Snap-on Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 11, 2022

2021002795 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2022)

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. 14/874,317 10/02/2015 Patrick S. Merg 14-2087 7421 20306 7590 03/11/2022 MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP 300 S. WACKER DRIVE 32ND FLOOR CHICAGO, IL 60606 EXAMINER ARAQUE JR, GERARDO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3689 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/11/2022 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@mbhb.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte PATRICK S. MERG, JACOB G. FOREMAN, TODD MERCER, JOSHUA C. COVINGTON, KAHLIL H. CACABELOS, and THOMAS SOUTHWARD ____________ Appeal 2021-002795 Application 14/874,317 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2021-002795 Application 14/874,317 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3-12, 15-20, 22-24, and 86-89. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED INVENTION The disclosed invention relates to “[a] method and system for generating a displayable page with a display card” (Spec. Abstr.). Claims 1 and 19 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below with bracketed notations added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: [(a)] receiving, by a computer server from a vehicle scan tool (VST), data indicating a vehicle symptom exhibited by a particular year, make and model vehicle, wherein the computer server is communicatively coupled to a non-transitory computer- readable memory and to the VST, and wherein the VST is not a component of the particular year, make and model vehicle, but includes a processor at the VST, a display at the VST, a vehicle interface for connecting to the particular year, make and model vehicle, program instructions at the VST to perform a function that includes the VST transmitting a vehicle data message to the particular year, make and model vehicle, and an automated function selector at the VST, wherein the automated function 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed January 13, 2021) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed March 22, 2021), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed February 25, 2021) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed April 29, 2020). Appellant identifies Snap-on Incorporated as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 1). Appeal 2021-002795 Application 14/874,317 3 selector at the VST is configured to be displayed on the display at the VST and is selectable from the display at the VST to cause the processor at the VST to execute the program instructions at the VST to perform the function that includes the VST transmitting the vehicle data message to the particular year, make and model vehicle; [(b)] determining, by the computer server searching a database stored in the non-transitory computer-readable memory based on the vehicle symptom and a year, make and model of the particular year, make and model vehicle, a component identifier of a most-probable component, wherein the component identifier of the most-probable component identifies a replaceable vehicle component on the particular year, make and model vehicle that is most-likely causing the vehicle symptom; [(c)] determining, by the computer server searching the database based at least in part on the component identifier of the most-probable component and the year, make and model of the particular year, make and model vehicle, one component-type identifier associated with the most-probable component, wherein the one component-type identifier identifies the most-probable component is electrical component-type, mechanical component-type, electro-mechanical component-type, electro- pneumatic component-type, or electro-hydraulic component- type, and wherein the one component-type identifier is different than the component identifier; [(d)] determining, by the computer server searching the database, a subset of information categories from among a set of information categories stored in the database, wherein each information category of the set of information categories is associated with one or more component-type identifiers, wherein the set of information categories includes at least one information category not associated with the one component-type identifier associated with the most-probable component, and wherein the subset of information categories includes multiple information categories associated with at least the one component-type identifier associated with the most-probable component, but does not include the at least one information category not associated with the one component-type identifier associated with the most- probable component; Appeal 2021-002795 Application 14/874,317 4 [(e)] determining, by the computer server searching the database, a pointer that points to the automated function selector at the VST; [(f)] generating, by the computer server, a first displayable page including multiple display cards, wherein each display card of the multiple display cards includes a border that defines both an outer boundary and a display area of the display card, wherein the display area of each display card of the multiple display cards is populated with information that pertains to both a respective information category of the multiple information categories and the vehicle symptom, wherein the first displayable page does not include a display card populated with information that pertains to the at least one information category not associated with the one component-type identifier associated with the most-probable component, and wherein the multiple display cards include a first display card further populated with the pointer that points to the automated function selector at the VST; and [(g)] transmitting, by the computer server to the VST, the first displayable page including the multiple display cards including the first display card further populated with the pointer that points to the automated function selector at the VST. REJECTIONS2 Claims 1, 5-10, 15, 16, 18-20, 22-24, and 86-89 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being over Ohmura et al. (US 2002/0103583 A1, published Aug. 1, 2002) (“Ohmura”) and Wang (US 2013/0246135 A1, published Sept. 19, 2013). Claims 3, 4, 11, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ohmura, Wang, and Official Notice. 