Ex Parte Foster et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 13, 2017

14038437 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 13, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/038,437 09/26/2013 Andrew Foster 31730/18395-00 1035
12716 7590 10/17/2017
Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP (Google)
233 South Wacker Drive
6300 Willis Tower
Chicago, IL 60606-6357
EXAMINER
WHITTINGTON, JESS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/17/2017 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):
mgbdocket@marshallip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW FOSTER and
NICHOLAS JULIAN PELLY
(Applicant: GOOGLE, Inc.)
Appeal 2017-004786
Application 14/038,437
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, LARRY J. HUME, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 40-49. Claims 1—39 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to providing navigation data to a vehicle.
Spec., Title. Claim 40, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
Appeal 2017-004786
Application 14/038,437
40. A method for exchanging navigation data between a
portable device and a head unit of a vehicle, the method being
implemented in a portable device that includes one or more
processors executing (i) a navigation service application
specifically configured to receive navigation data from a
navigation server and (ii) a companion application, the method
comprising:
receiving, by the companion application and via a short-
range communication link, a destination selected via the head
unit;
invoking, by the companion application, a navigation
application programming interface (API) of the navigation
service application, wherein the companion application executes
on the portable device separately from the navigation service
application, and wherein invoking the navigation API includes
using a syntax and a list of parameters specific to the navigation
API to provide the destination to the navigation service
application;
sending, by the navigation service application, the
destination to the navigation server via a long-range
communication link;
receiving, by the navigation service application, first
navigation data from the navigation server via the long-range
communication link, wherein the first navigation data describes
at least one of a plurality of steps for navigating between a source
and the destination, and wherein invoking the navigation API
further includes using the syntax and the list of parameters
specific to the navigation API to obtain, from the navigation
service application, the first navigation data;
sending, by the companion application, the first navigation
data to the head unit via the short-range communication link to
cause the head unit to display navigation information indicating
at least the one of the plurality of steps for navigating between
the source and the destination.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
2
Appeal 2017-004786
Application 14/038,437
Howard US 2012/0110511 A1 May 3,2012
Bhamidipati et al. US 2014/0120829 A1 May 1, 2014
Car Tech —MirrorLink 1.0 (Nov. 28, 2012)
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hgO_BcLZVA) (last
visited Feb 18, 2015) (“Car-Tech”).
Samsung Galaxy S3 using Mirror Link with Sony XAV701HD in a
2004 MB C230 (Feb. 12, 2013)
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPl-L2nw7UE) (last visited
Nov. 17, 2015) (“Mirrorlink Sony”).
MirrorLink, Car Connectivity Consortium Unveils Mirror!.ink™
Roadmap (Sept. 29, 2011)
(http://www.mirrorlink.com/sites/default/files/CCC
%20Summit%20Press%20Release_9_29_ 11.pdf) (last visited
Feb 18, 2015) (“the CCC reference”).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 40-43 and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Car-Tech and Mirrorlink Sony. Final Act. 4—11.
Claim 44 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Car-Tech, Mirrorlink Sony, and Bhamidipati. Final Act.
12-13.
Claims 46 and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Car-Tech, Mirrorlink Sony, and the CCC reference. Final
Act. Br. 13-15.
Claims 48 and 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Car-Tech, Mirrorlink Sony, and Howard. Final Act. 15—
18.
3
Appeal 2017-004786
Application 14/038,437
APPELLANT’S CONTENTION1
The prior art fails to teach a companion application (i.e., the
Mirrorlink application) that “invokes or calls upon a navigation API of a
navigation service application to provide a destination to the navigation
service application and to obtain first navigation data from the navigation
service application [as required by claim 40].” App. Br. 12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 40 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Car-Tech and Mirrorlink Sony.
We agree with Appellant’s conclusions as to this rejection of the claims.
