Rockwell, Mark Anthony. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 2, 2019

14630760 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 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.
14/630,760 02/25/2015 Mark Anthony Rockwell 83501801 6256
28395 7590 10/02/2019
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, BAO LONG T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3664
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2019 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 MARK ANTHONY ROCKWELL and
DOUGLAS RAYMOND MARTIN
____________

Appeal 2019-001785
Application 14/630,760
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject2 claims 15–22.3 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. App. Br. 2.
2 The Final Rejection mailed on April 3, 2018, is the fourth rejection of the
pending claims.
3 Claims 1–14 have been withdrawn from consideration. Non-Final
Rejection mailed Oct. 20, 2016, at 2.
Appeal 2019-001785
Application 14/630,760

2
INVENTION
Claim 15 is the sole independent claim on appeal, and is illustrative.
We reproduce it below.
15. A system comprising:
a processor configured to:
detect a vehicle condition associated with a warning light;
obtain explanatory information explaining a warning-light
cause;
present the explanatory information via a vehicle display;
present a data-transfer option in conjunction with the
displayed explanatory information; and
upon selection of the data-transfer option, transfer data,
relating to a system causing the warning light, from a vehicle to
a mobile device.
REJECTIONS
Claims 15–17, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Taki (US 2005/0021200 A1, publ. Jan. 27, 2005). Final
Act. 5–11.
Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Taki and Yoshida (US 6,493,557 B1, iss. Dec. 10, 2002).
Final Act. 11–13.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Taki and Nagata (US 2008/0316009 A1, publ. Dec. 25, 2008). Final Act.
14–15.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 15 recites the step of “present[ing] a data-transfer
option in conjunction with the displayed explanatory information.”4 The

4 Claims 16−22 are dependent upon claim 15.
Appeal 2019-001785
Application 14/630,760

3
Examiner finds that this step is satisfied by Taki’s teaching to present
reservation button 13b on the display screen displaying the abnormality
countermeasure information to the driver. Final Act. 6–7. Claim 15 further
recites, “upon selection of the data-transfer option, transfer[ring] data,
relating to a system causing the warning light, from a vehicle to a mobile
device.” The Examiner finds that this step is satisfied by Taki’s transfer of
the failure or diagnostic information from the vehicle to the control center
20.5 Final Act. 7–8; Ans. 3. Claims 16–22 are dependent upon claim 15.
Appellant argues that the transfer of information is not accomplished
“upon selection of a data-transfer option,” as claimed. App. Br. 5; Reply Br.
2. Specifically, Appellant contends that the reference teaches that the data is
transferred regardless of whether the reservation button is selected or not.
App. Br. 5. For the reasons that follow, we agree with Appellant.
Appellant contends, and we agree, that when the driver touches Taki’s
reservation button 13b, all that is transmitted to control center 20 is
reservation information related to setting a time and date for an appointment
with the dealer. App. Br. 5; see also Taki ¶¶ 86, 92. Additionally,

5 Taki states that “by incorporating a command for transmitting the failure
information (diagnostic information) into an operation button (e.g., ‘return’
button and ‘forward’ button) . . . and the . . . abnormality information
transmission program can be performed due to the touch operation of the
operation button performed by the user.” Taki ¶ 88. Although the Examiner
explains how Taki discloses this embodiment having an operation button
(e.g., the “return” and the “forward” button) that transfers failure or
diagnostic information, the Examiner explicitly states that this alternative
embodiment is not relied upon as corresponding to transfer of diagnostic
information. Final Act. 3; Ans. 4. This decision addresses only the
Examiner’s finding with respect to whether Taki’s reservation button 13b
corresponds to the recited “data transfer option,” and takes no position on
whether the “return” or “forward” button would meet that limitation.
Appeal 2019-001785
Application 14/630,760

4
Appellant contends, and we agree, that although the vehicle transmits the
failure information to the control center 20 after an appointment is reserved,
this is done only after the dealer requests the information. App. Br. 5; see
generally Taki ¶¶ 96–114. Therefore, the Examiner has failed to adequately
show how the reference teaches transferring data “upon selection of the data-
transfer option,” as recited in claim 15.
The additional references are not cited to teach or suggest this
limitation and we will not engage in any inquiry as to whether the additional
references cure the noted deficiencies. Therefore, for the reasons stated
supra, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 15 or claims 16−22 which
depend upon claim 15, for the reasons indicated above.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
15–17, 21, and 22 § 103 15–17, 21, and
22
18 and 19 § 103 18 and 19
20 § 103 20
Overall Outcome 15–22

REVERSED