2020002900 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 20, 2021)

Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 20, 2021

2020002900 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 20, 2021)

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. 15/415,205 01/25/2017 Michael Talamonti 83757353(65080-2236) 2972 113140 7590 08/20/2021 Bejin Bieneman PLC Ford Global Technologies, LLC 2000 Town Center Suite 800 Southfield, MI 48075 EXAMINER MAHMOUDI, RODMAN ALEXANDER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2433 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/20/2021 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): docket@b2iplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MICHAEL TALAMONTI and WALTER JOSEPH TALAMONTI ____________________ Appeal 2020-002900 Application 15/415,205 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOYCE CRAIG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 through 8, and 11 through 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, Ford Global Technologies, LLC, is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-002900 Application 15/415,205 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a system for use with an autonomous vehicle. Spec. ¶ 1. The system makes use of a control computer, which receives an authorization from a remote computer, and when authorized provides commands to the vehicle computer which controls movement of the vehicle. Spec. ¶¶ 6, 23. Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A system comprising a control computer, programmed to: upon being connected to a vehicle communication network, receive, at the control computer, a temporary authentication signature from a remote computer and perform an authentication of a vehicle computer based on the signature; and upon authentication by the vehicle computer that is physically attached to the communication network based at least in part on data the vehicle computer received from the remote computer, control vehicle operation including at least one of propulsion, braking, and steering. REJECTIONS2 The Examiner rejected claims 1 through 8, and 11 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite.3 Final Act. 3. 2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed August 27, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the claims appendix submitted October 1, 2019; Reply Brief filed March 9, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); Final Office Action mailed March 29, 2019 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed January 21, 2020 (“Ans.”). 3 We note the rejection addresses independent claims 1 and 15, the only independent claims in the application, as being rejected. As the ambiguity of these independent claims permeates the claims which depend thereupon we consider the Examiner to have rejected all of the claims in the application as being indefinite. Appeal 2020-002900 Application 15/415,205 3 The Examiner rejected claims 1 through 4, 14 through 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Ricci (US 2018/0012433 A1, Jan. 11, 2018) (hereinafter Ricci ’433). Final Act. 4–11. The Examiner rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ricci ’433 in view of Ricci (US 2018/0013211 A1, Jan. 11, 2018) (hereinafter Ricci ’211). Final Act. 12. The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ricci ’433, Ricci ’211, and Reinold (US 2004/0003227 A1, Jan. 1, 2004). Final Act. 12–13. The Examiner rejected claims 7, 18, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ricci ’433 and Reinold. Final Act. 12–15, 18–19. The Examiner rejected claims 8, 11, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ricci ’433, Reinold, and Ricci ’211. Final Act. 15–16, 19–20. The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ricci ’433 in view of Ricci (US 9,963,106 B1, May 8, 2018) (hereinafter Ricci ’106). Final Act. 17–18. The Examiner rejected claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ricci ’433 in view of Alrabady (US 2010/0073125 A1, Mar. 25, 2010). Final Act. 20–22. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Appeal 2020-002900 Application 15/415,205 4 Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 15 and the claims dependent thereupon under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). With respect to the rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Appellant states: “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as allegedly indefinite are not addressed in this Appeal Brief because, based on the Examiner’s comment in the Final Office Action, it is believed that these rejections can be most efficiently addressed once the prior art rejections are resolved.” Appeal Br. 4 n.1. As such, Appellant has not identified an error in the Examiner’s rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Accordingly, there is no issue for us to decide and we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these independent claims and the claims dependent therefrom pro forma. Art Rejections based upon 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) and 35 U.S.C. § 103 Appellant argues that each of independent claims 1 and 15 recites three different computers: a control computer, a remote computer, and a remote computer which is not taught by Ricci ’433. Appeal Br. 7. We disagree with the general proposition that Ricci ’433does not teach three separate computers. Ricci ’433teaches in Figure 19B several computers including a vehicle computer and several remote computers (1907 and 1911), further in Figure 20, Ricci ’433teaches that a remote server provides authentication to the computers. See Ricci ’433 ¶ 152. However, Appellant’s argument that “the Office still has not shown, and cannot show, for example, that the computing devices 1907/1911 ‘receive . . . a temporary authentication signature from a remote computer,’ much less ‘perform an authentication for a vehicle computer based on the signature,’” highlights the problems with the rejection as the functions of the computers are unclear. Appeal 2020-002900 Application 15/415,205 5 As identified by the Examiner, “[i]t is unclear whether the vehicle computer is the computer that is being authenticated or whether the vehicle computer is the computer that is performing the authentication due to the claim limitation(s) stating ‘perform an authentication of a vehicle computer’ (Lines 4–5) and ‘upon authentication by the vehicle computer.’” Ans. 5 (emphasis omitted); see also Final Act. 3. The Examiner attempts to resolve this issue by speculating as to the how the claims were intended to be drafted stating: “For examination purposes, claims 1 and 15 will be read as ‘. . . perform an authentication of a vehicle computer based on the signature; and upon authentication for the vehicle computer . . .’, where the vehicle computer is the one being authenticated.” Final Act. 3. As discussed above, Appellant has not addressed the § 112 rejection, and Appellant has not addressed the Examiner’s proposed interpretation of the claim. Nonetheless, to properly evaluate whether Ricci ’433 discloses the three computers claimed would require speculation as to which computer is performing the authentication. Our reviewing court has said that it is wrong to rely upon speculative assumptions as to the meaning of claims when considering a rejection over prior art. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 863 (CCPA 1962). Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s art rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) and 35 U.S.C. § 103 Appeal 2020-002900 Application 15/415,205 6 CONCLUSION In summary: Claim Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–8, 11–22 112(b) Indefiniteness 1–8, 11–22 1–4, 14–17, 20 102(a)(2) Ricci ’433 1–4, 14– 17, 20 5 103 Ricci ’433, Ricci ’211 5 6 103 Ricci ’433, Ricci ’211, Reinold 6 7, 18, 22 103 Ricci ’433, Reinold 7, 18, 22 8, 11, 19 103 Ricci ’433, Reinold, Ricci ’211 8, 11, 19 12, 13 103 Ricci ’433, Ricci ’106 12, 13 21 103 Ricci ’433, Alrabady 21 Overall Outcome 1–8, 11–22 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2018). AFFIRMED