M2MD Technologies, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 1, 2021

2020003772 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 1, 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.
15/672,972 08/09/2017 Charles M. Link II M2MD-007 1251
72749 7590 09/01/2021
John Doughty
42 Creekside Court
Acworth, GA 30101
EXAMINER
WONG, KIN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2021 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte CHARLES M. LINK II and AUSTIN ROSS
_____________

Appeal 2020-003772
Application 15/672,972
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before LARRY J. HUME, BETH Z. SHAW, and JOYCE CRAIG
Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–3, 5, 7–14, and 16–22. See Final
Act. 1. Claims 4, 6, and 15 have been canceled. Appeal Br. 22, 24. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies M2MD Technologies, Inc. as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-003772
Application 15/672,972

2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to using a wireless device as a smart key.
Spec. 1 (Title). Claims 1 and 19, reproduced below, are illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method performed by a wireless user device,
comprising:
wirelessly receiving a vehicle operational request message
signal generated by a computer device of a vehicle
processing the vehicle operational request message signal;
determining from the processing of the vehicle operational
request message signal that the vehicle operational request
message signal includes a request to operate the vehicle;
extracting cryptographic input information from the
vehicle operational request message signal;
generating a vehicle operation permission message based
on the cryptographic input information; and
transmitting the vehicle operation permission message as
a vehicle operation permission signal; and
wherein the vehicle operational request message signal is
a wireless audio signal, and wherein the wireless audio signal is
received from the vehicle via a microphone of the user device.
19. A method, comprising:
receiving a vehicle operation permission message directly from
a user equipment device,
determining that the received vehicle operation permission
message was generated based at least in part on vehicle cryptographic
information shared during a pairing of a vehicle computer device with
the user equipment device;
determining that the received vehicle operation permission
message is the same as a previously received vehicle operation
permission message;
Appeal 2020-003772
Application 15/672,972

3

determining that the received vehicle operation permission
message that is the same as the previously received vehicle operation
permission message was received within an absence period; and
generating an instruction to perform a vehicle operation
included in the received vehicle operation permission message.
Appeal Br. 21, 24–25 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Gerhardt et al. (“Gerhardt”) US 2015/0102906 Al Apr. 16, 2015
Chuang US 10,034,146 B2 July 24, 2018
Chen et al. (“Chen”) US 10,081,334 B1 Sept. 25, 2018
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–3, 5, 8, 10–14, 17, and 182 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Chen. Final Act. 2–4.
Claims 19–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Gerhardt. Final Act. 4–6.
Claims 7, 9, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Chen and Chuang. Final Act. 6–7.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections (Final Act. 2–7) in light
of Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 4–20) that the Examiner has erred, as

2 The Examiner included canceled claim 4 and separately rejected claims 7,
9, and 16 in the rejection header. We omit these claims from our listing for
clarity.
Appeal 2020-003772
Application 15/672,972

4

well as the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal
Brief (Ans. 3–9) and Appellant’s reply in the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2–10).
With regard to the Examiner’s anticipation rejection based on Chen,
we agree with Appellant’s contentions (Appeal Br. 4–5; Reply Br. 2–3) that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–3, 5, 8, 10–14, 17, and 18 because
Chen does not disclose that all of the recited steps are performed by a
wireless user device, as the claims require. We agree with Appellant that
Chen discloses that a smartphone receives an access code from a vehicle and
sends the access code to a server. If the server determines that a preapproved
user device transmitted the correct access code, the server sends another
message to the vehicle, instructing the vehicle to unlock the doors. See
Reply Br. 2.
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference. As our reviewing court has instructed,
[u]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the
document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of
the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited
in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing
claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Based on our review of the record, we find the Examiner has erred in
rejecting independent claims 1 and 14 as anticipated by Chen because the
Examiner does not provide a clear mapping of the individual limitations to
the corresponding specific features found in Chen with particularity. See
37 C.F.R. § 1.104(c)(2) (“When a reference is complex or shows or
describes inventions other than that claimed by the applicant, the particular
part relied on must be designated as nearly as practicable. The pertinence of
Appeal 2020-003772
Application 15/672,972

5

each reference, if not apparent, must be clearly explained and each rejected
claim specified.”).
Nor has the Examiner sufficiently identified where Chen discloses the
“vehicle operational request message” and “vehicle operation permission
message,” as recited in claims 1 and 14. See Reply Br. 4. Indeed, the
Examiner appears to combine the request message and the permission
message into a single claim element in finding “the requested/permission
message is analogous to permission signal (as depicted in figure 7 of Chen
and see associated descriptions for details).” Ans. 4 (citing Chen col. 2:12–
27).
For these reasons, on the record before us, we reverse the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of independent claims 1 and 14, as well as dependent
claims 3, 5, 8, 10–13, 17, and 18.
Regarding the Examiner’s rejection of claims 19–22 as anticipated by
Gerhardt, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not explained in
sufficient detail where Gerhardt discloses “determining that the received
vehicle operation permission message was generated based at least in part on
vehicle cryptographic information shared during a pairing of a vehicle
computer device with the user equipment device.” See Appeal Br. 12. The
Examiner relied on Figure 2 and paragraphs 37 and 38 of Gerhardt, but did
not explain sufficiently where or how the cited portions of Gerhardt disclose
each element in the disputed limitation. See Final Act. 5; Ans. 6–7. For
example, the Examiner did not identify where Gerhardt discloses “vehicle
cryptographic information shared during a pairing of a vehicle computer
device with the user equipment device,” as recited in claim 19.
Appeal 2020-003772
Application 15/672,972

6

Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claims 19–22.
With regard to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent
claims 7, 9, and 16, as explained above, Appellant persuades us that the
Examiner erred in finding that Chen anticipates claims 1 and 14, the
independent claims from which claims 7, 9, and 16 ultimately depend.
Because the Examiner’s § 103 rejection depends on the findings made in the
§ 102(a)(2) rejection over Chen (see Final Act. 6–7), on the record before us,
we reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 7, 9, and 16 for
obviousness.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–3, 5, 7–14, and
16–22.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 8, 10–
14, 17, 18
102(a)(2) Chen 1–3, 5, 8, 10–
14, 17, 18
19–22 102(a)(1) Gerhardt 19–22
7, 9, 16 103 Chen, Chuang 7, 9, 16
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 5, 7–14,
16–22

REVERSED