Ex Parte Rao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 26, 2016

13083856 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/083,856 04/11/2011
28395 7590 08/30/2016
BROOKS KUSHMAN P,CJFG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Manoharprasad K. Rao
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.
83176768 9066
EXAMINER
AKKI, MUNEAR T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2016 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 MANOHARPRASAD K. RAO,
JIALIANG LE,
KWAKUO. PRAKAH-ASANTE,
and
KRISHNASWAMY VENKATESH PRASAD 1
Appeal2015-000939
Application 13/083,856
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, AMBER L. HAGY, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1--4 and 10-20, which are all of the pending claims. 2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Ford Global Technologies,
LLC. Br. 2.
2 Claims 5-9 have been cancelled. See Br. Claims App 'x 1.
Appeal2015-000939
Application 13/083,856
Introduction
Appellants state that "illustrative embodiments generally relate to a
method and apparatus for health monitoring and/or health monitoring
feedback." Spec. i-f 1. Claims 1 and 10 are collectively representative:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
communicating with a medical device, to determine if the
device is a critical device;
setting a selective start-up state upon determination that
the device is a critical device;
setting a measurement threshold, on a vehicle computer,
for the medical device;
determining, at the vehicle computer, if received data from
the medical device exceeds the threshold; and
preventing vehicle start-up if the data exceeds the
threshold during a set selective start-up state.
10. A computer readable storage medium storing instructions
that, when executed by a processor as part of a vehicle associated
computing system, cause the vehicle associated computing
system to perform the method comprising:
communicating with one or more vehicle-embedded
medical and/or wellness devices;
receiving one or more data related to a medical or wellness
condition from at least one of the one or more medical and/or
wellness devices; and
reporting a measurement value to an occupant from the
one or more medical devices based at least in part on the
received data.
Br., Claims App'x 1 (disputed limitations emphasized).
Rejections
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Steinberg (US 5,743,349; iss. Apr. 28, 1998). Final Act. 2-3.
2
Appeal2015-000939
Application 13/083,856
Claims 2--4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Steinberg and Ferek-Petric (US 2002/0099424 Al; publ. July 25, 2002).
Final Act. 3--4.
Claims 10-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Ferek-Petric and Ngo (US 2011/0193707 Al; publ. Aug. 11, 2011). Final
Act. 4--10.
ISSUES
Based on Appellants' arguments, the two issues before us are
(1) whether the Examiner errs in the rejection of claim 1 in finding Steinberg
discloses "communicating with a medical device, to determine if the device
is a critical device" and (2) whether the Examiner errs in the rejection of
claim 10 in finding Ferek-Petrick teaches the recited requirement of
"reporting a measurement value to an occupant from the one or more
medical devices based at least in part on the received data." Br. 6-8.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action from which
this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-11) and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief
(Ans. 3). We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We
highlight the following for emphasis.
3
Appeal2015-000939
Application 13/083,856
Claim 1
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Steinberg's disclosure of
communicating with a blood-alcohol concentration reader (a/k/a "alcoh-
meter") in a vehicle ignition interlock system satisfies claim 1 's
"communicating with a medical device, to determine if the device is a
critical device" requirement. Final Act. 2 (citing Steinberg col. 3, 11. 44--56).
Appellants argue the Examiner errs because Steinberg "says nothing about
determining the criticality of the device. The cited portion is merely a
discussion of receiving a reading from a deployed device. There is ... no
distinction anywhere in Steinberg relating to critical or non-critical devices,
and a determination between such devices." Br. 6 (emphasis omitted). The
Examiner answers that "it is inherently taught that when the alcohol level is
an acceptable level the operator can enable the vehicle and vice versa,
therefor it is [a] critical device since the alcohol meter [is tied] to the
operating system of the vehicle." Ans. 3.
The sole dispute for claim 1 is whether Steinberg's disclosure of
communicating with its alcoh-meter discloses, to a person of ordinary skill,
the disputed communicating step pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102. We agree
with the Examiner that it does.
Appellants do not dispute that Steinberg's alcoh-meter maps to claim
1 's "medical device" and "critical device." Appellants also do not dispute
that Steinberg discloses all steps of claim 1 other than the communicating
step. For the alcoh-meter to provide the relevant functionality for the
undisputed claim requirements, it must communicate within the vehicle
interlock control system. In other words, the interlock system of Steinberg
will not function if the alcoh-meter is unable to communicate. Thus, in the
4
Appeal2015-000939
Application 13/083,856
context of Steinberg's disclosure, as the Examiner finds, communicating
with the alcoh-meter necessarily determines that it is a critical device. It
does not matter that Steinberg does not explicitly describe communicating a
type of "yes or no: is the alcoh-meter a critical device?" inquiry. See, e.g.,
Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed.
Cir. 2015) ("However, a reference can anticipate a claim even if it 'd[ oes]
not expressly spell out' all the limitations arranged or combined as in the
claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would 'at once
envisage' the claimed arrangement or combination") (quoting In re Petering,
301F.2d676, 681(CCPA1962)).
We accordingly sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the
rejection of claims 2--4, which Appellants argue solely on the basis of the
arguments for claim 1. Br. 6.
Claim 10
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Ferek-Petrik discloses
claim 10' s disputed "reporting a measurement value to an occupant from the
one or more medical devices based at least in part on the received data"
requirement (see Final Act. 5 (citing Ferek-Petric i-fi-f 13, 49)) because Ferek-
Petric teaches "[a]n alarm, indicating that a threshold was reached," which
"is simply not a 'measurement value."' Br. 7. The Examiner answers that
"'reporting [a] measurement value' is broad enough that given its broadest
reasonable interpretation that it encompasses the indication of a value when
an alarm is issued." Ans. 3.
We again agree with the Examiner. Ferek-Petric's alarm to a driver
indicating a threshold was reached constitutes reporting that the value of the
measurement is out of range, which is commensurate with "reporting a
5
Appeal2015-000939
Application 13/083,856
measurement value" as recited in claim 10. We accordingly sustain the
rejection of claim 10. We also sustain the rejection of claims 11-20, which
Appellants do not argue separately from claim 10 (see Br. 8).
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims
1--4 and 10-20. 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