Ex Parte Feldman

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2018

14601694 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/601,694 0112112015
28395 7590 03/30/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Casey Bryan FELDMAN
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.
83494699 3379
EXAMINER
MAUNG, THOMAS H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2656
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2018 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 CASEY BRYAN FELDMAN
Appeal 2017-011037
Application 14/601,694
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JASON M. REPKO,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1-8 and 10-18. Claim 9 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellant indicates that Ford Global Technologies, LLC is the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 3).
Appeal 2017-011037
Application 14/601,694
The claims are directed to audio synchronization between vehicles
and mobile devices. Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A vehicle system comprising:
a vehicle computing platform configured to receive, over
a connection to a paired mobile device providing a projected
mobile device user interface to the vehicle computing platform,
media content retrieved from a vehicle hardware source of
media content;
synchronize, over the connection, the media content
retrieved from the vehicle hardware source of media content to
the mobile device; and
responsive to a trigger event indicative of discontinued
playback, synchronize a playback position of the media content
being played back by the vehicle to the mobile device to allow
the mobile device to continue the playback.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Chutorash et al.
Uefuji et al.
US 2011/0257973 Al
US 2013/0005258 Al
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Oct. 20, 2011
Jan. 3, 2013
Claims 1-8 and 10-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Chutorash in view ofUefuji.
2
Appeal 2017-011037
Application 14/601,694
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 1, 7, and 13, Appellant relies upon
the arguments advanced with respect to independent claim 1 and does not set
forth separate arguments for patentability of independent claims 7 and 13.
(App. Br. 9). Therefore, we select independent claim 1 as the representative
claim for the group and address Appellant's arguments thereto.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 1
With respect to representative independent claim 1, Appellant
contends that the Final Office Action admitted that Chutorash
may not explicitly detail responsive to a trigger event indicative
of discontinued playback, synchronize a playback position of
the media content being played back by the vehicle to the
mobile device to allow the mobile device to continue the
playback, and synchronize, over the connection, the media
content retrieved from the vehicle hardware source of
media content to the mobile device.
(Final Office Action, page 3.) The Final Office Action relied on Uefuji in an
attempt to cure these acknowledged deficiencies of Chutorash. (App. Br. 3-
4).
Appellant further contends that the Uefuji reference does not disclose
the claimed "the media content retrieved from the vehicle hardware source
of media content to the mobile device." Finally, Appellant contends that "in
Uefuji, the 'music delivery or search services"' deliver the content, not "the
vehicle hardware source of media content." As such, Uefuji does not, in
fact, require or even hint at to "synchronize, over the connection, the media
content retrieved from the vehicle hardware source of media content to the
mobile device" as recited by claim 1. (App. Br. 8-9).
3
Appeal 2017-011037
Application 14/601,694
In the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner clarifies the grounds of
rejection and reiterates that the Chutorash reference teaches and suggests
"while vehicle control system 106 may include provisions for playing a
standard MPEG file, and video services 724 of portable electronic device
116 may include an updated codec and/or application for decoding a media
file stored on portable device 116 or vehicle control system 106 ... " (Ans. 2;
citing Chutorash para. 87). Therefore, Chutorash teaches storage of the
content at either the portable unit or the vehicle control system. As the
Examiner maintains in the statement of the rejection, with the content stored
at the vehicle control system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art that some synchronization would be necessary for the
"continued execution of the content as taught by Uefuji in [0066] also
suggests the synchronization of the media content between vehicle hardware
source and the mobile device, because without synchronization, the
continued execution cannot be accomplished." (Final Act. 4). The
Examiner further maintains
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of this invention to incorporate
synchronized playback of media as taught by Uefuji with the
vehicle user interface system of Chutorash, because doing so
would have provided a continuous execution of content without
stopping the content ([0069] of Uefuji).
(Final Act. 4 ). We agree with the Examiner that with the teaching and
suggestion of continued playback with the storage of content at the vehicle
user interface system of Chutorash, there would have been some necessary
communication and synchronization between the portable unit and the
vehicle system. As a result, we find Appellant's argument to the contrary to
4
Appeal 2017-011037
Application 14/601,694
be unpersuasive of error in the Examiner's factual findings or conclusion of
obviousness.
Reply Brief
In the Reply Brief, Appellant relies upon that the Examiner admitted
that Chutorash does not disclose the claimed "responsive to a trigger event
indicative of discontinued playback. .. " (Reply Br. 1 ). Appellant further
argues that "[ n Jo synchronization is mentioned here in Chutorash, and no
disclosure is made in Chutorash to 'synchronize, over the connection, the
media content retrieved from the vehicle hardware source of media content
to the mobile device."' (Reply Br. 2). Although we agree with Appellant
that the Chutorash reference does not mention synchronization, the
Examiner did not expressly rely upon Chutorash mentioning
"synchronization," but the Examiner found that in light of the disclosure of
the alternative of storing content on the vehicle hardware source and
motivation for continued play back, then synchronization would have been
necessary. (See generally Final Act. 4).
Appellant reiterates the arguments concerning that the Uefuji
reference discloses that "[the] center-side apparatus stores various contents
of data delivered by the so-called Internet radios and music delivery or
search services, such as contents A to C, and delivers contents in response to
delivery requests from the portable communication terminal." (Reply Br. 3
citing App. Br. 8).
We find Appellant's argument unavailing to show error in the
Examiner's factual findings or the Examiner's motivation and conclusion of
obviousness.
Appellant argues that that the Examiner's interpretation of
"synchronize" is unreasonable and the Examiner's interpretation of
5
Appeal 2017-011037
Application 14/601,694
"synchronization" is inconsistent with the use of that word in the
Specification. Appellant further lists a number of paragraphs and merely
recites the language of the claim "synchronize a playback position of the
media content being played back by the vehicle to the mobile device to
allow the mobile device to continue the playback" without further specifying
a specific interpretation in light of the numerous paragraphs listed. (Reply
Br. 3). Appellants further contend that the "Examiner's new interpretation is
also impermissible because it attempts to read out the entire claim recitation
of synchronization of the 'media content' itself." (Reply Br. 3).
We have reviewed the listed paragraphs and do not find the
Examiner's interpretation and conclusion to be inconsistent with the general
disclosure of the Specification. Appellant has not identified any specific
definition or specific terminology with which to limit the disclosed context.
We do note that a number of the paragraphs discuss a mobile unit
synchronization application, but the instant claims are directed to merely the
"vehicle" and the mobile unit applications do not necessarily limit the
context with respect to the vehicle and Appellant has not further explained
the proffered context in their arguments. As a result, Appellant's arguments
do not show error in the Examiner's claim interpretation, findings of fact, or
conclusion of obviousness of representative independent claim 1.
We disagree with Appellant and find that Appellant is not addressing
the prior art as applied by the Examiner in the statement of the rejection.
Consequently, Appellant's arguments do not show error in the Examiner's
underlying factual findings or conclusion of obviousness of representative
independent claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of representative
independent claim 1 and independent claims 7 and 13 not separately argued.
6
Appeal 2017-011037
Application 14/601,694
With respect to dependent claims 2---6, 8, 10-12, and 14--18, Appellant
relies upon the arguments advanced with respect to independent claim 1.
(App. Br. 9-10). As a result, the dependent claims fall with their respective
parent independent claims.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-8 and 10-18 based
upon obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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
7