Hadi Elzein

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 31, 2020

14052014 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 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.
14/052,014 10/11/2013 Hadi Elzein 83390783 4076
28395 7590 03/31/2020
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
MATHEW, MAX
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2020 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 HADI ELZEIN
________________

Appeal 2018-008856
Application 14/052,014
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before DENISE M. POTHIER, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1‒20, which are all the claims pending in this application.
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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford
Global Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-008856
Application 14/052,014

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s application relates to communications between a vehicle
computer system (VCS) and one or more mobile devices. Spec. ¶ 4. In one
embodiment, Appellant describes a VCS creating a priority list for
establishing wireless connections with mobile devices, where the priority list
is based on factors associated with communication activity between the VCS
and the mobile devices. Id. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject
matter and reads as follows:
1. A vehicle computer system (VCS) configured to
communicate with one or more mobile devices, comprising:
a first processor configured to automatically create a
priority list by utilizing one or more factors associated with
communication activity between the vehicle computer system
and the one or more mobile devices, wherein the priority list
includes instructions to pair one or more mobile devices with
the VCS and indicates an order of connecting to the one or
more mobile devices; and
a wireless transceiver including a second processor
configured to:
receive the priority list from the first processor;
establish a wireless connection with one or more
mobile devices based on the priority list.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 5‒8, 16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
anticipated by Seymour (US 9,736,764 B2; Aug. 15, 2017). Non-Final Act.
3‒5.
Appeal 2018-008856
Application 14/052,014

3

Claims 2, 10‒13, 15, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Seymour and Lee (US 2013/0157711 A1; June 20,
2013). Non-Final Act. 6‒9.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Seymour and Pierfelice (US 2012/0161927 A1; June 28, 2012). Non-
Final Act. 9.
Claims 3, 4, 14, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Seymour and Ota (US 9,736,622 B2; Aug. 15,
2017). Non-Final Act. 10‒12.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7‒9, 16‒18, and 20
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1
as anticipated by Seymour because Seymour does not disclose a first
processor configured to “create a priority list by utilizing one or more factors
associated with communication activity between the vehicle computer
system and the one or more mobile devices.” See Appeal Br. 3‒5.2 In
particular, Appellant argues Seymour discloses a processor that creates a
priority list for managing connections between a vehicle computer system
and one or more mobile devices, but the factors utilized are not related to
“communication activity between the vehicle computer system and the one
or more mobile devices.” See id. at 4.
According to Appellant, most of the factors considered in Seymour do
not relate to mobile devices. See id. Appellant argues Seymour discloses

2 All references to the Appeal Brief refer to the Appeal Brief filed on June 5,
2018.
Appeal 2018-008856
Application 14/052,014

4

using service restrictions of the mobile device as one factor, but this factor
only relates to the cellular phone service of the device, not communications
between the VCS and the mobile device. See id. Appellant argues other
factors relate to identification of the driver, not communications between the
VCS and the mobile device. See id.
Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Seymour discloses a processor configured to
automatically create a priority list. Ans. 4 (citing Seymour Fig. 3, 2:55‒60,
3:1‒25, 4:30‒55). The Examiner finds, and we agree, Seymour discloses the
priority list is created utilizing factors including various operating conditions
or factors associated with the VCS and mobile device. Id. (citing Seymour
Fig. 4, 3:61‒4:65). These operating conditions or factors may include, for
example, service restrictions or plan details that would restrict or prioritize
connectible devices differently. Seymour 4:12‒19. These operating
conditions or factors may also include observation or how devices are
selected, over time, by users manually connecting devices to the VCS. Id. at
5:14‒24. The VCS may learn which phone should be connected under
different operating conditions. Id.
We agree with the Examiner that Seymour discloses, or a person of
ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand or infer from such
disclosures, “creat[ing] a priority list by utilizing one or more factors
associated with communication activity between the vehicle computer
system and the one or more mobile devices” under the broadest reasonable
interpretation of this limitation. That is, we agree with the Examiner that
factors such as how devices are selected, over time, by users manually
connecting specific phones are “associated with communication activity
Appeal 2018-008856
Application 14/052,014

