Ex Parte Schunder

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 16, 2016

12955064 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/955,064 11/29/2010
28395 7590 06/20/2016
BROOKS KUSHMAN P,CJFG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mark Schunder
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.
83167391 6795
EXAMINER
MARNE, KEVIN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/20/2016 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 MARK SCHUNDER
Appeal2014-005028
Application 12/955,064 1
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEP AN ST AI CO VICI, and
AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
ST AI CO VICI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Mark Schunder (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction
over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. Br. 2 (filed Aug. 28, 2013).
Appeal2014-005028
Application 12/955,064
INVENTION
Appellant's invention relates to "a system for dynamic activation of
applications based on environmental factors." Spec. 8, 11. 27-29.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are independent. Claims 1 and 7 are illustrative of
the claimed invention and read as follows:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a list of one or more application-activating
triggers and applications available on a wireless device in
communication with a vehicle computing system (VCS);
monitoring one or more vehicle sensors or input
mechanisms for a trigger state; and
upon detection of a trigger state recommending at least
one application for activation, the application having an
associated trigger corresponding to the trigger state.
7. A vehicle computing apparatus comprising:
[a] transceiver to receive, at the vehicle computing
apparatus (VCA), a list of applications available on a wireless
device in communication with the VCA;
vehicle-based storage to store a list of applications,
including application-activating triggers associated with one or
more of the applications, in a local memory;
at least one monitoring routine, to monitor, via the VCA,
one or more vehicle sensors or other input mechanisms for a
state which corresponds to a trigger;
at least one comparing routine to compare, upon
detection of a state which corresponds to a trigger, the trigger to
the triggers associated with one or more of the applications; and
at least one activation routine to recommend activation of
at least one application having an associated trigger that is the
same as the trigger to which the state corresponds.
2
Appeal2014-005028
Application 12/955,064
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. The Examiner rejected claims 1---6 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to non-statutory subject matter.
II. The Examiner rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cox (US 2009/0075624 Al, pub. Mar.
19, 2009) and Jenkins (US 2012/0064917 Al, pub. Mar. 15,
2012).
III. The Examiner rejected claims 2-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cox, Jenkins, and Ushijima (US
2010/0216400 Al, pub. Aug. 26, 2010).
IV. The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cox, Jenkins, and Schultz (US
2010/0235744 Al, pub. Sept. 16, 2010).
V. The Examiner rejected claims 7-11 and 13-17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cox and Ushijima.
VI. The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cox, Ushijima, and
Schultz.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Appellant has elected not to present arguments contesting the
rejection of claims 1---6 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-statutory
subject matter. See Br. 8. The Board's rules provide that "[a]n appeal, when
3
Appeal2014-005028
Application 12/955,064
taken, is presumed to be taken from the rejection of all claims under
rejection unless cancelled by an amendment filed by the applicant and
entered by the Office." 37 C.F.R. § 41.3 l(c) (2014). Presented with no
arguments by Appellant contesting this rejection, we summarily affirm the
rejection of claims 1---6 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-statutory
subject matter.
Re} ections II-IV
The Examiner finds that Cox discloses a remote vehicle infotainment
system and interface R VIAI that links with a vehicle infotainment system
and user interface (vehicle computing system)2, wherein the RVIAI builds a
list of available services (applications) and passes it, along with UI
guidelines (application-activating triggers), to the vehicle infotainment
system and the user selects a RVIAI service using vehicle infotainment
system controls (monitoring one or more vehicle ... input mechanisms for a
trigger state). Final Act. 6-7 (citing Cox, paras. 21, 22, 25-29, 32, 65; Figs.
2, 3, 8) (mailed Feb. 26, 2013); Ans. 4 (mailed Oct. 22, 2013). However, the
Examiner finds that Cox fails to disclose "upon detection of a trigger state
recommending at least one application for activation, the application having
an associated trigger state." Final Act. 7. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds
that Jenkins discloses "a system and method for generating
recommendations on a mobile device based upon time, location, venue,
and/or an event." Id (citing Jenkins, paras. 45--48, 51; Fig. 2). The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious for a person of
2 Parentheticals refer to claim language.
4
Appeal2014-005028
Application 12/955,064
ordinary skill in the art to modify Cox's system to "generate a
recommendation to the operator based on time, location venue or some other
event because directing users of mobile devices toward content that is of
interest to them is important in making the mobile media experience
successful." Id. (citing Jenkins, paras. 3, 7).
Appellant first argues that Cox does not "disclose that a list of one or
more application-activating triggers is received." Br. 5 (underlining
omitted). According to Appellant, the Examiner cannot use Cox's menu for
selecting a remote vehicle infotainment apparatus and interface service as
the claimed "list of one or more application-activating triggers" because this
element is described as "a list of applications" and thus, the Examiner is
using the same element to describe two features of claim 1. Id. at 5---6.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument because it is not
commensurate with the Examiner's rejection. Specifically, the Examiner
finds that Cox's list of available services constitutes the claimed "list of
applications" and that Cox's "UI guidelines" (user interface guidelines)
constitute the claimed "application-activating triggers." See Final Act. 6;
Ans. 5. The UI guidelines in Cox are received by the vehicle infotainment
system along with the list of services (applications). See Cox, para. 27.
