Ex Parte Vandivier et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 4, 2016

12776632 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121776,632 05/10/2010
28395 7590 05/06/2016
BROOKS KUSHMAN P,CJFG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Karl Douglas Vandivier
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.
81197146 2754
EXAMINER
HOLLOWAY III, EDWIN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/06/2016 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 KARL DOUGLAS VANDIVIER, ROBERT BRUCE KLEVE,
PAUL ALDIGHIERI, JOHN ROBERT VAN WIEMEERSCH, and
STEVEN YELLIN SCHONDORF
Appeal2014-007074
Application 12/776,632
Technology Center 2600
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-17, and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-007074
Application 12/776,632
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to a method used to interact with and
query a vehicle system regarding vehicle information using a remote
wireless device. See Abstract.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below.
1. A method comprising:
receiving an inquiry, initiated at a remote wireless device,
at a vehicle-installed transceiver;
querying a system in accordance with the inquiry;
receiving information, related to a vehicle state to which
corrective action could be applied, in accordance with the inquiry
from the system;
transmitting the received information to the remote
wireless device, including any recommended replacement parts
when the corrective action applies to a vehicle state requiring a
replacement part.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schuyler (US 6,429,773 Bl, Aug. 6,
2002) and Hong (US 2008/0140265 Al, June 12, 2008).
2. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 11-15, and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schuyler, Hong, and Pillar (US
2003/0158640 Al, Aug. 21, 2003).
3. Claims 4, 6, 8, 9, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Schuyler, Hong, Pillar, and Chesnutt (US
2009/0167524 Al, July 2, 2009).
2
Appeal2014-007074
Application 12/776,632
4. Claims 10 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Schuyler, Hong, Pillar, and Weber (US 2005/0024189 Al,
Feb. 3, 2005).
ANALYSIS
I. Claim 1
A. Transmitting ... To the Wireless Device ... Any Recommended
Replacement Parts When the Corrective Action Applies To A
Vehicle State Requiring A Replacement Part
The Examiner finds Schuyler teaches transmitting to the wireless
device a recommended replacement part2 by disclosing transmitting
information about vehicle oil status, such as oil level and estimated miles
until required oil change. See Final Act. 3 (citing Schuyler cols. 5, 6, and
10); Ans. 2 (citing Schuyler 7:4--38). The Examiner further finds Pillar also
teaches this limitation by transmitting a request for a replacement part to a
2 In case of further prosecution, we observe that the limitation in dispute is a
conditional limitation. During examination, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d
1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation,
the claimed step of "transmitting ... any replacement parts" is contingent
upon "the corrective action appl[ying] to a vehicle state requiring a
replacement part." If this condition is not satisfied, the performance of
"transmitting ... any replacement parts" need not be carried out in order for
the claimed method to be performed. All that would be required is
"transmitting the received information to the remote wireless device." Cf In
re Johnston, 435 F.3d. 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[O]ptional elements do
not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted."). Based on such
interpretation, we note that the Examiner is not required to find the
disclosure of the transmission of a replacement part the prior art in order to
render the claims obvious. See Ex Parte Gary M. Katz, Appeal No. 2010-
006083, 2011WL514314, at *4 (BPAI 2011).
3
Appeal2014-007074
Application 12/776,632
maintenance center computer system. Final Act. 7 (citing Pillar i1394); see
also Ans. 2-3.
argue:
In response to the Examiner's findings regarding Schuyler, Appellants
The relevant portion of Schuyler in col. 7, 11. 4-38, discusses
allowing a user to "check" the "levels" of the various
fluids/gasses in the vehicle systems. There is absolutely no
mention of the process "recommending" any "replacement
parts," oil or otherwise. Merely allowing the user to see that an
oil level is low or that oil is old is not a transmission of a
recommended replacement part.
Br. 6. Regarding Pillar, Appellants argue
Rr 7
_L_I _.._ • I •
Pillar, in paragraph [0394], discloses transmission of "a request
for a replacement part along with a request for maintenance."
This request is transmitted to "a maintenance center computer
system."
The maintenance center computer system, however, is not "a
remote wireless device" as claimed.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments. Rather, we find the
Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants' arguments
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Ans. 2-3. As such, we adopt
the Examiner's findings and conclusions in the Answer, (Ans. 2-3) and in
the action from which this appeal was taken, (Final Act. 2, 3, and 7).