Appellant argues:
The claimed invention, and the MirrorLink system as
described in the Car-Tech, MirrorLink Sony, and CCC
references, offer alternative solutions to the problem of
providing compatibility between head units of different
vehicles/manufacturers and applications in a portable device.
The claimed invention addresses this problem by exposing an
API of a navigation service application, which is invoked by an
application that communicates in a format supported by the head
unit (i.e., the companion application) to provide destination data
to, and obtain navigation data from, the navigation service
application. Conversely, the cited references appear to address
this problem by providing data (and possibly exposing an API)
from an application that communicates in a format supported by
the head unit (MirrorLink) to allow different applications
running on the portable device (e.g., a navigation service
application, a music player application, etc.) to exchange data
to/from the head unit to perform various functions. Providing
1 We note Appellants raise additional contentions of error but we do not
reach them as our resolution of this contention is dispositive of the appealed
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
4
Appeal 2017-004786
Application 14/038,437
developers (e.g., developers of different navigation applications)
with access to a vehicle’s environment and controls is the very
antithesis of providing developers (e.g., vehicle/head unit
manufacturers) with access to the functionality of a navigation
application.
App. Br. 12—13. The Examiner responds that, based on the operation of the
Mirrorlink product as demonstrated in the Car Tech video, various
applications on a portable device (e.g., cell phone or smartphone) and head
unit (e.g., installed automotive entertainment system) “function separately,
must have interfaces to be able to communicate with each other and with
other cell phones types and brands, and further when the navigation is
selected, the interface is invoked on the navigation program through
Mirrorlink, as the Appellant requires.” Ans. 7. The Examiner further finds
“for the MirrorLink companion application to work, it must use a syntax and
a list of parameters specific to the navigation API to properly function as for
any interface, the data fields, the data setup, handshaking, and context must
be known for proper communication.” Ans. 9. Appellant replies, arguing
“the Examiner does not explain how he arrives at this interpretation of the
reference.” Reply Br. 2. Appellant asserts that, rather than requiring the
claimed API, “applications may communicate in several different ways.”
Reply Br. 2. For example, according to Appellant, even using an API to
interface applications, it is equally possible “the navigation service
application may invoke an API of the companion application and therefore
may use a syntax and list of parameters specific to the companion API”
rather than as required by claim 40. Id. Appellant argues whether the API is
of (i) a navigation service application (as claimed) or (ii) the companion
application (the alternative example arrangement) is not mere design choice
5
Appeal 2017-004786
Application 14/038,437
because the claimed arrangement “allow[s] multiple, independent vehicle
and/or head unit manufacturers to interoperate with a single navigation
service application.” Reply Br. 3.
We find Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of Examiner error. The
Car-Tech and Mirrorlink Sony references are videos demonstrating features
and functionalities of the Mirrorlink system for interfacing a smartphone to
the head unit (e.g., entertainment system) of a vehicle, but fail to disclose the
underlying structure or functional arrangements incorporated within the
demonstrated devices for providing the disclosed features and
functionalities. Although the Examiner’s explanation of the underlying
structure and, in particular, the disputed API, may be reasonable in some
respects, such explanation goes beyond the teachings of the reference videos
themselves and, instead, relies on impermissible speculation and conjecture
about the underlying structure and methodologies.
Thus, on the record before us, we find insufficient evidence to support
the Examiner’s finding that “for the MirrorLink companion application to
work, it must use a syntax and a list of parameters specific to the navigation
API.” Ans. 9. Such explanation and conclusion constitutes technical
conclusions reached the Examiner, not the teachings of the applied art of
record. We note the issue of whether the disputed limitation constitutes a
known inherent or obvious feature of cell phone or other such applications is
not before us on appeal and, therefore, is not addressed in arriving at our
conclusion of obviousness.
For the reasons discussed, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
6
Appeal 2017-004786
Application 14/038,437
Car-Tech and Mirrorlink Sony. For the same reasons we do not sustain the
rejections of claims 41—49, which depend from independent claim 40.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 40-49.
REVERSED
7