Ex Parte Swager et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 14, 2014

12268291 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JASON SWAGER, ERIC JENSEN, and BRIAN MICHAEL FINN
____________

Appeal 2012-007405
Application 12/268,291
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1–20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ disclosed invention relates to accessing an in-vehicle
communication network via a media interface. Claim 1, which is
illustrative, reads as follows:

1 The real parties in interest identified by Appellants are VOLKSWAGEN
AG and AUDI AG. (App. Br. 1.)
Appeal 2012-007405
Application 12/268,291

2
1. A system for accessing an in-vehicle communication
network, comprising:
a media interface including a microprocessor, the media
interface connected to a vehicle media system;
a multimedia device configured to connect to the media
interface, via which the multimedia device is configured to
access the in-vehicle communication network;
wherein the multimedia device is configured to
manipulate data loaded on the multimedia device.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Muxlow et al. US 6,438,468 B1 Aug. 20, 2002
(hereinafter “Muxlow”)
Moriguchi et al. US 6,587,756 B2 July 1, 2003
(hereinafter “Moriguchi”)
Holst et al. US 7,356,389 B2 Apr. 8, 2008
(hereinafter “Holst”)
Bauer et al. US 2008/0261643 A1 Oct. 23, 2008
(hereinafter “Bauer”)
Claims 1–2 and 11–12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Moriguchi and Bauer. (Ans. 5–6.)
Claims 3–9 and 13–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Moriguchi, Bauer, and Muxlow. (Ans. 6–8.)
Claims 10 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Moriguchi, Bauer, Muxlow, and Holst. (Ans. 9.)
Rather than repeat the arguments, we refer to the Briefs (“App. Br.”
filed Nov. 9, 2011; “Reply Br.” filed Apr. 2, 2012) for the positions of
Appellants and the Final Office Action (“Final Act.” mailed May 12, 2011)
and Answer (“Ans.” mailed Feb. 2, 2012) for the positions of the Examiner.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in
Appeal 2012-007405
Application 12/268,291

3
this decision. Arguments that Appellants did not make in the Briefs have
not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).

ISSUE
Based on Appellants’ arguments, we discuss the appeal by reference
to claim 1. The issue raised by Appellants’ contentions is as follows: Does
the combination Moriguchi and Bauer teach or suggest “a multimedia device
configured to connect to the media interface, via which the multimedia
device is configured to access the in-vehicle communication network[,]
wherein the multimedia device is configured to manipulate data loaded on
the multimedia device” (emphases by Appellants (see App. Br. 4)), as recited
in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
The Examiner maps the “media interface” recited in claim 1 to
Moriguchi’s communication terminal 11, and maps the recited “[]media
device” to Moriguchi’s devices 12a–12c. (Ans. 5 (citing Moriguchi col. 13,
l. 36–col. 14, l. 57; Fig. 1).) The Examiner relies on Bauer to teach that
Moriguchi’s devices may be “multimedia devices” configured to manipulate
the data loaded on the multimedia devices, mapping the “multimedia device”
to Bauer’s portable communication device 210. (Ans. 5–6 (citing Bauer ¶¶
37, 40, 43, 68; Fig. 9).)
Appellants contend Moriguchi’s storage medium 111 is merely a
memory card or stick and therefore does not equate to the recited
“multimedia device.” (See App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 2.) However, the
Appeal 2012-007405
Application 12/268,291

4
Examiner relies on Moriguchi’s devices 12a–12c, not Moriguchi’s storage
medium 111, to teach the “[]media devices.” (See Ans. 5; Final Act. 2.)
Therefore, Appellants contention does not address the ground of rejection
articulated by the Examiner and has little persuasive value.
Appellants further contend Moriguchi’s devices 12a–12c do not
connect to Moriguchi’s media interface 112, but merely connect to
Moriguchi’s network 15. (See Reply Br. 3.) We are not persuaded of error.
Giving claim 1 its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
Specification, In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997), we note
that claim 1 recites “a multimedia device configured to connect to the media
interface.” Claim 1 does not recite the manner or any other details of the
configuration or the connection. Therefore, we conclude claim 1 does not
preclude connection through an intermediate element. Indeed, as Appellants
point out “Moriguchi et al. . . . describes a communication terminal 11
connected to vehicle-mounted devices 12 by a network 15 . . . .” (App. Br. 4
(emphasis added).) One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
that because Moriguchi teaches the devices 12a–12c are connected to the
terminal 11, Moriguchi implicitly teaches that the devices are configured for
that connection. (See Moriguchi, col. 14, ll. 14–57.)
Appellants contend there is “no motivation or other tenable rationale
to combine the disclosures of Moriguchi et al. and Bauer et al.” (App. Br.
4.) More particularly, Appellants argue, “Moriguchi et al. specifically states
that ‘[i]t is an object of the present invention to provide communication
systems . . . , which can execute setting of devices connected to a channel,
only by exchanging storage media.’” (App. Br. 4–5 (quoting Moriguchi
col. 2, ll. 28–32 (emphasis by Appellants)).) Appellants assert this passage
Appeal 2012-007405
Application 12/268,291

5
of Moriguchi “teaches away from connecting a multimedia device to its
communication systems.” (App. Br. 5.)
We are not persuaded of error. As pointed out supra, claim 1 does not
recite the manner or other details as to how the multimedia device is
connected to the media interface. We further note that claim 1 recites that
“the multimedia device is configured [via (i.e., by way of) the media
interface] to access the in-vehicle communication network,” but does not
otherwise recite the manner or other details of the configuration.
Accordingly, we conclude the claim does not preclude configuring the
multimedia device by exchanging storage media at the media interface.
Moriguchi teaches providing setting information to (i.e., configuring)
devices 12a–12c for communication with an in-vehicle communication
network from storage media 111 at the communication terminal 11 (i.e., via,
or by way of, the media interface). (See Moriguchi col. 13, l. 36–col. 14, l.
57; Fig. 1.) Because we find Moriguchi teaches connecting a media device
(e.g., a CD changer, DVD drive, or car navigator (see Moriguchi col. 12, ll.
29–32)) to a communication network, we conclude Moriguchi does not teach
away from connecting a multimedia device to a communication network.
Bauer is relied on only to teach that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood that Moriguchi’s devices 12a–12c could be
“multimedia device[s]. . . configured to manipulate data loaded on the
multimedia device,” as recited in claim 1. (See Ans. 4–5.) For example,
Bauer teaches that portable communication device 210 may include, inter
alia, a video and MP3 player 365, which one of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood to have similar functionality to Appellants’
exemplary iPod (see App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 2), including being configured to
Appeal 2012-007405
Application 12/268,291

6
manipulate data loaded on the device. In addition to the motivation
articulated by the Examiner (Ans. 5), we note for emphasis only, the
combination of Moriguchi and Bauer articulated by the Examiner is no more
than a combination of familiar elements according to known methods that
does no more than yield predictable results, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007), i.e., a predictable variation, see id. at 417.
Appellants have failed to persuade us of error in the rejection of claim
1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and independent claim
11, which was argued relying on the arguments made for claim 1 (see App.
Br. 5). Additionally, we sustain the rejections over various combinations of
Moriguchi, Bauer, Muxlow, and Holst of claims 2–10 and 12–20, which
depend, directly or indirectly, from claims 1 and 11 respectively and were
not separately argued with particularity (see App. Br. 5–7).

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

cdc