Ex Parte Jensen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 20, 2010

10104298 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 20, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1
___________ 2
3
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 4
AND INTERFERENCES 5
___________ 6
7
Ex parte PETER STRARUP JENSEN, 8
PAVEL S. VESELOV, 9
VENKATA S. AYYAGARI, and 10
NIKOLAY G. GRIGORYEV 11
___________ 12
13
Appeal 2009-003012 14
Application 10/104,298 15
Technology Center 3600 16
___________ 17
18
Decided: April 20, 2010 19
___________ 20
21
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and ANTON W. 22
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges. 23
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 24
DECISION ON APPEAL 25
26
Appeal 2009-003012
Application 10/104,298

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
Peter Strarup Jensen, Pavel S. Veselov, Venkata S. Ayyagari, And 2
Nikolay G. Grigoryev (Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 3
(2002) of a final rejection of claims 1-4, 7-12, and 15-20, the only claims 4
pending in the application on appeal. 5
We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) 6
(2002). 7
SUMMARY OF DECISION1 8
We AFFIRM. 9
THE INVENTION 10
The Appellants invented telematic computer devices and abstract 11
communication using an asynchronous protocol framework for telematic 12
systems (Specification 2:7-9). 13
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 14
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some 15
paragraphing added]. 16
1. A system for providing information service deployment 17
management, comprising: 18

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed August 30, 2007) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
December 12, 2007), and Final Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed March 9,
2007).
Appeal 2009-003012
Application 10/104,298

3
[1] a server including: 1
[a] a plurality of service objects, each service object 2
including information for a particular service, the plurality 3
of service objects stored on computer readable media in the 4
server; 5
[b] a plurality of service directories, each service directory 6
including a list of service objects, the list of service objects 7
stored on computer readable media in the server; and 8
[c] a first plurality of service entry objects, each service 9
entry object defining a relationship between a service object 10
and a service directory, wherein the first plurality of service 11
objects includes the list of service objects and wherein a 12
selected service object is included in one or more 13
corresponding service directories and wherein the 14
relationship between the selected service object and at least 15
one of the corresponding service directories quantifies a 16
usage of the selected service object, the plurality of service 17
entry objects stored on computer readable media in the 18
server; and 19
[2] a plurality of vehicle client objects, each of the plurality 20
of vehicle client objects include information regarding a 21
corresponding vehicle client device, each vehicle client device 22
including a client in communication with the server, wherein 23
each of the plurality of vehicle client objects includes a 24
corresponding list of service directories and a second plurality 25
of service objects. 26
27
THE REJECTIONS 28
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 29
Kolls US 6,856,820 B1 Feb. 15, 2005
30
Claims 1-4, 7-12, and 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) 31
as being anticipated by Kolls. 32
Appeal 2009-003012
Application 10/104,298

4
ISSUE 1
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-4, 7-12, 2
and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Kolls turns on whether 3
Kolls describes service objects and service directories as used by the claimed 4
invention. 5
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 6
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 7
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 8
Facts Related to the Prior Art 9
Kolls 10
01. Kolls is directed to wirelessly data communicating between and 11
effectuating a network with a plurality of vehicles and a plurality 12
of Internet based data processing resources (Kolls 1:8-11). 13
02. Kolls describes an in-vehicle device for remotely monitoring 14
vehicle performance and for controlling vehicle operation (Kolls 15
3:46-50). 16
03. Kolls specifically describes a radio advertisement server 17
routine, where an advertisement server selects advertising content 18
based on communicated user preferences or geographic location 19
data (Kolls 33:64-67 and 34:1-6). GPS data is communicated 20
between the advertisement server and the in-vehicle device (Kolls 21
34:35-37). Based on GPS information, advertisements for local 22
restaurants, shopping, and site seeing attractions can be served and 23
displayed in a vehicle moving (Kolls 34:46-52). The 24
Appeal 2009-003012
Application 10/104,298