2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(a) and 112(b) (Ans. 3-4). Appeal 2021-002795 Application 14/874,317 5 ANALYSIS Independent Claims 1 and 19 and Dependent Claims 5-10, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22-24, and 86-89 We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 at least because Ohmura, on which the Examiner relies, fails to disclose or suggest determining, . . . a subset of information categories from among a set of information categories stored in the database . . . wherein the subset of information categories includes multiple information categories associated with at least the one component-type identifier associated with the most-probable component, but does not include the at least one information category not associated with the one component-type identifier associated with the most-probable component; [and] generating, by the computer server, a first displayable page including multiple display cards, . . . wherein the display area of each display card of the multiple display cards is populated with information that pertains to both a respective information category of the multiple information categories and the vehicle symptom wherein the first displayable page does not include a display card populated with information that pertains to the at least one information category not associated with the one component-type identifier associated with the most-probable component[,] i.e., steps (d) and (f), as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 19 (Appeal Br. 19-24, 33; see also Reply Br. 3-6). Ohmura is directed to a remote vehicle troubleshooting system (Ohmura ¶ 2), and discloses that the system includes a server that performs vehicle troubleshooting from a remote location (id. ¶ 14). Ohmura describes that, in one configuration, the server is equipped with a first database for storing owner information, including personal data regarding individual owners and vehicle data regarding vehicles owned by the owners; a second Appeal 2021-002795 Application 14/874,317 6 database for storing model-specific information including model-specific information on vehicle problems; a third database for storing a troubleshooting program for performing vehicle troubleshooting; and a troubleshooting program transmitter for transmitting the troubleshooting program over a network to the vehicles of individuals regarding whom owner information is stored in the first database (id. ¶ 28). The vehicles are equipped with a device for requesting the server to supply the troubleshooting program; a troubleshooting program receiver for receiving the troubleshooting program; and an inspecting device for using the received troubleshooting program to inspect the vehicle and obtain inspection results (id.). Figure 6 of Ohmura, reproduced below, shows an initial screen that appears on a display, installed in “an easy-to-view location” within the owner vehicle, when remote troubleshooting is conducted (Ohmura ¶¶ 65, 93-94). Figure 6 is a diagram showing an initial screen that appears on a vehicle onboard display when remote troubleshooting is conducted. Appeal 2021-002795 Application 14/874,317 7 This initial screen includes a menu of selectable items (id. ¶ 94). For example, the vehicle owner may select “Something’s Wrong!” from the menu items if the owner senses something unusual about the vehicle (e.g., an odd smell, an odd noise) (id. ¶ 98). Ohmura describes that when “Something’s Wrong!” is selected, the troubleshooting server transmits a trouble site pinpointing program to the vehicle, and that the program displays a series of screens (e.g., screens L1 through L5 in Figure 9 (reproduced below)), which elicit information (e.g., regarding when and from where the odd smell was detected and what the odor smells like) concerning the suspected vehicle problem; when the troubleshooting is completed, screen L6 appears, setting forth the troubleshooting result (Ohmura ¶¶ 139-149). Figure 9 shows a series of hierarchically formatted screens that appear on the onboard display in an example of remote troubleshooting using a trouble site pinpointing program. Appeal 2021-002795 Application 14/874,317 8 Figure 10 shows a series of hierarchically formatted screens that appear on the onboard display in an example of remote troubleshooting using a trouble site pinpointing program. Screens M1 to M5 in Figure 10 are substantially identical to screens L1 to L5 in Figure 9; but, in Figure 10, screen M6 includes the message, “A problem was found. Take car to dealer immediately!,” and under “Details,” notes, “XXX appears to be out of order” (id.). Figure 12, reproduced below, shows another example of remote troubleshooting using the trouble site pinpointing program (Ohmura ¶ 157). Appeal 2021-002795 Application 14/874,317 9 Figure 12 is a diagram showing hierarchically formatted screens that appear on the onboard display in another example of remote troubleshooting using a trouble site pinpointing program. In this example, the owner selects “Won’t run” under “Basic Performance Irregularity” in screen P1, “No pickup” in screen P2, and “When accelerating from medium speed (around 40 km/h)” in screen P3 (id. ¶¶ 157-158). Troubleshooting then proceeds, as shown in screens P4-P6, and concludes, as shown in screen P7, with the message, “Take car to dealer immediately!,” and “Details” identifying “Hold Mode Switch,” i.e., a broken hold mode switch, as the likely cause of the vehicle issue (id. ¶ 159). In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner relied, in the Final Office Action, on Figures 10 and 12 of Ohmura as disclosing the argued limitations (Final Act. 17-21). There, Ohmura admittedly discloses Appeal 2021-002795 Application 14/874,317 10 that the troubleshooting process results in the identification of the vehicle component (i.e., the “XXX” in Figure 10 and the “Hold Mode Switch” in Figure 12), which is the likely cause of a reported issue. However, we agree with Appellant that, even assuming arguendo that the “XXX” or the “Hold Mode Switch” constitutes the claimed “component identifier of a most- probable component,” Ohmura does not disclose or suggest using the “XXX” or the “Hold Mode Switch” to determine one component-type identifier associated with the most-probable component (i.e., “determining . . . based at least in part on the component identifier of the most-probable component . . . one component-type identifier associated with the most- probable component,” step (c), as recited in claim 1, and similarly in claim 19) and, thus, does not disclose or suggest (1) determining multiple information categories associated with at least the one component type identifier associated with the “XXX” or the “Hold Mode Switch” or (2) generating a displayable page populated with information that pertains to a respective information category of the multiple information categories associated with at least the one component type identifier associated with the “XXX” or the “Hold Mode Switch,” i.e., determining, . . . a subset of information categories from among a set of information categories stored in the