In particular, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Schuyler
teaches transmitting a replacement part by indicating that an oil change is
needed and by transmitting to a wireless device an estimated miles until
required oil change. Ans. 2. Further, we agree with the Examiner that
Pillar's maintenance center computer is a "remote wireless device" because
the request is sent by RF or wireless transmission. Ans. 3 (citing Pillar,
4
Appeal2014-007074
Application 12/776,632
Abstract). Finally, Appellants' argument is unpersuasive for the additional
reason that it attacks the references individually and does not address the
Examiner's findings as a whole. In re Keller, 642 F.2d413, 426 (CCPA
1981) ("[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of
references.") Thus, even if it is assumed, arguendo, that Pillar's
maintenance center computer is not a remote wireless device, the
Examiner's findings regarding Schuyler's remote wireless device, combined
with Pillar's teaching of transmitting a request for a replacement part, is
sufficient to support the Examiner's rejection.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and of
claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 11-15, and 20, which were argued together with claim 1.
See Br. 6-7. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 4, 6, 8, and
9 for which Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability.
See Br. 8; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1351
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (sustaining requirement for an appellant to make separate
substantive arguments for separate review on appeal of individual claims).
II. Claim 16
A. Receiving an Update Command ... Updating A GPS System
with the Coordinate Set as a Destination Coordinate Set
The Examiner finds Schuyler provides the general teaching of
"receiving an update command ... and updating the one or more accessed
systems in accordance with the update command," (Final Act. 8 (citing
Schuyler 4:45--48)), while Chesnutt teaches, more specifically, receiving a
GPS coordinate set and updating a GPS system with the coordinate set as a
destination coordinate set (Final Act. 9 (citing Chesnutt i-fi-f 17, 18, and 41 ).
5
Appeal2014-007074
Application 12/776,632
In addition to Chesnutt, the Examiner finds Weber also teaches updating a
GPS system with the coordinate set as a destination coordinate set. Final
Act. 9-10 (citing Weber i-fi-122 and 40).
Appellants argue:
Even if Chesnutt does teach receiving directions remotely, as
alleged, and Schuyler does teach allowing an authorized user to
"write parameters" the combination does not teach (even with the
inclusion of Hond [sic-Hong]) "updating a GPS system with
the coordinate set as a destination coordinate set." First, there is
no teaching of an "update" command. Second, there is no
teaching of "updating a GPS system with a coordinate set as a
destination coordinate set."
Br. 8. Appellants further argue that paragraphs 22 and 40 of Weber do not
relate to an "update command" or "updating a GPS system." Br. 9.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. Here
again, the Examiner provides a comprehensive response with findings and
conclusions that we agree with and adopt as our own, see Ans. 3--4, along
with the Examiner's findings in the Final Action at pages 8-10. For
emphasis, we highlight the Examiner's finding that Schuyler teaches a
wireless communications device which can write parameters to a vehicle on-
board computer system to control vehicle functions. Ans. 3 (citing Schuyler
1:61-2:22); see also Final Act. 8 (citing Schuyler 4:45--48). We agree this
teaches an update command that updates vehicle systems. We also agree
that Chesnutt teaches receiving GPS coordinates by disclosing the receipt of
position information for points of interest. Ans. 3 (citing Chesnutt i-f 18).
Finally, we agree Weber teaches updating a GPS system by a user inputting
destination information into the system.
Appellants do not address the Examiner's finding that Schuyler's
disclosure of writing parameters to vehicle systems teaches an update
6
Appeal2014-007074
Application 12/776,632
command. See Br. 8. Thus, their argument that "there is no teaching of an
'update' command," (Br. 8), is unsupported and conclusory. In addition,
Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence that Chesnutt and Weber's
teachings of receiving position information or inputting the destination of a
location do not teach updating a GPS system. Finally, the arguments that
Chesnutt and Weber's disclosures do not teach an update command ignores
the Examiner's finding that Schuyler teaches an update command.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 16 and of dependent claim 17 which is not argued separately. See. Br.
8.
III. Claim 10
Appellants argue "[ e ]ven if Weber teaches storage of an oil type, this
information, according to Weber, is transmitted to an advertising server
to cause generation of an advertisement. Again, the information is not
transmitted to 'a remote wireless device,; as claimed.;; Br. 9.
We do not find Appellants' argument persuasive because it attacks
Weber individually and ignores the Examiner's findings regarding Schuyler
teaching the transmission of a replacement part to a remote wireless device.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 10.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-17, and 20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7