Ex Parte Mitchell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 7, 2016

13838583 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/838,583 03/15/2013
28395 7590 10/12/2016
BROOKS KUSHMAN P,CJFG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David Chase Mitchell
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.
83250725 5644
EXAMINER
POTRATZ, DANIEL B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/12/2016 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 DAVID CHASE MITCHELL, JULIUS MARCHWICKI,
MICHAEL RAYMOND WESTRA, and ELIZABETH HALASH
Appeal2015-007057
Application 13/838,583
Technology Center 2400
Before MARC S. HOFF, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 13, 16, and 17, which constitute all of the claims pending
in this application. Claims 2--4, 6, 7, 10-12, 14, 15, and 18-20 have been
cancelled. Claims App'x 1-3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Ford Global Technologies, LLC as the real party in
interest. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-007057
Application 13/838,583
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a method and
apparatus for secure data transfer permission handling for a vehicle.
Abstract; Spec. i-f 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A vehicle-based system comprising:
a processor configured to:
receive a data-access request from a remote application
previously authorized to access requested data identified in the
request;
identify a policy change now requiring user consent for the
remote application to access the requested data;
provide an in-vehicle permission-request for the
application to access the requested data in accordance with the
identified policy change; and
update a consent-record in a local policy-table with a
request response.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Annan
Burcham
US 2013/0297456 Al Nov. 7, 2013
US 2013/0304281 Al Nov. 14, 2013
REJECTION
Claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 13, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Burcham and Annan. Final Act. 3-7.
2
Appeal2015-007057
Application 13/838,583
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments regarding the pending
claims, and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings,
conclusions, and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which
this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3-7), and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set
forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' arguments (Ans.
2-9). We incorporate such findings, conclusions, reasons, and rebuttals
herein by reference unless otherwise noted. However, we highlight and
address specific findings for emphasis as follows.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding that Burcham teaches
the processor configured to "receive a data-access request ... ,"as recited in
claim 1. Br. 5. Specifically, Appellants argue:
Id.
The Examiner points to a mobile application, running on the
wireless device, sending a command to a vehicle and the vehicle
utilizing digital rights management before performing an action
requested from the mobile application. Subscription rights of the
vehicle to perform the action are also verified, but this is
irrelevant to the claim language, which points to the mobile
application requesting data.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner
erred. Instead, we agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings. See Final
Act. 3--4 (citing Burcham i-fi-123, 25); Ans. 3--4 (same). Specifically,
Burcham teaches a mobile device application that can send a request to a
vehicle, the vehicle performs digital rights management to determine if the
3
Appeal2015-007057
Application 13/838,583
request is authorized and performing the request. Burcham iii! 23, 25.
Burcham further teaches that the request may involve a vehicle diagnostic
service that will "monitor the vehicle's engine and report any issues
detected." Burcham if 3 6. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the
disputed language of claim 1 is broad enough to encompass the request to
the car to report any issues detected by the car.
Appellants also argue the Examiner erred in finding that Annan
teaches "identify[ing] a policy change now requiring user consent for the
remote application to access requested data," as recited in claim 1. Br. 5---6.
More particularly, Appellants argue that Annan does not teach a mobile
application. Appellants further argue Annan does not teach a policy change
now requiring user consent. Br. 6.
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The
test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly
suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject
matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light
of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCP A 1981 ). Because the Examiner finds that Burcham teaches a
mobile application (see Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 3--4), we are not persuaded that
the Examiner erred by Appellants' arguments directed to Annan not teaching
using a mobile application.
Regarding Appellants' arguments directed to Annan not teaching a
policy change, Annan teaches that the owner of a vehicle will have rights to
access a digital rights package for a limited amount of time. Annan. if 22.
4
Appeal2015-007057
Application 13/838,583
Once that time period has expired, the owner will no longer be able to access
the package, i.e, there is a policy change regarding access. Id. The
Examiner concludes, and we agree, that the disputed claim limitation is
broad enough to encompass "Annan's disclosure of a demo digital rights
package expiring." Ans. 7-8. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred.
Finally, Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding Annan
teaches "provid[ing] an in-vehicle permission-request for the application to
access the requested data in accordance with the identified policy change,"
as recited in claim 1. Br. 6. According to Appellants:
Id.
While the user can register in-vehicle [0022], the user merely
registers and requests a new digital rights package. The new
digital rights package may include permission for the user to use
the features of the vehicle, but the user, again, is not responding
to an in-vehicle permission request. In the claims, the vehicle
provides a request for the user to grant permission for the
application to access the requested data. In the prior art, the
vehicle provides a registration service for the user to ask
permission for the vehicle to access the requested data. This is a
wholly different solution to a wholly different problem.
We are not persuaded of error based on Appellants' argument because
it does not address the reasoning relied on by the Examiner (Ans. 8-9) and,
thus, does not adequately address the rejection on appeal. Specifically, in
the Answer, the Examiner relies on the combination of Annan and Buchman
for the disputed limitation. Ans. 9 ("Given that Annan discloses a user
making in-vehicle purchase requests for digital right packages which enables
an application to access restricted application features, the examiner
contends that Burcham and Annan fully teaches and suggests 'provide an in-
5
Appeal2015-007057
Application 13/838,583
vehicle permission-request for the application to access the requested data
in accordance with the identified policy change', and thus the rejection
should be maintained."). Instead, we agree with the Examiner in finding the
above combination teaches this disputed element.
According! y, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, along
with the rejection of claims 9 and 17, which are argued on the same grounds,
and dependent claims 5, 8, 13, and 16, which are not argued separately. See
Br. 6.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's decisions rejecting
claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 13, 16, and 17.
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