14666811 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2017)

Ex Parte Kostepen

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 26, 2017

14666811 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 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. 11123.1094US 8070 EXAMINER CASILLASHERNANDEZ, OMAR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2689 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 14/666,811 03/24/2015 HAKAN KOSTEPEN 52558 7590 04/26/2017 PANASONIC AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEM COMPANY OF AMERICA 776 HWY 74 SOUTH c/o Panasonic Legal PEACHTREE CITY, GA 30269 04/26/2017 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 HAKAN KOSTEPEN Appeal 2017-001242 Application 14/666,811 Technology Center 2600 Before ERIC B. CHEN, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1—7 and 10—22. Claims 8 and 9 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2017-001242 Application 14/666,811 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to operating an “infotainment system for a motor vehicle” having a “key fob” arrangement. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of operating an infotainment system for a motor vehicle, comprising: providing a key fob with a token for a software update for a vehicle function; enabling infotainment content to be transferred from a home computing device to the key fob; transferring the infotainment content from the key fob to an electronic infotainment device within the motor vehicle; and using the key fob to accommodate a secure electronic financial transaction for the identified user. REFERENCES Kolpasky US 2006/0049922 A1 Mar. 9, 2006 Utter US 2007/0001805 A1 Jan. 4, 2007 Thomas US 2010/0253535 A1 Oct. 7,2010 Proefke US 2010/0274570 A1 Oct. 28, 2010 Gilleland US 2011/0128118 A1 June 2, 2011 Kirsch US 2013/0285841 A1 Oct. 31,2013 Yashiro US 2014/0088827 A1 Mar. 27, 2014 Mishra US 2015/0116079 A1 Apr. 30, 2015 REJECTIONS Claims 1—4, 10, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Thomas, Gilleland, and Proefke. Final Act. 4—6. Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Thomas, Gilleland, Proefke, and Utter. Final Act. 6-8. 2 Appeal 2017-001242 Application 14/666,811 Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Thomas, Gilleland, and Kolpasky. Final Act. 8. Claims 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Thomas, Gilleland, and Mishra. Final Act. 8—9. Claims 13 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Thomas and Yashiro. Final Act. 9—11. Claims 14, 15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Thomas, Yashiro, and Gilleland. Final Act. 11-12. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Thomas, Yashiro, Kolpasky, and Mishra. Final Act. 12— 13. Claims 18—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Kolpasky, Mishra, and Proefke. Final Act. 14—15. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Thomas, Yashiro, and Kirsch. Final Act. 15—16. OPINION Claims 1—7, 10, 12, and 18—20, Appellant argues error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—7, 10, 12, and 18—20 because Proefke does not disclose “using the key fob to accommodate a secure electronic financial transaction” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 11—13, 17. We are unpersuaded of error for the reasons stated by the Examiner (Ans. 2—3), which Appellant does not persuasively rebut (Reply Br. 5—6). We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusion that claim 1 is obvious over the combination of Thomas, Gilleland, and Proefke. 3 Appeal 2017-001242 Application 14/666,811 Final Act. 4—5; Ans. 2—3. We sustain the rejections of claims 1—7, 10, 12, and 18—20, argued on the same basis. In particular, we see no error in the Examiner’s finding (Final Act. 5) Proefke teaches or suggests “using the key fob to accommodate a secure electronic financial transaction” because Proefke discloses using a key fob to verify authorization to charge an electric vehicle. Proefke 130. “Verifying authorization,” according to Proefke, includes theft prevention and preventing “use of authorization information such as the use of financial account information for other unauthorized transactions.” Id- Claims 11 and 16 Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and recites “the secure transaction being performed with the key fob being in communication with the smart phone.” Claim 16 includes a similar recitation. Appellant argues error in the rejections of claims 11 and 16 because “Mishra does not disclose that a transaction performed by a key fob in communication with a smart phone is secure” and “[preventing an unauthenticated party from performing one transaction says nothing about the security of another transaction performed by an authenticated party.” App. Br. 13—14; Reply Br. 7—8. We are unpersuaded of error. We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusion that claims 11 and 16 are obvious over the cited references. Final Act. 8-9, 12-13; Ans. 3^1. Specifically, we disagree with Appellant’s statement that “[pjreventing an unauthenticated party from performing one transaction says nothing about the security of another transaction performed by an authenticated party.” App. Br. 14. To the contrary, “[pjreventing an unauthenticated party from performing one transaction” discloses a secure transaction because the unauthenticated party is prevented from performing 4 Appeal 2017-001242 Application 14/666,811 the transaction. The transaction is “secure,” at least with respect to the unauthenticated party. Claims 13—15, 17, and 21 Claim 13 recites “a key fob configured to: facilitate a software update for a vehicle battery charging function.” The Examiner finds claim 13 would have been obvious over the combination of Thomas and Yashiro. Final Act. 9—10. Specifically, the Examiner finds Yashiro discloses using a smart phone to update vehicle software. Id. 10 (citing Yashiro |86). The Examiner also finds Yashiro discloses updating timers for vehicle battery charging. Id. (citing Figs. 5A and 5B). Appellant argues error in the rejections of claims 13—15, 17, and 21 on the basis that Yashiro does not “facilitate a software update for a vehicle battery charging function,” as recited in claim 13. App. Br. 15—16; Reply Br. 8—10. Specifically, Appellant argues “a change in timer setting data, as disclosed by Yashiro, does not result in a software update.” App. Br. 15. We are unpersuaded of error. Appellant’s arguments overlook the Examiner’s citation to Yashiro’s express disclosure of updating vehicle software. Final Act. 10 (citing Yashiro | 86 (“The setting items include ... update of vehicle software”)). Hence, without regard to the Examiner’s finding that updating software, broadly construed, includes modification to software by the data the software operates on (i.e., timer settings) as Yashiro discloses (Ans. 4—5) — a finding we do not adopt — we see no persuasive basis to find that Yashiro’s express disclosure of facilitating vehicle software updating (| 86) excludes the software for the vehicle battery charging function disclosed elsewhere (see, e.g., Figs. 5A and 5B), as cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 10). 5 Appeal 2017-001242 Application 14/666,811 Accordingly, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusion that claim 13 would have been obvious over Thomas and Yashiro. Final Act. 9— 10. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 and the Examiner’s rejections of claims 14, 15, 17, and 21, argued on the same basis. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—7 and 10—22. 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. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 6