Such an interpretation of the claimed "application-activating triggers" is
consistent with Appellant's Specification, which describes triggers as "any
suitable designator of an action to be taken." Spec. 16, 1. 26. Similarly,
Cox's UI guidelines allow a user to activate a RVIAI service, i.e., an
application, from the vehicle infotainment system. See Cox, paras. 28-30.
5
Appeal2014-005028
Application 12/955,064
Appellant has not persuasively demonstrated error in the Examiner's
interpretation.
Appellant further argues that Jenkins fails to disclose "recommending
at least one application for activation ... having an associated trigger
corresponding to the trigger state," as called for by claim 1. Br. 6.
According to Appellant, "[ t ]he 'trigger state,' under the introduction of Cox
and under the Examiner's interpretation and application of Cox to the
claims, would be the selection of an application on the RIV AI to launch."
Id. Thus, Appellant concludes that "any recommended application in
Jenkins ... would need to have an 'associated trigger corresponding to [the
selection of an application on the RIV AI]."' Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument because although we
appreciate that Cox's selection of an application on the RIV AI to launch
corresponds to a "trigger state," the rejection as articulated by the Examiner
is based on a combination of Cox and Jenkins. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner is correct in that "the trigger state in
Jenkins is the time, location, venue, and/or an event." Ans. 6; see also
Jenkins, Abstract. As such, in the system of Cox, as modified by Jenkins, in
addition to having a selection of an application on the RIV AI to launch as a
trigger state, the system also includes an additional trigger state based on
time, location, venue, or event that upon detection recommends activation of
an application. See Ans. 6-7. Claim 1, as drafted, does not preclude this
interpretation.
6
Appeal2014-005028
Application 12/955,064
In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Cox and
Jenkins.
With respect to Rejections III and IV, Appellant relies on the
arguments presented supra. See Br. 7. Accordingly, for the same reasons as
discussed above, we also sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 2-5 as being unpatentable over Cox, Jenkins, and Ushijima and of
claim 6 as being unpatentable over Cox, Jenkins, and Schultz.
Re} ections V and VI
The Examiner finds that Cox discloses a remote vehicle infotainment
system and interface R VIAI that links with a vehicle infotainment system
and user interface (vehicle computing system), wherein the RVIAI builds a
list of available services (applications) and passes it, along with UI
guidelines (application-activating triggers), to the vehicle infotainment
system and the user selects a RVIAI service using vehicle infotainment
system controls (monitoring vehicle sensors or input mechanisms for a
trigger state). Final Act. 12-13 (citing Cox, paras. 21, 22, 25-29, 32, 65;
Figs. 2, 3, 8). The Examiner further finds that Ushijima discloses an
onboard device 300 including a control unit 360 having a connection target
determining unit 360a for selecting a portable device for connection with
onboard device 300 by comparing priority levels of multiple portable
devices and an application execution processing unit 360b that performs
various processes in cooperation with the portable terminal device. Id. at
13-14 (citing Ushijima, paras. 27, 32, 65, 66 68; Figs. 7, 11, 13). The
7
Appeal2014-005028
Application 12/955,064
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious for a person of
ordinary skill in the art "to modify the remote vehicle infotainment apparatus
and interface as disclosed in Cox to include automatically connecting to the
portable terminal device when only one device is detected in order to
prevent the vehicle operator [from] performing the time consuming
operation of connecting the portable device." Id. at 14 (citing Ushijima,
para. 70).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner bears the
initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, although we
appreciate the Examiner's findings regarding the individual teachings of Cox
and Ushijima, nonetheless, the Examiner has not explained adequately how
the teachings would have been combined in the proposed rejection. For
example, it is not clear how Ushijima's comparison of priority levels of
multiple portable devices constitutes comparing a trigger that corresponds to
a state (Cox's selection of an application on the RIV AI to launch) to triggers
associated with one or more applications (Cox's UI guidelines), as per
independent claims 7 and 13. The Examiner has also not explained whether
Ushijima's priority levels constitute a trigger that corresponds to a state or
triggers associated with one or more applications. As such, the Examiner
has not made the initial fact findings required to demonstrate a prima facie
case of obviousness of independent claims 7 and 13. See In re Warner, 379
F .2d 1011, 1017 (CCP A 1967) (holding that "[t ]he legal conclusion of
obviousness must be supported by facts" and "where the legal conclusion is
not supported by facts it cannot stand").
8
Appeal2014-005028
Application 12/955,064
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claims 7 and 13, and their
respective dependent claims 8-11 and 14--1 7 as being unpatentable over Cox
and Ushijima.
In regards to Rejection VI, the Examiner's use of Schultz's disclosure
does not remedy the deficiencies of Cox and Ushijima, as discussed supra.
See Final Act. 23-25. Therefore, we also do not sustain the rejection of
claims 12 and 18 over the combined teachings of Cox, Ushijima, and
Schultz.
SUMMARY
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-18 is affirmed as to claims
1---6 and reversed as to claims 7-18.
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-IN-PART
9