Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 30, 2020

2019004336 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2020)

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.
14/820,022 08/06/2015 Thomas NELSON 83544869 5330
28395 7590 11/30/2020
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
MEKONEN, TESFU N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2454
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2020 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 THOMAS NELSON, HUSSEIN F. NASRALLAH, THOMAS E.
APCZYNSKI, and DAVID ANTHONY HATTON

Appeal 2019-004336
Application 14/820,022
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1–20 are pending, stand rejected, are appealed by Appellant,
and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).1 See Final
Act. 1–2.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2017). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Ford Global Technologies, LLC. See Appeal Br. 1.
2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed Aug. 6, 2015; and
Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed June 25, 2018. We also refer to the
Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), mailed Jan. 24, 2018; and
Answer (“Ans.”) mailed Nov. 19, 2018.
Appeal 2019-004336
Application 14/820,022

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention, according to Appellant, “generally relates to vehicle
infotainment systems, and more particularly, to customizing . . . vehicle
infotainment systems.” Spec. ¶ 1. More specifically, Appellant’s invention
relates to a vehicle infotainment system receiving information from a
connected smartphone or nomadic device and outputting a meeting or
conference call shared screen to a display of the infotainment system, where
the infotainment system is configured to parse a calendar provided by the
nomadic device for a meeting, identify login information from the calendar
for the meeting, and output at the display a shared screen for the meeting
based on the login information when the vehicle is in a particular predefined
state. See Spec. ¶¶ 4–6; Abstract. Claims 1 (directed to a vehicle system),
14 (directed to a vehicle conference call method), and 19 (directed to a
computer-program product) are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A vehicle system comprising:
a vehicle display; and
a processor in communication with the display and a
nomadic device and programmed to,
parse a calendar associated with the nomadic device for a
meeting starting within a time window;
identify login information from the calendar for the
meeting; and
in response to the vehicle being in a predefined state,
output at the display a shared screen for the meeting based on
the login information.
Appeal Br., Claims App. 1 (emphasis added).

Appeal 2019-004336
Application 14/820,022

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Divine et al. (“Divine”) US 2013/0030645 A1 Jan. 31, 2013
Peirce et al. (“Peirce”) US 2013/0130665 A1 May 23, 2013
Penilla et al. (“Penilla”) US 9,467,515 B1 Oct. 11, 2016 (filed
May 12, 2014)

REJECTIONS3
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1–13, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Divine, Peirce, and Penilla. See Final
Act. 4–10.
2. The Examiner rejects claims 14–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Divine and Peirce. See Final Act. 10–11.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1–13, 19, and 20
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (as well as independent
claim 19 and dependent claims 2–13 and 20) as being obvious over Divine,
Peirce, and Penilla. See Final Act. 4–6; Ans. 4–7. Appellant contends that
Divine, Peirce, and Penilla do not teach the disputed limitation of claim 1.
See Appeal Br. 4–10. Specifically, Appellant contends, inter alia, that the
Examiner-cited portions of Divine and Peirce do not teach “determining
login information from the calendar of the nomadic device, and outputting a

3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125
Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the present application
has an effective filing date (Aug. 6, 2015) after the AIA’s effective date
(March 16, 2013), this decision refers to 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2019-004336
Application 14/820,022

4
shared screen based on the login information.” Appeal Br. 4; see Appeal
Br. 5–10.
Appellant raises two distinct issues with respect to the prior art: 1) do
the references (in particular Peirce) teach the infotainment system parsing a
calendar and identifying login information from a nomadic device
(smartphone) calendar, and 2) do the references (in particular Divine) teach
the infotainment system outputting (displaying) a “shared screen” for a
meeting.
We find Appellant’s arguments with respect to Peirce and identifying
login information unavailing. As pointed out by the Examiner (see Final
Act. 5; Ans. 6–7), Divine describes a vehicle infotainment system
interfacing with a vehicle occupant’s smartphone to gather information
including a schedule of upcoming meetings (i.e., a calendar) and suggesting
preparatory content (see Divine ¶ 33) and further describes a group meeting
(conference call) learned from a vehicle occupant’s calendar where the
infotainment system outputs document information to displays in the vehicle
(see Divine ¶ 76). Divine does not explicitly describe identifying login
information for a conference call from a smartphone calendar, but does
describe or at least suggest parsing information for a conference call from a
smartphone. As further pointed out by the Examiner (see Final Act. 5;
Ans. 6–7), Peirce describes a telematics system setting up a conference call
(see Peirce ¶¶ 2, 10) as well as obtaining a conference call access code
and/or pass code (login information) from a user directly or from a
conference call profile where the login information is stored in the profile
and can be transferred wirelessly to the telematics system (see Peirce ¶ 43).
Peirce does not explicitly teach obtaining login information from a
Appeal 2019-004336
Application 14/820,022

5
smartphone calendar, but the combination of Divine and Peirce at least
suggests a telematics or infotainment system obtaining login information
from a smartphone calendar and using the identified login information to set
up a conference call.
We agree, however, with Appellant that the Examiner-cited portions
of Divine and Peirce do not teach or suggest outputting or displaying “a
shared screen for the meeting based on the login information” (claim 1)
at/on a system display. See Appeal Br. 4–7. The Examiner relies on Divine
for the teaching of outputting a “shared screen” for a conference call. See
Final Act. 5 (citing Divine ¶¶ 33, 76); Ans. 4–5 (citing Divine ¶¶ 33, 76).
The Examiner takes the position that displaying a meeting document to
vehicle occupants is similar to displaying a teleconference shared screen
“because the occupant will be able to see the meeting on the display.”
Ans. 5. The Examiner misinterprets the teaching of Divine. Divine does not
teach displaying any information during a teleconference, meeting, or
conference call. Divine only describes displaying a meeting presentation
document. The Examiner has not sufficiently explained how displaying a
meeting presentation document (prior to a meeting) and separately setting up
a conference call (as taught by Peirce, supra) would have at least suggested
outputting a meeting (teleconference) shared screen. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 20,
63–64; Fig. 5B.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Divine, Peirce, and
Penilla renders obvious Appellant’s claim 1. Independent claim 19 includes
limitations of commensurate scope. Claims 2–13 and 20 depend from and
Appeal 2019-004336
Application 14/820,022

6
stand with their respective base claims. Therefore, we reverse the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1–13, 19, and 20.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 14–18
The Examiner rejects independent claim 14 (and dependent claims
15–18) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Divine and Peirce. See
Final Act. 11–13. The Examiner uses the same rationale and analysis for
rejecting claim 14 as claim 1 (supra). Claim 14 does not include the
limitation recited in claim 1 of outputting a shared screen. Instead claim 14
recites “parsing calendar data associated with the occupant for a meeting . . .
and associated meeting login information from the calendar data” and
“automatically transmitting the login information.” Appeal Br., Claims App.
2. Appellant merely reiterates the argument made with respect to claim 1
(supra)—that Peirce does not teach obtaining meeting login information
from an occupant’s calendar data. See Appeal Br. 10–11. As previously
discussed, the combination of Divine and Peirce at least suggests this
feature. Appellant does not persuasively explain why the combination of
Divine and Peirce does not at least suggest the disputed features of claim 14.
Claims 15–18 depend from and stand with claim14. Therefore, we sustain
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 14–18.
CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–13,
19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant has not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 14–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We,
therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14–18, but do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–13, 19, and 20.
Appeal 2019-004336
Application 14/820,022

7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–13, 19, 20 103 Divine, Peirce,
Penilla
1–13, 19, 20
14–18 103 Divine, Peirce 14–18
Overall
Outcome
14–18 1–13, 19, 20

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)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED IN PART