Ex Parte Esselink et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2016

13189722 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/189,722 07/25/2011
28395 7590 04/04/2016
BROOKS KUSHMAN P,CJFG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Chad Evert Esselink
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.
83176801 1795
EXAMINER
EDWARDS, LINGLAN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2016 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 CHAD EVERT ESSELINK, MICHAEL RAYMOND WESTRA,
MARK SCHUNDER, and DAVID CHASE MITCHELL1
Appeal2014-005273
Application 13/189,722
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 6-11. Claims 1-5 are canceled. Claims App. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Invention
Appellants disclose a computer-implemented authentication method
that "includes compiling a list of applications currently approved for use in
1 Appellants identify Ford Global Technologies, LLC, as the real party in
interest. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-005273
Application 13/189,722
conjunction with a vehicle computing system and transmitting the list to a
remote server for processing." Spec. ,-r 12.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 6, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is
representative:
6. A computer-implemented authentication method comprising:
compiling a list of applications currently approved for use
in conjunction with a vehicle computing system (VCS);
transmitting the list to a remote server for processing;
receiving a processed response to the transmission
indicating authorized applications;
determining one or more applications not authorized for
use with the VCS based on the response; and
preventing resource access by the one or more applications
not authorized for use.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 6-8, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Moinzadeh (US 8,050,817 B2; iss. Nov. 1, 2011)
and Ganapathy (US 2012/0284702 Al; publ. Nov. 8, 2012). Final Act. 6-8.
The Examiner rejects claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Moinzadeh, Ganapathy, and Derasmo (US 2005/0021597
Al; publ. Jan. 27, 2005). Final Act. 9.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Moinzadeh and
Ganapathy teaches or suggests "compiling a list of applications currently
approved for use in conjunction with a vehicle computing system (VCS)"
2
Appeal2014-005273
Application 13/189,722
and "transmitting the list to a remote server for processing," as recited in
claim 6?
ANALYSIS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts
and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this
appeal was taken. We have considered Appellants' arguments, but do not
find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
In rejecting claim 6, the Examiner acknowledges "Moinzadeh differs
from the claimed invention in that Moinzadeh teaches the request of
authentication status of one application rather than a list of application[ s]."
Final Act. 7. However, the Examiner finds Moinzadeh teaches that "a list of
application[ s] [that] may[ ]be used on the head unit can be downloaded from
the server to the head unit." Id. (citing Moinzadeh Figs. 4, 5); see also Ans.
3 (citing Moinzadeh Fig. 6, col. 7, 1. 40-col. 8, 1. 10). The Examiner finds
Ganapathy teaches locally storing a list of applications on a device and
updating the list based on received information. Final Act. 7 (citing
Ganapathy Fig. 3, i-f 50).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because in Moinzadeh "[t]here
is no mention of a list, stored in the vehicle. Every single mention of the list,
in Moinzadeh, relates to a list stored off the vehicle." Br. 4. However,
Appellants' arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claimed
invention, which does not include recitations directed to the compiled list of
applications being stored on a vehicle. Thus, Appellants' arguments are not
persuasive of error.
3
Appeal2014-005273
Application 13/189,722
Appellants further contend "neither Ganapathy nor Moinzedeh [sic],
nor the combination, teaches compiling such a list or transmitting such a list
to a remote server." Br. 5. Specifically, Appellants argue "Moinzadeh's
approvals are limited to instances where actual access attempts are made,
and only one application request can be received at any instant of time." Id.
Appellants argue that if Moinzadeh was modified using the teachings and
suggestions of Ganapathy, "each time a single application requested access
to a resource, the system would go through the process of compiling,
transmitting and approving the entire list of applications. This would ...
slow down the completion of the approval process every single time access
was requested." Br. 6.
Appellants' argument is not responsive to the Examiner's finding that
"Ganapathy disclose[ s] the concept of maintaining permission (i.e.[,]
authorization) records of a list of applications ... [where] the list [may be]
updated based on received information." Ans. 5 (emphasis added) (citing
Ganapathy Fig. 3, i-f 50). That is, the Examiner finds the combination of
Moinzadeh and Ganapathy teaches or suggests a list of applications that is
maintained and updated based on received information, rather than
transmitted and approved for every single application request. Because
Appellants' argument is not responsive to the Examiner's rejection,
Appellants' argument is not persuasive of error.
Furthermore, Appellants do not persuasively distinguish the claimed
compilation and transmission of a list of applications from the determination
by a user in Moinzadeh of applications (i.e., compilation of an application
list) to be included in download directory 239 of server 222 (i.e., transmitted
to a remote serer for processing) for download to a vehicle. See Ans. 3
4
Appeal2014-005273
Application 13/189,722
(citing Moinzadeh Fig. 6, col. 7, 1. 40-col 8, 1. 10). Therefore, we agree with
the Examiner the combination of Moinzadeh and Ganapathy teaches or
suggests "compiling a list of applications currently approved for use in
conjunction with a vehicle computing system (VCS)" and "transmitting the
list to a remote server for processing," as recited in claim 6.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 6 and claims 7-11, which depend from claim 6 and are not separately
argued with particularity. See Br. 7.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 6-11.
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