Le, Jialiang et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 30, 2020

2019004583 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 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.
13/444,207 04/11/2012 Jialiang Le 83220382 7654
28395 7590 12/30/2020
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
JAIN, ANKUR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2020 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 JIALIANG LE, KWAKU O. PRAKAH-ASANTE, and
MANOHARPRASAD K. RAO
________________

Appeal 2019-004583
Application 13/444,207
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the Final Rejection
of claims 1–7.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.3
INVENTION
The invention relates to a mobile safety platform with multiple
communication interfaces. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, Ford Global Technologies, LLC
is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Claims 8–22 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 1 (Claims Appendix).
3 A decision was rendered in this prosecution on January 4, 2017.
Appeal 2019-004583
Application 13/444,207

2
and is reproduced below with emphasized text denoting contested
limitations:
1. A system comprising:
a processor configured to:
receive information from a vehicle sensors;
output the information over a vehicle transmitter lacking
reception capability;
receive mobile device requests via a receiver, separate
from the transmitter;
pass received requests through a firewall; and
relay requests to requested vehicle systems, following
filtering of the requests via the firewall.
Appeal Br. 1 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).

REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Ozaki (US 2008/0280655 A1;
published Nov. 13, 2008) and Eibach (US 7,356,832 B1; issued Apr. 8,
2008). Final Act. 2–4.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Ozaki’s Bluetooth communication device 3 is a
vehicle transceiver that has separate functions of both transmission and
reception, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “output the
information over a vehicle transmitter lacking reception capability; receive
mobile device requests via a receiver, separate from the transmitter” recited
in claim 1. Ans. 3–4, 7–8 (citing Ozaki ¶¶ 31–33, 36, Figs. 1–2); Final Act.
2–3 (citing Ozaki ¶¶ 31–33, 36, Figs. 1–2).
Appeal 2019-004583
Application 13/444,207

3
Appellant argues Ozaki’s transceiver includes both transmission and
reception capability and, therefore, fails to teach the limitation “output the
information over a vehicle transmitter lacking reception capability; receive
mobile device requests via a receiver, separate from the transmitter”
(emphases added) recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 4–5; Reply Br. 2–3 (citing
Spec. ¶¶ 32, 37). We disagree with Appellant.
Ozaki’s Bluetooth communication device 3 is a vehicle transceiver
(i.e., this transmitter lacks reception because it is a separate function of the
reception) and reception (i.e., this reception function is separate from the
transmission function), which teaches the limitation “output the information
over a vehicle transmitter lacking reception capability; receive mobile device
requests via a receiver, separate from the transmitter” recited in claim 1.
Ans. 3–4, 7–8 (citing Ozaki ¶¶ 31–33, 36, Figs. 1–2); Final Act. 2–3 (citing
Ozaki ¶¶ 31–33, 36, Figs. 1–2). Appellant’s citation to paragraphs 32 and
37 are unavailing. Reply Br. 2–3 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 32, 37). Even assuming
citations to these paragraphs are timely, which they are not4, paragraphs 32
and 37 of the Specification merely discuss non-limiting examples rather than
a specific definition. Spec. ¶¶ 32, 37. Moreover, in these non-limiting
examples, we interpret paragraphs 32 and 37 are broad enough to be

4 Appellant’s argument is untimely and waived because the Examiner did
not change the theory of unpatentability in the Answer (compare Ans. 3–4,
7–8 (citing Ozaki ¶¶ 31–33, 36, Figs. 1–2) with Final Act. 2–3 (citing Ozaki
¶¶ 31–33, 36, Figs. 1–2), while Appellant proffered new arguments in the
Reply Br. 2–3 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 32, 37) with Appeal Br. 4–5 (lacking a
citation to Spec. ¶¶ 32, 37) without showing good cause. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2).
Appeal 2019-004583
Application 13/444,207

4
construed as a transceiver having separate functionality of transmission and
reception. Id.
Appellant does not argue claims 1–7 separately with particularity.
Appeal Br. 4–5; Reply Br. 2–3. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of: (1) independent claim 1; and (2) dependent claims 2–7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to
make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

CONCLUSION

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. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–7 103 Ozaki, Eibach 1–7