15002066 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2020)

Justin Dickow et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 23, 2020

15002066 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 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. 15/002,066 01/20/2016 Justin Dickow 83591454 6515 28395 7590 01/23/2020 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL 1000 TOWN CENTER 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER TRAN, MONG-THUY THI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2645 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/23/2020 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 JUSTIN DICKOW, COREY MAYLONE, SCOTT SMEREKA, and JOEY RAY GROVER ____________________ Appeal 2018-006060 Application 15/002,066 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before LARRY J. HUME, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. HUME, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant,1 Livio, Inc., appeals from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 11–20, which are all claims pending in the application. Appellant has canceled claims 1–10. See generally Appeal Br. A-1 (“Claims Appendix”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Livio, Inc. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2018-006060 Application 15/002,066 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE2 The Invention Appellants’ disclosed embodiments and claimed invention “relate to determining and tracking a resident vehicle zone for a mobile device.” Spec. ¶ 1. Exemplary Claim Claim 11, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added to the dispositive prior-art limitation): 11. A system comprising: wireless sensors of a vehicle; and a vehicle processor programmed to track values from the sensors indicative of distance between a mobile device and the sensors; calculate pair values as sums of the values received from pairs of the sensors proximate vehicle entrances; and identify one of the entrances through which the mobile device passed according to the pair value with a minimum value closest to a distance between the pair of the sensors. Prior Art The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Tadayon et al. (“Tadayon”) US 2011/0105097 A1 May 5, 2011 2 Our Decision relies upon Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal. Br.,” filed Feb. 1, 2018); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 21, 2018); Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Mar. 19, 2018); Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Aug. 1, 2017); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed Jan. 20, 2016). Appeal 2018-006060 Application 15/002,066 3 Rejection on Appeal Claims 11–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tadayon. Final Act. 5. ISSUE Appellant argues (App. Br. 5–8; Reply Br. 1–3) the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Tadayon is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art teaches or suggests a system that includes “a vehicle processor programmed to,” inter alia, “calculate pair values as sums of the values received from pairs of the sensors proximate vehicle entrances,” and “identify one of the entrances through which the mobile device passed according to the pair value with a minimum value closest to a distance between the pair of the sensors,” as recited in claim 11? ANALYSIS For essentially the same reasons argued by Appellants (Appeal Br. 5–8), we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 11, and also reverse the rejection of independent claim 15, which recites the dispositive limitation in commensurate form. For the same reasons, we also reverse the rejections of all claims that depend therefrom.3 3 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on “a single dispositive issue”). Appeal 2018-006060 Application 15/002,066 4 Claim 11 recites, in pertinent part, “calculate pair values as sums of the values received from pairs of the sensors proximate vehicle entrances,” and the Examiner relies upon Tadayon as teaching this limitation. Final Act. 6 (citing Tadayon ¶¶ 71, 77, 81, 82–84)(emphasis added). Appellant argues, “Tadayon states that ‘[i]n one embodiment, the location of the mobile device is determined by using the calculated ratio of the distances of the mobile device to the transmitters/transceivers.’” Appeal Br. 7 (quoting Tadayon ¶ 77)(emphasis added). We note paragraph 81 of Tadayon further describes that “[s]imilarly, the ratio of distance of the mobile device (326) to another pair of transceivers (e.g., 332 and 334 pair) is used to determine the corresponding locus of points having the same distant ratio to the fixed points (332 and 334). The locus of these points, as depicted in FIG. 3(d), lie on a circle (374) having a center (372) on a line (379) joining the fixed points (332 and 334) and a radius (376).” Tadayon ¶ 81, Consequently, we are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation because, instead of calculating pair values as sums of values received from pairs of sensors determined and defined by their proximity to a vehicle entrance, Tadayon instead relies upon ratios of values from sensors dispersed throughout the vehicle.4 4 Although not essential to determining the outcome of this Decision, it appears that, in addition to not summing sensor values, Tadayon does not carry out the pairing of two sensors located near (proximate) vehicle entrances. See, e.g., Tadayon ¶ 71 and Fig. 3(a) (illustrating sensors 304, 330, 332, 334, and 336 — dispersed throughout vehicle 300 — being used to Appeal 2018-006060 Application 15/002,066 5 Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are persuaded of at least one error in the Examiner’s reliance on the cited prior art to teach or suggest the dispositive limitation of claim 11, such that we find error in the Examiner’s resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 11, and dependent claims 12–14 which stand therewith. For the same reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 15 which recites the dispositive limitation in commensurate form. We also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 16–20 which depend from claim 15. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred with respect to the obviousness rejection of claims 11–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the cited prior art of record, and we do not sustain the rejection. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis / Reference Affirmed Reversed 11–20 103 Tadayon 11–20 REVERSED determine mobile phone location by using a ratio of values of signals irrespective of the sensors’ proximity to a vehicle entrance).