Frederic Stefan et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 2, 2019

14162565 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2019)

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.
14/162,565 01/23/2014 Frederic STEFAN 83411576 7078
28395 7590 08/02/2019
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
HENRY, MATTHEW D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2019 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 FREDERIC STEFAN, UWE GUSSEN, CHRISTOPH ARNDT,
and RAINER BUSCH1
____________

Appeal 2017-009888
Application 14/162,565
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1, 4–11, and 20–25 which are all the claims pending in
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. (App. Br. ).
Appeal 2017-009888
Application 14/162,565
2

THE INVENTION
The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a remote control
system for motor vehicles (Spec., para. 2). Claim 20, reproduced below, is
representative of the subject matter on appeal.

20. Apparatus for remote monitoring of motor vehicle
operation comprising:
computer equipment integrated within a vehicle initiating
a request, in response to the computer equipment detecting a
predefined health-related state of a driver, for remote driving
control of the vehicle;
a control terminal in wireless communication with the
equipment to receive the request, transmit an offer to perform
the remote driving control, and perform the remote driving
control after acceptance of the offer by the vehicle; and
a coordination unit remote from the equipment and the
terminal responsive to acceptance of the offer, receiving and
then transmitting remote driving commands from the remote
operator to the computer equipment to control driving of the
vehicle responsive to acceptance of the offer.

THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 4–6, 9, and 20–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Taki (US 2008/0266051 A1; Oct. 30, 2008),
Okabe (US 2010/0030434 A1; Feb. 4, 2010), and Haq (US 2007/0288127
A1; Dec. 13, 2007).
2. Claims 7–8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Taki, Okabe, Haq, and Silvera (US 2008/0040206 A1;
Feb. 14, 2008).
3. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Taki, Okabe, Haq, and Dusig (US 2012/0066026 A1; Mar. 15, 2012).
Appeal 2017-009888
Application 14/162,565
3

FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence2.

ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 20 is improper
because the cited prior art does not disclose or suggest the claim limitation
for
“computer equipment integrated within a vehicle initiating a
request, in response to the computer equipment detecting a
predefined health-related state of a driver, for remote driving
control of the vehicle”

(App. Br. 3).

In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited claim
limitation is shown in the combination by Taki at the abstract, Figures 1, 6,
and paragraphs 38, 64; Okabe at Figures 10 and 17 and paragraphs 50, 51,
147, and 160; and Haq at Figures 3, 4, and paragraphs 35, and 38 (Ans. 3–5).
We agree with the Appellants. Here, the claim requires that the
computer equipment is integrated “within a vehicle” initiating a request.
The citations above by the Examiner fail to explicitly disclose this. For
example, Taki at Figure 1 discloses a “Vehicle-Mounted Terminal Device”
and it is unclear whether the mounting is within or on the exterior of the
vehicle. The rejection before us does not assert that a physical location

2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
Appeal 2017-009888
Application 14/162,565
4

change of the computer equipment would have been an obvious
modification, but rather that it is present in the references, but the cited
portions of the references fail to disclose this. Here, the rejection lacks
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning and thus cannot
support a legal conclusion of obviousness. For this reason, the rejection of
claim 20 is not sustained.
The Appellants have provided the same arguments for independent
claims 1, 21, and their dependent claims. These claims however do not
contain the same limitation argued for claim 20. The Appellants at page 3
argue that Taki does not disclose initiating a request based on the “health-
related state” of the driver. However, the rejection of record relies on Okabe
to disclose such a feature related to the “health-related state” of the driver.
The Appellants have failed to show how the specific language of claims 1
and 21 is not met or rendered obvious. Thus, the rejection of claims 1 and
21, and their dependent claims which are not separately argued, is sustained.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as listed in the Rejections
section above.
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1, 4–11, and 21–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as listed in
the Rejections section above.

Appeal 2017-009888
Application 14/162,565
5

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 20 is reversed. The Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 4–11, and 21–25 is sustained.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART