Ex Parte 8,565,936 B2 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 16, 2016

96000062 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2016)

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.
96/000,062 07/15/2014 8,565,936 B2 P5233US01 1407
124236 7590
Mori & Ward, LLP
225 Reinekers Lane
Suite 690
Alexandria, VA 22314
12/16/2016 EXAMINER
ENGLISH, PETER C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3993
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2016 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 HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD.
Appellant, Patent Owner
Appeal 2016-000250
Ex parte Reexamination Control 96/000,062
Patent US 8,565,936 62!
Technology Center 3900
Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, DANIEL S. SONG and
MICHAEL L. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Issued October 22, 2013, to Hisato Kato and Nobuaki Asahara (the
“’936 patent”). Honda Motor Co., Ltd. is the owner of the ’936 patent and
the real party in interest in this proceeding. The ’936 patent issued from
Appl. 13/105,895, filed May 12, 2011. The Patent Owner has not identified
any prior litigation or administrative proceeding involving the ’936 patent.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Appeal 2016-000250
Reexamination Control 96/000,062
Patent No. 8,565,936 B2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant/Patent Owner, Honda Motor Co., Ltd., requested
supplemental examination of the ’936 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 257.
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 257(a), the Examiner issued Supplemental
Examination Certificate 8,565,936 FI on August 27, 2014. In the
Supplemental Reexamination Certificate, the Examiner determined that at a
substantial new question of patentability affecting at least one claim of the
’936 patent was raised by one or more of Watanabe ’334 (JP P2006-347334
A, published December 28, 2005); Taki ’720 (CN 1993720 A, published
July 4, 2005); Taki ’489 (WO 2006/075489 Al, published July 20, 2006);
and Wada (JP P2000-155887 A, published June 6, 2000).2 Pursuant to 35
U.S.C. § 257(b), the Examiner ordered an ex parte reexamination of claims
1—10, all of the claims of the ’936 patent. The Patent Owner now appeals
from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Watanabe ’334, Wada and Taki ’489.
The Patent Owner relies on an “Appeal Brief,” dated May 13, 2015
(“Appeal Brief’ or “App. Br.”), and a “Reply Brief under 37 C.F.R.
2 As used in this opinion, citations to “Watanabe ’334” and “Wada”
will refer to English-language translations in the record of Reexamination
proceeding 96/000,062.
Taki ’720 and Taki ’489 are members of the same family of patents.
Citations to “Taki ’489” will be to the text of the published English-
language PCT application. Taki ’720 will not be addressed further in this
opinion.
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Appeal 2016-000250
Reexamination Control 96/000,062
Patent No. 8,565,936 B2
§ 41.41,” dated August 24, 2015 (“Reply Brief’ or “Reply Br.”). The
Examiner’s findings and conclusions are set forth in an Examiner’s Answer,
mailed June 24, 2015 (“Answer”). Counsel for the Patent Owner presented
oral argument on March 30, 2016. We have jurisdiction of the appeal under
one or more of 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(2); 35 U.S.C. § 134(b); and 35 U.S.C.
§ 306.
We AFFIRM.
THE ’936 PATENT
The ’936 patent teaches a method in which a user 22 carries an
information communication device 32, such as a mobile telephone or a
personal digital assistant. (’936 patent, col. 3,11. 4—6). If the user 22 wishes
to remotely operate an on-vehicle device 67, the user sends a message
through the information communication device 32 to a service center 23. A
server 24 at the service center 23 then transmits a remote-control request
signal Srr through the service center 23 to a remote control ECU 10 in the
motor vehicle 12. (’936 patent, col. 3,11. 27—34; col. 4,11. 43—53; & Fig. 2).
Meanwhile, the remote control ECU 10 determines whether the motor
vehicle 12 is in use. For example, where the vehicle 12 has a knob-type
ignition, the remote control ECU 10 may determine that the vehicle is in use
if the ignition switch 56 is in an ACC ON state or an ignition ON state.
(’936 patent, col. 4,11. 58—62; col. 5,11. 32-46; & col. 7,11. 13—18). The
remote control ECU 10 also determines whether the motor vehicle 12 is in
an emergency mode. The vehicle 12 enters an emergency mode when an
emergency switch 54 is pressed or when the vehicle is involved in a
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Appeal 2016-000250
Reexamination Control 96/000,062
Patent No. 8,565,936 B2
collision. (See ’936 patent, col. 3,11. 42-47 & 62—67; col. 4,1. 63 — col. 5,1.
3; col. 7,11. 22—30; & Fig. 6). If the motor vehicle 12 is not in use, or if the
vehicle is in use and in an emergency mode, the remote control ECU 10 has
the on-vehicle device 67 perform the operation requested by the user 22.
(’936 patent, col. 4,11. 5U-57; col. 5,11. 47-50; col. 7,11. 35^13; & Fig. 3).
If the vehicle 12 is in use but not in an emergency mode, the remote control
ECU 10 refuses the command, that is, prohibits the on-vehicle device 67
from performing the operation. (’936, col. 7,11. 27—34; & Fig. 3).
Claims 1—3 are independent. (See App. Br. 32—35 (Claims App’x)).
Claim 1 recites:
1. A method for controlling a remotely controllable on-
vehicle device, comprising:
receiving a remote-control request signal transmitted
from outside a vehicle having the on-vehicle device;
executing remote control of the on-vehicle device when
the remote-control request signal is received;
prohibiting the remote control of the on-vehicle device if
an in-use determination is made that the vehicle is in use and if
it is determined that the vehicle is not in an emergency mode,
wherein it is determined that the vehicle is not in the emergency
mode if neither a collision detection signal nor an emergency
detection signal has been input;
permitting the remote control of the on-vehicle device if
an emergency-mode determination is made that the vehicle is in
the emergency mode even when the in-use determination is
made that the vehicle is in use, wherein the emergency-mode
determination is made that the vehicle is in the emergency
mode if the collision detection signal or the emergency
detection signal has been input; and
activating a communication device if it is determined that
the vehicle is in the emergency mode so that an operator in a
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Appeal 2016-000250
Reexamination Control 96/000,062
Patent No. 8,565,936 B2
call center device can talk to an occupant of the vehicle via the
communication device,
wherein the in-use determination is made based on a first
signal, the emergency-mode determination is made based on a
second signal that is the collision detection signal or the
emergency detection signal, and the first signal is different from
the second signal.
(App. Br. 32 (Claims App’x)).
ISSUES
The Patent Owner purports to argue independent claims 1—3; and to
allow dependent claims 4—10 to stand or fall with claim 3. (See App. Br.
31). Nevertheless, the errors the Patent Owner alleges the Examiner
committed in rejecting claims 2 and 3 are the same as those the Patent
Owner alleges the Examiner committed in rejecting claim 1. The Patent
Owner does not suggest any persuasive reason why claims 2 or 3 might be
patentable if claim 1 is not. Only those arguments actually made by the
Patent Owner have been considered. Arguments that the Patent Owner
could have made but chose not to make have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re Jung, 637 F.3d
1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
This appeal turns on two issues:
First, would one of ordinary skill in the art have had apparent reason
to modify the vehicle remote control system described by Watanabe ’334 so
as to allow remote control after determinations have been made that the
vehicle is in use and also in an emergency mode, despite statements in
Watanabe ’334 to the effect that, “when vehicles are judged ... to be in
operation, all operations by a remote control are forbidden” (Watanabe ’334,
para. 47? (See App. Br. 9—12 & 21—24; Reply Br. 3—5).
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Appeal 2016-000250
Reexamination Control 96/000,062
Patent No. 8,565,936 B2
Second, would a method for controlling a remotely-controllable on-
vehicle device, including the step “wherein the in-use determination is made
based on a first signal, the emergency-mode termination is made based on a
second signal that is the collision signal or the emergency detection signal,
and the first signal is different from the second signal,” have been obvious
from the combined teachings of Watanabe ’334, Wada and Taki ’489? (See
App. Br. 12—18 & 24—30; Reply Br. 9).
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following by a preponderance of the evidence. See
Rambus Inc. v. Rea, 731 F.3d 1248, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Ethicon, Inc. v.
Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Watanabe ’334
We adopt the following findings of the Examiner taken from pages 2
and 3 of the Answer:
Watanabe ’334 discloses an on-vehicle remote control
system comprising: a mobile communications device 3 operated
by a user to transmit a remote control request, a service center 2
that receives the remote-control request from the mobile device
3 and relays that request to the appropriate vehicle 1, and an on-
vehicle remote control device 10 that receives the remote-control
request and executes the requested remote control of on-vehicle
equipment. [See Watanabe ’334, paras. 1, 22, 24 & 25; see also
id. at Fig. 1], Specifically, the on-vehicle remote control device
10 includes a receiver 12 that receives the remote-control
request. [See Watanabe ’334, para. 27]. The remote control of
on-vehicle equipment includes operation of an air conditioner,
opening and closing a window, and unlocking a door. [See
Watanabe ’334, para. 28].
Watanabe ’334 also discloses that it is desirable to prohibit
remote control in order to avoid unnecessary or unwanted
operation by remote control when an occupant is present in the
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Appeal 2016-000250
Reexamination Control 96/000,062
Patent No. 8,565,936 B2
vehicle or the vehicle is in use. [See Watanabe ’334, paras. 2—
6]. To provide this desired function, Watanabe ’334 discloses
that the on-vehicle remote control device 10 is under the control
of a remote control ECU 11 provided with the use-state and
remote-control determining means 9 which determine whether or
not the vehicle is in use and, thus, whether remote control of the
vehicle should be prohibited (when in use) or permitted (when
not in use). [See Watanabe ’334, paras. 7, 8 & 26; see also id. at
Fig. 2], The use-state and remote-control determining means 9
determine whether or not the vehicle is in use based on detection
signals received from a plurality of sensors connected to the
remote control ECU 11. [See Watanabe ’334, paras. 28 & 29].
