Ex Parte Stanek et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2017

13910303 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 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.
13/910,303 06/05/2013 Joseph F. Stanek 83353482 1029
28395 7590 11/01/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER MARTINEZ BORRERO, LUIS A
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2017 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 JOSEPH F. STANEK, SIAMAK HASHEMI, RAMY BOCTOR,
JOHN A. LOCKWOOD, and LISA SCOTT
Appeal 2016-005515
Application 13/910,30s1
Technology Center 3600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CARL L. SILVERMAN,
and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction over the pending
rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Ford Global Technologies, LLC as the Real Party in
Interest. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2016-005515
Application 13/910,303
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to an on-
vehicle audio system. (Abstract.) Independent claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. An on-vehicle audio system, comprising:
at least one of a transceiver and a plug connector
configured to communicatively connect to a mobile phone and
receive a voice signal generated by a microphone device
integrated in the mobile phone; and
an on-board controller configured to receive an audio
signal from an audio source and the voice signal;
wherein the controller is configured to interrupt the audio
signal and output the voice signal on an on-board speaker.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1—9, 12, and 14—18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lazzeroni et al. (US 2006/0029235 Al,
pub. Feb. 9, 2006) and DeBiasio et al. (US 2010/0120366 Al, pub. May 13,
2010). (Final Act. 5—16.)
The Examiner rejected claims 10, 11, 13, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lazzeroni, DeBiasio, and Tokue et al.
(US 2010/0145611 Al, pub. June 10, 2010). (Final Act. 16-21.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
dispositive issue:2
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Sept. 22, 2015) (herein,
2
Appeal 2016-005515
Application 13/910,303
Whether the Examiner erred in relying on the combination of
Lazzeroni and DeBiasio in rejecting the claims. (App. Br. 3—4.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants’ arguments,
and we adopt as our own (1) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 5—21)
and (2) the corresponding findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. (Ans.
2—4.) We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by the Examiner,
and emphasize the following.
Both Lazzeroni discloses a multi-accessory vehicle audio system in
which, when a mobile telephone is in use, music or the like currently playing
is muted in order to hear the telephone conversation. (Lazzeroni Figs. 13,
17,14, 114, 119.) DeBiasio discloses a plug device with a microphone
that allows hands-free use of a mobile phone, where radio programming or
the like is muted during use of the telephone. (DeBiasio Figs. 1,3,8, 9, H
27, 59, 78, 88-90.)
Appellants argue the Examiner used impermissible hindsight in
relying on this combination, and that one of ordinary skill would not be
“App. Br.”); the Reply Brief (filed Apr. 29, 2016) (herein, “Reply Br.”); the
Final Office Action (mailed Apr. 22, 2015) (herein, “Final Act.”); and the
Examiner’s Answer (mailed Feb. 29, 2016) (herein, “Ans.”) for the
respective details.
3
Appeal 2016-005515
Application 13/910,303
motivated to make the combination. (App. Br. 3.) We are not persuaded by
this argument. We find no error in the Examiner’s finding:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
before the time of applicant’s invention to modify the at least
one of a transceiver of Lazzeroni and include a plug connector
configured to communicatively connect to a mobile phone and
receive a voice signal generated by a microphone device
integrated in the mobile phone as taught by DeBiasio because it
would allow the mobile telephone to transmit and receive voice
and data signals as well as to listening to voice transmission's
over the car's speaker, and by speaking while in the vehicle.
(Final Act. 6.) Appellants do not point to any evidence of record that the
resulting combination would be “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior
art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-19
(2007)). The Examiner’s findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan
would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of
a puzzle” because the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not
an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21. We are persuaded the claimed
subject matter exemplifies the principle that “[t]he combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20.
4
Appeal 2016-005515
Application 13/910,303
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). See 37
C.F.R. §41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5