Ex Parte Helm et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2017

13453614 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 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.
13/453,614 04/23/2012 Sean L. Helm 22562-638/2011-261 9955
96411 7590 09/28/2017
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900
Cincinnati, OH 45202
EXAMINER
PATEL, YOGESHKUMAR G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2651
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEAN L. HELM and JEFFERY E. PIERFELICE
Appeal 2016-008444
Application 13/453,614
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-008444
Application 13/453,614
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4—8, 10-12, 14, 15, and 18—20, which are all the claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Representative Claim
1. A method for altering an in-vehicle presentation
comprising:
providing a user option for a user to identify a geographic
location to trigger an alteration to an in-vehicle presentation;
determining a vehicle location of a vehicle;
receiving a media signal at the vehicle, the media signal
including content;
providing the in-vehicle presentation of the content for
viewing as the media signal is being received;
determining whether a noise ordinance exists in the
vehicle location;
determining whether the vehicle location is included in the
user-identified geographic location;
in response to determining at least one of the following:
that the noise ordinance exists in the vehicle location and that the
vehicle location is included in the user-identified geographic
location, determining whether a volume of the in-vehicle
presentation violates the noise ordinance;
in response to determining that the volume violates the
noise ordinance, altering the in-vehicle presentation in the
predetermined manner wherein altering the in-vehicle
presentation includes pausing playback of the in-vehicle
presentation;
in response to altering the in-vehicle presentation,
beginning recording of the content;
2
Appeal 2016-008444
Application 13/453,614
providing an option to store the content that is being
recorded; and
in response to a determination that the vehicle has left the
vehicle location, resuming playback of the in-vehicle
presentation at a point the in-vehicle presentation was paused and
providing an option to playback the in-vehicle presentation at a
predetermined increased speed to allow a user to perceive the in-
vehicle presentation as well as return the in-vehicle presentation
to a point such that the in-vehicle presentation may be provided
at a normal playback speed as the media signal is being received.
Ellis
Thacher
Konno
Sumiya
Prior Art
US 2005/0020223 A1
US 2007/0126604 A1
US 2011/0171978 A1
JP 2002-236023
Jan. 27, 2005
June 7, 2007
July 14, 2011
Aug. 23, 2002
Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1, 2, 4—8, 10-12, 14, 15, and 18—20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thacher, Konno, Sumiya, and
Ellis. Final Act. 2.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Rejection and Examiner’s Answer as our own. Final Act. 18—19; Ans. 4—6
We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons
given in the Examiner’s Answer. We address the following arguments for
emphasis.
Appellants contend Thacher does not teach “providing a user option
for a user to identity a geographic location to trigger an alteration to an in-
vehicle presentation,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 7—8; Reply Br. 2—3.
3
Appeal 2016-008444
Application 13/453,614
We are not persuaded of Examiner error, and agree with the Examiner’s
findings that Thacher teaches this limitation. Final Act. 2—3; Ans. 4, 18—19.
Cumulative to the Examiner’s findings, we highlight that the GPS
system of Thatcher provides an option for a user to identify a destination to
trigger an alteration to an in-vehicle presentation on a display. See Thacher
Fig. 2 and 123 (display 200 shows a map with directions and distance to a
user’s identified destination, where the distance is displayed as 3 miles).
The claim term “providing a user option for a user to identify a geographic
location to trigger an alteration to an in-vehicle presentation,” is taught at
least by Thatcher’s disclosure of a user identifying a destination that triggers
a display to show the corresponding directions and distance.
Appellants contend that Thatcher cannot teach
determining whether the vehicle location is included in the user-
identified geographic location . . . [and] in response to
determining at least one of the following: that the noise ordinance
exists in the vehicle location and that the vehicle location is
included in the user-identified geographic location, determining
whether a volume of the in-vehicle presentation violates the
noise ordinance.
Reply Br. 3. However, the Examiner relies on Sumiya to teach this claim
limitation. Final Act. 7 (citing Sumiya H 8, 13).
Appellants further contend Sumiya does not teach
providing a user option for a user to identify a geographic
location to trigger an alteration to an in-vehicle presentation . . .
determining whether the vehicle location is included in the user-
identified geographic location . . . [and] in response to
determining at least one of the following: that the noise ordinance
exists in the vehicle location and that the vehicle location is
included in the user-identified geographic location, determining
whether a volume of the in-vehicle presentation violates the
noise ordinance.
4
Appeal 2016-008444
Application 13/453,614
Reply Br. 3^4. However, the Examiner relies on Thatcher to teach
providing a user option for a user to identify a geographic location to trigger
an alteration to an in-vehicle presentation, and relies on Sumiya to teach the
trigger is a noise ordinance in the geographic location. Final Act. 4, 7; Ans.
18—19. Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s findings. One
cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually, where
the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co.,
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981).
Here, Thatcher teaches employing a user-identified condition for
applying a rule to operate an in-vehicle multi-media system. Thatcher,
Abstract, 118-11, 36, 38. Sumiya teaches the condition can be when the
vehicle is located near a tollgate, and the rule can be lowering the volume.
Sumiya 2, 3, 7, 8. Appellants have not persuasively shown that a user
identifying a condition as taught by Thatcher, such as when the vehicle is
located near a tollgate as taught by Sumiya, does anything more than yield
the predictable result of triggering an alteration to the in-vehicle presentation
of the audio volume when the condition is met as taught by Sumiya. See
KSRIntI Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
For at least the above reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1
under § 103. Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability
of claims 2, 4—8, 10—12, 14, 15, and 18—20, which fall with claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4—8, 10-12, 14, 15, and
18-20 under § 103.
5
Appeal 2016-008444
Application 13/453,614
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—8, 10-12, 14, 15, and 18—
20 is affirmed.
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
6