Ex Parte Lovett et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 5, 2018

14490921 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 5, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/490,921 09/19/2014
28395 7590 04/09/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Karin LOVETT
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.
83465882 1093
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, CUONG H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/09/2018 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 KARIN LOVETT, ANDREW EUGENE BURT,
JAMES MICHAEL WEINFURTHER, and
ZELJKO DELJEVIC
Appeal2017-007353
Application 14/490,921
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1, 3-8, 15, and 17-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Ganot (US 2012/0188101 Al, pub. July 26, 2012) and
Ricci (US 2013/0138714 Al, pub. May 30, 2013). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Ford Global Technologies, LLC, which,
according to the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-007353
Application 14/490,921
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A system comprising:
a plurality of control modules of a vehicle, in networked
communication,
wherein one of the control modules is configured to
receive an indication from a user interface to
transition the vehicle into an extended park mode,
responsive to the indication, instruct the plurality of
control modules to perform operations to reduce their
respective key-off loads on the vehicle,
receive a second indication from the user interface
to transition the vehicle out of the extended park mode,
and
responsive to the second indication, instruct the
plurality of control modules to return to normal operation.
DISCUSSION
Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, a control module
configured to "instruct the plurality of control modules to perform
operations to reduce their respective key-off loads on the vehicle." Appeal
Br. A-1 (Claims App.). Independent claims 15and19 recite similar
limitations. See id. at A-3----A-4 (Claims App.). Appellant argues that Ricci,
as relied upon in the rejection, does not disclose such a feature. See id. at 8----
1 O; Reply Br. 1-2. We agree with Appellant.
In rejecting the independent claims, the Examiner acknowledges that
"Ganot does not expressly disclose ... [the] claimed language of:
'responsive to the indication, instruct control modules to perform operations
to reduce their respective key-off loads on the vehicle['] (e.g., a link to
automatically tum-off light/radio commands, such as 'terminating/stopping/
2
Appeal2017-007353
Application 14/490,921
aborting' a task (see Ganot, para[s]. [0004], [0007], [0130])[)]." Final Act. 4
(underlining omitted). However, the Examiner finds that "Ricci suggests
th[is] feature, see Ricci, para. [0083]." Id. According to the Examiner,
Ricci "suggests ... using sensors to check and tum-off/deactivate ...
vehicle loads to save energy/power (i.e., deactivating light setting sensor
(e.g., current headlight, emergency light, brake light, parking light, fog light,
interior or passenger compartment light, and/or tail light state[))]." Ans. 4
(citing Ricci i-f 83).
Appellant persuasively asserts that the cited portion of Ricci fails to
disclose anything with regard to reducing key-off loads on a vehicle. See
Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 2 (asserting that "[n]othing in the cited portion of
Ricci bears any relation to 'key-off loads' at all or 'to reduce their respective
key-off loads on the vehicle' in any context"). Ricci discloses that "vehicle
104 includes a number of sensors in wireless or wired communication with
the vehicle control system 204 and/or display device 212 to collect sensed
information regarding the vehicle state, configuration, and/or operation."
Ricci i-f 83. Ricci discloses various types of sensors including, for example,
a "a switch state sensor 468 to determine a current activation or deactivation
state of the power source activation/deactivation switch 444," and a "light
setting sensor (e.g., current headlight, emergency light, brake light, parking
light, fog light, interior or passenger compartment light, and/or tail light state
(on or oft))." Id. Although Ricci discloses various sensors for determining
the status of devices in the vehicle, the Examiner does not point to, nor do
we discern, any disclosure in Ricci that the sensors, or any data obtained
therefrom, are used to perform operations to reduce key-off loads on the
vehicle, as required by the claims. Thus, the Examiner has not established
3
Appeal2017-007353
Application 14/490,921
by a preponderance of the evidence that Ricci teaches the feature for which
it was cited in the rejection, nor has the Examiner adequately explained how
"Ricci suggests th[is] feature," as stated by the Examiner (Final Act. 4).
Accordingly, based on the record before us, the Examiner has not met
the burden of establishing a proper case that independent claims 1, 15, and
19 are unpatentable based on the cited references. On this basis, we do not
sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 15, and 19, or dependent
claims 3-8, 17, 18, and 20-22 as unpatentable over Ganot and Ricci.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-8, 15, and 17-22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ganot and Ricci is reversed.
REVERSED
4