Ex Parte Tonshal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 17, 2018

13908226 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/908,226 06/03/2013
28395 7590 09/19/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Basavaraj Tonshal
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.
83373418 3539
EXAMINER
ELNOUBI, SAID M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2644
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2018 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 BASA V ARAJ TONSHAL,
JAMES STEWART RANKIN II, YIFANCHEN,
GARY STEVEN STRUMOLO,
BRIGITTE FRANCES MORA RICHARDSON,
SCOTT ANDREW AMMAN, and
GINTARAS VINCENT PUSKORIUS
Appeal2018-002388 1
Application 13/908,226
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., IRVINE. BRANCH, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's decision to reject all pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 "The real party in interest is Ford Global Technologies, LLC ('Assignee')."
Appeal Brief 1.
Appeal2018-002388
Application 13/908,226
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application "relate[ s] to utilizing features of a mobile phone with
a vehicle computer system," (Specification ,r 1) in which a vehicle-
independent "portable vehicle interface module" translates input between the
mobile phone and the vehicle computer system (Specification ,r 34). Claims
1--4, 6-8, 11, 14--18, and 20-26 are pending; of these, claims 1, 11, and 18
are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (with
formatting added):
1. A vehicle interface module configured to communicate
with a nomadic device and a vehicle, the module comprising: a
wireless transceiver configured to communicate with a nomadic
device; a vehicle transceiver configured to communicate with a
vehicle data bus via an OBDII port at a vehicle; and a processor
configured to:
1.) receive vehicle data from the vehicle data bus using the
vehicle
2.) determine that the vehicle data received through the
OBDII port includes a signal initiated by a user input of a vehicle
computer system to prompt activation of a nomadic-device voice
recognition session; and
3.) in response to the signal, send an instruction to the
nomadic device via the wireless transceiver to activate the
nomadic-device voice recognition session based upon the
determination.
References and Rejections
The following is the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
Aoki
Tadayon
US 2009/0164062 Al June 25, 2009
US 2012/0214469 Al Aug. 23, 2012
2
Appeal2018-002388
Application 13/908,226
Tieman
Takikawa
Hamelink
Martin
US 2013/0069761 Al Mar. 21, 2013
US 2013/0137415 Al May 30, 2013
US 2014/0094228 Al Apr. 3, 2014
US 2014/0120892 Al May 1, 2014
Claims 1, 8, 18, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Martin and Tieman. Final Action 5.
Claims 2, 3, 4, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Martin, Tieman, and Tadayon. Final Action 10.
Claims 6, 7, 21, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Martin, Tieman, and Takikawa. Final Action 13.
Claims 11, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Martin, Tieman, and Hamelink. Final Action 16.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Martin, Tieman, Hamelink, and Takikawa. Final Action
21.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Martin, Tieman, Hamelink, and Tadayon. Final Action
22.
Claims 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Martin, Tieman, Hamelink, and Aoki. Final Action 23.
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Martin, Tieman, and Aoki. Final Action 25.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments
3
Appeal2018-002388
Application 13/908,226
Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants
could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). We adopt the Examiner's findings
and conclusions as our own, to the extent consistent with our analysis herein.
error:
A. Principle of Operation
Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 is in
One of ordinary skill in the art would never change the
functionality of Martin's interface device that controls operation
of vehicle components, with that of a port that allows
communication on a diagnostic bus, such as an OBDII [(On-
Board Diagnostics)] port. Thus, the combination would change
the principle of operation by Tieman by utilizing an OBDII port
in place of I/0 components utilized to function vehicle
components.
Appeal Brief 5. Appellants similarly argue that "the Examiner's suggested
obvious combination would change the principle of operation of Martin," as
"Martin's vehicle components (e.g. logic 136, communication component
128) communicate via the vehicle bus." Appeal Brief 4.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs. Martin's invention is
directed to "Speech Recognition Functionality In A Vehicle Through An
Extrinsic Device" such as a mobile phone. Martin, title. Tieman's invention
is directed to a "System And Method To Operate An Extended Range
Keyless Entry System To Recognize A Keyless Entry Transmitter."