5

between the vehicle computer system and the one or more mobile devices.”
Appellant’s arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive because Appellant
assumes a narrow construction of “factors associated with communication
activity,” without sufficiently explaining why such a narrow construction is
proper or why the noted factors described in Seymour are not “associated
with communication activity,” as claimed.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
independent claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 16, which Appellant argues is patentable for the same
reasons. See Appeal Br. 3‒5. We also sustain the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of dependent claims 7, 8, and 20, for which Appellant provides no
separate arguments. See id. We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of dependent claims 3, 4, 9, 17, and 18, for which Appellant
provides no separate arguments. See id. at 8‒9.
Claims 5 and 6
Claim 5 recites “[t]he vehicle computer system configured to
communicate with a mobile device of claim 1, wherein the one or more
factors include whether the one or more mobile devices are connected most
frequently during a time period.” The Examiner finds Seymour discloses the
VCS is configured to connect to the wireless device having the highest
priority of the currently available devices. See Ans. 5 (citing Seymour 2:45‒
55). The Examiner finds this disclosure “very precisely teaches that one or
more factors include one or more currently available devices. That is mobile
devices are connected most frequently.” Id.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Seymour discloses
“wherein the one or more factors include whether the one or more mobile
Appeal 2018-008856
Application 14/052,014

6

devices are connected most frequently during a time period” because
Seymour’s example regarding currently available devices is silent regarding
whether the one or more devices are connected most frequently during a
time period. See Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 3.
Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. As found by the
Examiner, Seymour discloses communications module 300 is configured to
connect to the wireless device having the highest priority of the currently
available devices. Seymour 2:45‒54. However, the Examiner’s finding that
Seymour discloses connecting to the mobile device connected most
frequently is not supported by the record. The Examiner has not identified,
nor have we found, any disclosure in Seymour relating to the frequency with
which mobile devices are connected. Accordingly, we are constrained by the
record to agree with Appellant that the Examiner has failed to present
sufficient evidence that would support a finding that Seymour discloses the
disputed limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claim 5 as anticipated by Seymour. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of claim 6, which depends from claim 5.
Claims 2, 10‒15, and 19
Claim 2 recites “[t]he vehicle computer system configured to
communicate with a mobile device of claim 1, wherein the priority list
further indicates a number of attempts to establish a connection with the one
or more mobile device before timing out.” Similarly, claim 10 recites, in
relevant part, “wherein the priority list indicates an order of connecting to
the mobile-devices and a number of attempts for each of the mobile-devices
to connect with the VCS before timing out.” Appellant argues the Examiner
Appeal 2018-008856
Application 14/052,014

7

erred in rejecting claims 2 and 10 as unpatentable over Seymour and Lee.
See Appeal Br. 6‒8, Reply Br. 4.
In particular, Appellant argues the Examiner ignores the limitation
that the priority list indicates “a number of attempts for each of the mobile-
devices to connect with the VCS before timing out.” See id. Appellant
argues Lee does not disclose this limitation because Lee discloses a vehicle
connecting to a communications network, not a VCS connecting with a
mobile device. See id.
Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
explained that the combination of Seymour and Lee, not Lee alone, discloses
this limitation. See Final Act. 6‒7, Ans. 6‒7. In particular, the Examiner
finds Seymour teaches a VCS that utilizes a priority list indicating an order
of connecting mobile devices with the VCS, but Seymour fails to disclose
the priority list includes a number of attempts for each of the mobile devices
to connect with the VCS before timing out. Ans. 6 (citing Seymour Figs. 1‒
4, Abstract, cols. 1‒5). The Examiner finds Lee teaches an apparatus and
method for selecting a communication network using one or more factors,
including the number of connection failures allowed before exceeding a
preset value. Id. (citing Lee ¶ 25). The Examiner finds an ordinarily skilled
artisan would have combined these teachings, resulting in the claimed
system. Ans. 6‒7. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because it is not
responsive to these findings regarding the combined teachings of the
Seymour and Lee. Instead, Appellant’s argument focuses on the disclosure
of Lee while ignoring the disclosure of Seymour. One cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is
based on a combination of references. In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d
Appeal 2018-008856
Application 14/052,014

8

1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981).
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 2 and 10. We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 11‒15 and 19, for which Appellant relies on the same
arguments. See Appeal Br. 6‒9.
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)
/Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 5‒8, 16, 20 102 Seymour 1, 7, 8, 16, 20 5, 6
2, 10–13, 15,
19
103 Seymour,
Lee
2, 10‒13, 15, 19
9 103 Seymour,
Pierfelice
9
3, 4, 14, 17, 18 103 Seymour,
Ota
3, 4, 14, 17, 18
Overall
Outcome
1‒4, 7‒20 5, 6

DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 7, 8, 16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102.
We, however, reverse the rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102.
We affirm the rejection of claims 2‒4, 9‒15, and 17‒19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
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.
§ 41.50(f).
Appeal 2018-008856
Application 14/052,014

9

AFFIRMED IN PART