Andreas Haslinger

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 19, 2020

14609812 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 19, 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.
14/609,812 01/30/2015 Andreas HASLINGER 080437.67386US 6768
23911 7590 05/19/2020
CROWELL & MORING LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP
P.O. BOX 14300
WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300
EXAMINER
ROBERTS, SHAUN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2657
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/19/2020 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):
edocket@crowell.com
mloren@crowell.com
tche@crowell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREAS HASLINGER
Appeal 2018-007912
Application 14/609,812
Technology Center 2600
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10, all of the pending claims. See
Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We refer to the Specification, filed January 30, 2015 (“Spec.”); Final
Office Action, mailed December 11, 2017 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed
May 2, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed May 31, 2018
(“Ans.”); and Reply Brief, filed July 31, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).

2 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 Bayerische Motoren
Werke Aktiengesellschaft. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-007912
Application 14/609,812
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method and device for operating a
speech-controlled information system for a vehicle. Claim 1, reproduced
below with disputed limitations emphasized in italics, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for operating a voice-controlled information
system for a vehicle, the method comprising the acts of:
sensing vehicle related events and/or vehicle states;
determining at least one keyword of a voice input query of
a vehicle user, the at least one keyword being determined from a
set of prescribed keywords;
determining a subset of vehicle related events and/or
vehicle states, from the sensed vehicle related events and/or
vehicle states, which are determined to have occurred during a
predetermined period of time leading up to the voice input query;
selecting, based on the determined at least one keyword, a
vehicle related event and/or vehicle state from the determined
subset of vehicle related events and/or vehicle states that were
determined to have occurred during the predetermined period of
time;
determining if at least one condition occurrence has been
met, wherein the at least one condition occurrence characterizes
a respective condition that needs to be met in order for the
selected vehicle related event and/or vehicle state to occur;
outputting, based on said determining if the at least one
condition occurrence has been met, a response to the voice input
query from a set of prescribed responses, wherein the response
includes information corresponding to a result of said
determining if the at least one condition occurrence has been met.
REJECTION
Claims 1–10 stand rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Theisen (US 2011/0093158 A1; published Apr. 21, 2011).
Final Act. 5.
Appeal 2018-007912
Application 14/609,812
3
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. For at least the reasons discussed below, we are persuaded the
Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as anticipated by Theisen.
Appellant argues error because Theisen does not disclose
“determining a subset of vehicle related events and/or vehicle states . . .,
which are determined to have occurred during a predetermined period of
time leading up to the voice input query;” and “selecting . . . a vehicle
related event and/or vehicle state from the determined subset of vehicle
related events and/or vehicle states that were determined to have occurred
during the predetermined period of time.” See Appeal Br. 5–9. In
particular, Appellant rejects the Examiner’s construction of “predetermined
period of time” as “just a particular time period from a sensed event, until a
user submits an input with keywords corresponding to that event.” Id.;
Reply Br. 3–5; Ans. 8. The Examiner finds that “[t]he predetermined period
of time is not limited to a specific time period, and thus, any event sensed
during some period of time is eligible to be within the subset, and is eligible
for recognition.” Ans. 8.
We agree with Appellant. According to the Examiner’s construction,
a predetermined period of time could be a different amount for each event,
rather than a fixed “lookback” amount of time from the user’s voice inquiry
as required by the independent claims. Because the amount of time can be
different for each event and corresponding user voice inquiry, the
Examiner’s construction is the antithesis of a predetermined period of time,
and, thus, is overly broad and unreasonable. See Spec. ¶¶ 5 (“stored during a
predetermined period of time”), 38 (“there is therefore a high probability of
Appeal 2018-007912
Application 14/609,812
4
the voice input being correlated to an event sensed and stored at a previous,
in particular recent, time”).
Accordingly, for at least this reason, we are persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of the independent claims. Thus, we do not sustain the
rejection of all pending claims. Because our decision with respect to this
issue is dispositive, we do not reach any other arguments Appellant raises.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–10 102(b) Theisen 1–10
REVERSED