROWSKI
Appeal2018-004143
Application 15/157, 787 1
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MARC S. HOFF, and CATHERINE
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
Appellants' invention is a method and apparatus for vehicle and
mobile device coordination. A system includes a processor configured to
receive a request from a plurality of phones to connect to a single vehicle
connection. The processor retrieves an ordered ranking of the phones. The
processor is configured to attempt to connect to a highest ranked phone first,
1 The real party in interest is Ford Global Technologies, LLC.
Appeal2018-004143
Application 15/157,787
and continue connection attempts with lower ranked phones when
connection attempts with higher ranked phones fail. Spec. ,r 9.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A system comprising:
a processor configured to:
receive requests from a plurality of phones to connect to a
single vehicle connection;
retrieve an ordered ranking of the phones, placing at least
one of the phones higher than another;
attempt to connect to a highest ranked phone first;
continue connection attempts with lower ranked phones,
when connection attempts with higher ranked phones fail; and
establish connection with a phone upon success of a
connection attempt.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Kumazaki
Yarkosky
Howarter
US 2004/0119628 Al
US 7,206,593 B 1
US 2010/0075656 Al
June 24, 2004
Apr. 1 7, 2007
Mar. 25, 2010
Claims 1-5 and 8-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Y arkosky and Howarter.
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Y arkosky, Howarter, and Kumazaki.
Throughout this Decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
("App. Br.," filed Aug. 15, 2017), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Mar. 9,
2018), the Final Rejection ("Final Act.," mailed April 26, 2017), and the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Jan. 22, 2018) for their respective
details.
2
Appeal2018-004143
Application 15/157,787
ISSUES
1. Does the combination of Y arkosky and Howarter teach or suggest
polling phones based on an ordered ranking, requesting connection
establishment, and connecting to a highest-ranking phone that responds to
the polling?
2. Does the combination of Yarkosky and Howarter teach or suggest
retrieving an ordered ranking of phones, attempting to connect to a highest
ranking phone first, and continuing connection attempts with lower ranked
phones when connection attempts with higher ranking phones fail?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications not solely
on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest
reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The properly interpreted claim
must then be compared with the prior art.
ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1-5 AND 15-20
The Examiner finds that Y arkosky teaches attempting to connect to a
highest ranked phone first, and continuing connection attempts with lower
ranked phones when connection attempts with higher ranked phones fail, as
claim 1 requires. (Independent claim 15 contains an analogous limitation.)
Final Act. 7.
Y arkosky discloses that when two mobile stations request access to
the network at the same time or close to the same time, the wireless network
10 "provides service to the higher priority requesting mobile station, and the
3
Appeal2018-004143
Application 15/157,787
lower priority requesting mobile station is not granted service." Yarkosky
11:7-14. We agree with Appellants that this section ofYarkosky fails to
teach attempting to connect to lower ranked phones when connection
attempts with higher ranked phones fail, as required by the claims. App. Br.
6.
We further agree with Appellants that Y arkosky' s further teachings
concerning dropping the connection of a lower ranked mobile station in
favor of a request from a higher priority connection fail to anticipate or
render obvious the claimed invention. App. Br. 5---6, citing Yarkosky col.
10: 31-11 : 51. We find that such teachings fail to correspond to the claim
requirements of attempting to connect to a highest ranked phone first, then
continuing attempts with lower ranked phones if connection attempts with
higher ranked phones fail.
We conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5 and
15-20 as being unpatentable over Yarkosky and Howarter. We do not
sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of these claims.
CLAIMS 6 AND 7
Dependent claims 6 and 7 depend from independent claim 1, whose
rejection we do not sustain supra. We have reviewed Kumazaki and we find
that Kumazaki does not remedy the deficiencies of Y arkosky and Howarter.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of claims 6 and 7, for
the reasons expressed with respect to claim 1, supra.
CLAIMS 8-14
Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejection is erroneous because
Y arkosky fails to teach or suggest polling phones based on phones
requesting connection. App. Br. 7.
4
Appeal2018-004143
Application 15/157,787
We look to Appellants' Specification to determine the meaning of the
claim term "polling." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d at 1364.
We observe that Appellants' Specification does not contain the word
"polling." In the Summary of Claimed Subject Matter, Appellants indicate
that support for "polling the phones based on the ordered ranking, requesting
connection establishment" may be found at paragraph 57 of the
Specification. App. Br. 3.
Appellants disclose that "the process may receive identification
broadcasts from a plurality of phones." Spec. ,r 55. "Once one or more
broadcasts have been received 401, the process determines whether or not
multiple phones broadcasted their identity 403." Spec. ,r 56. "If multiple
broadcasts were received, the process will make a record of all phones in the
vehicle 409 . . . . Once the phones have been logged, the process pages the
highest ranked phone first 411." Spec. ,r 57. "Once a phone has been paged,
the process will check to see if a connection is established 413. . . . If there
is a timeout (e.g., the time period expires), the process will move to a next
ranked phone ... and attempt to connect to this phone 417." Spec. ,r 58.
Appellants' argument concerning "polling" implies that Y arkosky
does not conduct "a known concept of 'scanning' or otherwise reaching out
to phones." Reply Br. 4. In contrast, Appellants' Specification makes clear
that "polling" as used in this application means communication initiated by a
plurality of objects (e.g., mobile phones), directed to a central entity.
We agree with the Examiner's finding that Yarkosky teaches polling
phones based on ordered ranking in the same manner as disclosed in
Appellants' Specification. Ans. 7. Yarkosky's wireless network
simultaneously considers access requests from two mobile stations and
5
Appeal2018-004143
Application 15/157,787
provides service to the higher priority requesting mobile station. Y arkosky
col. 11:5-13.
As a result, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in combining
Yarkosky and Howarter to obtain the invention of independent claim 8, as
well as claims 9-14 dependent therefrom. We sustain the Examiner's§
103(a) rejection.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The combination of Y arkosky and Howarter teaches polling
phones based on an ordered ranking, requesting connection establishment,
and connecting to a highest-ranking phone that responds to the polling.
2. The combination of Yarkosky and Howarter does not teach or
suggest retrieving an ordered ranking of phones, attempting to connect to a
highest ranking phone first, and continuing connection attempts with lower
ranked phones when connection attempts with higher ranking phones fail.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 8-14 is affirmed. The
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-7 and 15-20 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6