5
advertisements are stored in a database of advertising content 1
(Kolls 34:1-6). Advertisements can also be based on a radio 2
station selection and a user’s listening histories (Kolls 34:54-55). 3
Advertisement selection can also be based on cookies resident on 4
an Internet server or in a user’s in-vehicle device (Kolls 34:63-65). 5
Users can interact with advertisements, including sending or 6
receiving an email or conducting a transaction (Kolls 35:11-15). 7
Furthermore, the services can command and control functionality 8
of the vehicle, such as deactivating the vehicle’s engine (Kolls 9
35:30-35). 10
PRINCIPLES OF LAW 11
Anticipation 12
"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in 13
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior 14
art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 15
628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). "When a claim covers several structures or 16
compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed 17
anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the 18
claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. 19
Cir. 2001). "The identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as 20
is contained in the ... claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 21
1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The elements must be arranged as required by 22
the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology 23
is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 24
Appeal 2009-003012
Application 10/104,298

6
1
ANALYSIS 2
Claims 1-4, 7-12, and 15-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being 3
anticipated by Kolls 4
The Appellants contend that Kolls’ service or advertisement is not the 5
same as operationally deployed and functioning service objects that are 6
encoded in software, as required by independent claims 1, 9, and 17 and 7
incorporated by dependant claims 2-4, 7-8, 10-12, 15-16, and 18-20 (App. 8
Br. 22-24). 9
We disagree with the Appellants. Claims 1, 9, and 17 require in part a 10
plurality of vehicle client objects and claims 1 and 17 further require a 11
server. The claims further require service objects and service directories, 12
where the service objects stores information for a particular service stored on 13
computer readable media and the service directories store a list of service 14
objects. 15
Kolls describes an in-vehicle device and an advertisements server (FF 16
02-03). Advertisements are selected by the advertisement server, based on 17
any number of pre-defined criteria, and are transmitted to the in-vehicle 18
device for interaction with the user (FF 03). The advertisements define 19
specific services, such as local restaurants, shopping, and site seeing 20
attractions (FF 03). The advertisements are stored in a database on the 21
server and therefore are stored on computer readable media (FF 03). In the 22
broadest sense, data stored in a database require the use of database objects, 23
as data per se are species of software objects. That is, the advertisements are 24
service objects and the advertisement server contains a database that has lists 25
Appeal 2009-003012
Application 10/104,298

7
of advertisements and therefore is the database is the same as a service 1
directory. Furthermore, the services can command and control functionality 2
of the vehicle, such as deactivating the vehicle’s engine (FF 03). As such, 3
Kolls describes these features and anticipates claims 1-4, 7-12, and 15-20. 4
The Appellants specifically contend that the claimed invention 5
requires that the service objects are functional blocks of software (App. Br. 6
24), the claimed invention requires a thin client whereas Kolls describes a fat 7
client (App. Br. 24-25), and only service objects that are currently needed 8
are selected, downloaded, and active in the vehicle client (App. Br. 26). 9
However, no such limitations are found in the claim language. The 10
claims only require that service objects include service information on a 11
computer readable media on the server, as described by Kolls and discussed 12
supra. The claim language is completely silent on the use of a thin client 13
and only using needed service objects in the vehicle client. As such, the 14
argument that Kolls fails to describe these features is not found persuasive 15
because these features are not recited in the claims. 16
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-4, 7-12, and 15-20 under 17
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Kolls. 18
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 19
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-4, 7-12, and 15-20 under 20
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Kolls. 21
DECISION 22
To summarize, our decision is as follows. 23
Appeal 2009-003012
Application 10/104,298

8
• The rejection of claims 1-4, 7-12, and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) 1
as anticipated by Kolls is sustained. 2
3
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this 4
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). 5
6
AFFIRMED 7
8
9
10
mev 11
12
Address 13
MARTINE PENILLA & GENCARELLA, LLP 14
710 LAKEWAY DRIVE 15
SUITE 200 16
SUNNYVALE CA 94085 17