Tieman, title. We agree with the Examiner that modifying Martin's
particular means of connecting devices (such as with an OBDII port as
taught by Tieman) will not change either reference's operation of
transferring data through the vehicle. Answer 4; Martin ,r,r 19, 21; Tieman ,r
4
Appeal2018-002388
Application 13/908,226
14; cf In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("the difference
in the circuitry----electrical versus optical----does not affect the overall
principle of operation of a programmable arithmetic processor").
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner's combination of Martin
and Tieman will impermissibly change the principle of operation of the
references.
B. Motivation
Appellants argue "neither reference contemplates utilizing vehicle
data received via a port (e.g. an OBDII port) to utilize vehicle data to initiate
a voice recognition session on a mobile phone." Appeal Brief 4. Appellants
contend the Examiner thus errs in finding Martin and Tieman combine as
claimed, because "the Examiner is relying on a combination of the
references without any type of motivation from the references themselves to
utilize vehicle data received from the OBDII port to initiate a voice
recognition session." Appeal Brief 6. 2
We are not persuaded the Examiner's rejection is in error. "The
obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the
words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the
importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents."
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,420 (2007). Rather, the
requirement is that the Examiner show "' ... the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
2 Appellants further contend the Examiner's reliance on case law is in error,
as "[t]he precedential value of In re Keller is problematic." Reply Brief 5;
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981)). We disagree. See, e.g., In re
Mouttet, 686 F.3d at 1332 (citing Keller).
5
Appeal2018-002388
Application 13/908,226
having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains."' KSR,
550 U.S. at 406 (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103); see also id. at 418 ("[T]he
analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject
matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences
and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.").
Here, we agree with the Examiner that the subject matter of claim 1,
as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made.
See Final Act. 5-8. As cited by the Examiner, "Martin utilize[s] vehicle data
... to initiate voice recognition, and Tieman teaches using the OBDII port to
input data via a portable module." Final Action 2; Martin ,r,r 4, 28-29;
Tieman ,r 14. The Examiner finds, and we agree, one of ordinary skill
would have used the teachings of Tieman to modify "Martin by replacing
the Martin vehicle embedded components ... by a portable module
communicating with a vehicle data bus via an OBDII port at a vehicle as in
Tieman" Answer 5. The combination will "offer[] more flexibility of using
the portable module by plugging into the OBDII port of more than one
vehicle." Final Action 8.
We find the Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with rational
underpinnings, sufficient to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. We note Tieman teaches that the OBDII port
allows for communicating commands and other data between the vehicle
and the module, and that using such a setup "provides a simple and
convenient way for a vehicle owner to purchase an in-vehicle
communication module 24, [and] install that module into the owner[']s
vehicle." Tieman ,r,r 30, 31. Appellants, in contrast, argue the OBDII port is
merely a diagnostic bus, but have not identified any claim limitations or
6
Appeal2018-002388
Application 13/908,226
Specification passages that require the OBDII port-as claimed-to contain
unique functionality or structure that differs from Tieman's OBDII port. See
Appeal Brief 5; see also Specification ,r 25 (describing an OBDII port).
Thus, Appellants have not provided sufficient technical reasoning or
evidence to show the Examiner's combination of Martin and Tieman was
"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); see also In re
Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 3
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding claim
1 to be obvious in view of the combined teachings of Martin and Tieman.
CONCLUSION
We are not persuaded the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1
is in error. Appellants present similar arguments regarding the rejection of
independent claim 11, which we find similarly unpersuasive. See Appeal
Brief 8-9. We sustain the Examiner's rejections of independent claims 1
and 11, and claims 2--4, 6-8, 14--18, and 21-26 which are not separately
argued. See Appeal Brief7-10.
3 Separately, Appellants' argument, that "Martin is a reference owned [by]
General Motors" (Reply Brief 3), appears to presume General Motors is
more concerned with reliability than the present assignee, Ford Global
Technologies LLC (see Appeal Brief 1). In any event, we are not persuaded
the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Martin and Tieman teaches
or suggests the limitations of claim 1, as discussed herein.
7
Appeal2018-002388
Application 13/908,226
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6-8, 11, 14--18, and
20-26 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8