database . . . wherein the subset of information categories includes multiple information categories associated with at least the one component-type identifier associated with the most-probable component, but does not include the at least one information category not associated with the one component-type identifier associated with the most-probable component [or] generating, by the computer server, a first displayable page including multiple display cards, . . . wherein the display area of each display card of the multiple display cards is populated with information that pertains to both a respective Appeal 2021-002795 Application 14/874,317 11 information category of the multiple information categories and the vehicle symptom[,] i.e., steps (d) and (f), as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 19 (Appeal Br. 20-24). Responding to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner points, in the Answer, to Figures 9-13 of Ohmura as disclosing “various examples of how information is organized into categories,” and referencing Figure 11 (reproduced below), as a non-limiting example, the Examiner asserts that Ohmura discloses multiple information categories, e.g., in screens N1, N2, and N3 (Ans. 5). Figure 11 shows hierarchically formatted screens appearing on the onboard display in another example of remote troubleshooting. The Examiner cites Figure 12 as disclosing another example where it is determined that the “Hold Mode Switch” is the likely cause of the issue (id.). Appeal 2021-002795 Application 14/874,317 12 And the Examiner asserts that the Ohmura system makes determinations and provides information that corresponds to the specifics of the issue, i.e., that in Figure 11, electrical-type, audio, and radio information is being received, identified, determined, and provided while filtering out and not providing information for mechanical-type of issues, while in Figure 12 the system has determined, based on the identification of the hold mode switch being the problem, that the problem is not a mechanical-type of problem (id. at 5-6). Therefore, according to the Examiner, “[a]s . . . evidenced by the cited figures, Ohmura discloses a plurality of displays, which contain information, in this case, the various categories associated with a component-type associated with the most probable-component,” as called for in the independent claims (id. at 6). The difficulty with the Examiner’s analysis, as Appellant points out, is that, even assuming arguendo that the content of screens N1, N2, and N3 in Figure 11 amounts to multiple information categories, and that screens P1 to P6 in Figure 12 include multiple information categories, Ohmura does not disclose or suggest that the multiple information categories, which the Examiner maintains are shown in Figures 11 and 12, are the determined “subset of information categories” called for in claims 1 and 19 (Reply Br. 4-5). Claims 1 and 19 require, in the language of claim 1, “determining, . . . based at least in part on the component identifier of the most-probable component . . . , one component-type identifier associated with the most- probable component” (step (c), as recited in claim 1), and also require that the determined “subset of information categories” includes multiple information categories “associated with at least the one component-type Appeal 2021-002795 Application 14/874,317 13 identifier associated with the most-probable component, but does not include the at least one information category not associated with the one component-type identifier associated with the most-probable component.” Claims 1 and 19 additionally require “generating . . . a first displayable page . . . populated with information that pertains to both a respective information category of the multiple information categories and the vehicle symptom . . . [but not] with information that pertains to the at least one information category not associated with the one component-type identifier associated with the most-probable component.” In other words, the claims require that the component identifier of the most-probable component is determined before determining the “one component-type identifier associated with the most-probable component” and, therefore, also before determining the “subset of information categories” that includes multiple information categories “associated with at least the one component-type identifier associated with the most-probable component” and before generating a first displayable page populated with information categories associated with the one component-type identifier. The Examiner takes the position, as described above, that screens N1, N2, and N3 in Figure 11, and screens P1 to P6 in Figure 12 include multiple information categories, as called for in the claims. Yet, although a vehicle symptom is identified in screen N3 (“WHAT’s WRONG?”) of Figure 11, Ohmura does not disclose or suggest that any of the subsequent screens N4, N5, and N6 involves determining the component identifier of the most- probable component that is likely causing the identified symptom (Reply Br. 5). Appeal 2021-002795 Application 14/874,317 14 In Figure 12, the troubleshooting program determines that the “Hold Mode Switch” is the likely cause of the reported issue. Yet, even assuming arguendo that the “Hold Mode Switch” constitutes the claimed “component identifier of a most-probable component,” we find nothing in the cited portions of Ohmura that discloses or suggests that the “Hold Mode Switch” influences the makeup of any of screens P1 to P6. Indeed, no such influence would reasonably be expected inasmuch as the “Hold Mode Switch” is not identified until the last screen, P7, in the disclosed sequence, i.e., after screens P1 to P6 have already been displayed (Reply Br. 5). In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 5-10, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22-24, and 86-89. Cf. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“dependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious”). Dependent Claims 3, 4, 11, 12, and 17 Each of dependent claims 3, 4, 11, 12, and 17 depends, directly or indirectly, from independent claim 1. The rejection of these dependent claims does not cure the deficiency in the rejection of independent claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, of dependent claims 3, 4, 11, 12, and 17 for the same reasons set forth above with respect to the independent claim. Appeal 2021-002795 Application 14/874,317 15 CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 5-10, 15, 16, 18-20, 22-24, 86-89 103 Ohmura, Wang 1, 5-10, 15, 16, 18-20, 22-24, 86-89 3, 4, 11, 12, 17 103 Ohmura, Wang, Official Notice 3, 4, 11, 12, 17 Overall Outcome 1, 3-12, 15-20, 22-24, 86-89 REVERSED