Operation by remote control is prohibited when the detection
signals from the sensors 13,14 indicate that the vehicle is in use,
and operation by remote control is permitted when the detection
signals indicate that the vehicle is in use, and operation by remote
control is permitted when the detection signals indicate that the
vehicle is not in use. [See Watanabe ’334, paras. 42-44],
Taki ’489
We adopt the following findings of the Examiner taken from pages 5
and 6 of the Answer:
[Taki 489] teaches an on-vehicle remote control system
comprising: a mobile communications device [or portable
terminal device] 12 operated by a user to transmit a request for
emergency intervention; and a service [or “help net operation”]
center 14 that receives the request from the communications
device 10 and sends a request for intervention to appropriate
emergency responders. [See Taki 489 at 10,1. 15 — p. 11,1. 1;
& Fig. 1], The communication device 12 is connected to an on-
vehicle remote control unit 10 which is under the control of a
remote control ECU 10a provided with emergency-mode
determining means which determine that the vehicle is in an
emergency mode based on an airbag deployment signal received
from an on-vehicle airbag deployment system 10c or an
emergency detection signal received from an emergency switch
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Appeal 2016-000250
Reexamination Control 96/000,062
Patent No. 8,565,936 B2
1 Ob, and which determine that the vehicle is not in an emergency
mode if neither the airbag deployment signal nor the emergency
detection signal is input. [See Taki ’489, p. 11,11. 2—9; p. 13,11.
4—21; p. 15,1. 11-p. 16,1. 7; p. 17,1. 22-p. 18,1. 1; & Fig. 6],
As is well known in the art, the airbag deployment signal is
produced by a collision sensor and, therefore, is synonymous
with a collision detection signal.
In addition to requesting intervention from emergency
responders, [Taki ’489] teaches that the service center 14
transmits remote-control signals to the remote control ECU 10a,
which remote-control signals are relayed to slave ECUs lOd to
operate the vehicle’s engine; brakes; transmission; heating and
cooling; lights; and horn in order to slow-stop the vehicle,
improve the environment in the occupant compartment, and
enable emergency responders to more easily discover the vehicle
and extract its occupants. [See Taki ’489, p. 7,1. 10 — p. 8,1. 27;
p. 13, 1. 22 - p. 14, 1. 5; & p. 23, 1. 23 - p. 25, 1. 27], The
communications device 12 is also activated in the emergency
mode so that an operator in the service center 14 can talk to an
occupant of the vehicle via the communications device. [See
Taki ’489, p. 12,1. 26-p. 13,1.3; p. 14,11. 13-21; p. 15,11. 11-
26; &p. 19,11. 17-32],
Wada
We adopt the following findings of the Examiner taken from pages 4
and 5 of the Answer:
Wada teaches an on-vehicle remote control system
comprising: a mobile communications device 10 operated by a
user to transmit a request for emergency intervention; and a
service center 30 that receives the request from the
communications device 10 and sends a request for intervention
to appropriate emergency responders. [See Wada, paras. 1 & 29].
The communications device 10 is under the control of an
electronic processor 11 provided with emergency-mode
determining means which determine that the vehicle is in an
emergency mode based on an airbag deployment signal received
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Appeal 2016-000250
Reexamination Control 96/000,062
Patent No. 8,565,936 B2
from an on-vehicle airbag deployment system 40 or an
emergency detection signal received from an emergency switch
60, and which determine that the vehicle is not in an emergency
mode if neither the airbag deployment signal nor the emergency
detection signal is input. [See Wada, paras. 3, 5, 6, 14 & 30]. As
is well-known in the art, the airbag deployment signal is
produced by a collision sensor and, therefore, is synonymous
with a collision detection signal. [See Wada, para. 5 subparas.
(3) and (4) (describing a system capable of either automatically
notifying a service center of an emergency after “detection of a
collision-detection equipment sensor and a sideslip sensor;” or
manually notifying the service center “by depression of [the]
vehicle[’]s emergency intelligence notification buttons.”)].
In addition to requesting intervention from emergency
responders, Wada teaches that the service center 30 transmits
remote-control signals to the communications device 10
instructing on-vehicle remote control devices 80, 90, 100 to
operate the vehicle’s horn, lights and door locks to enable the
emergency responders to more easily discover the vehicle and
extract its occupants. [See Wada, paras. 7—9, 14, 15, 33 & 35].
The communications device 10 is also activated in the
emergency mode so that an operator in the service center 30 can
talk to an occupant of the vehicle via the communications device.
[See Wada, paras. 2, 5 subpara. (1) & 6.)
ANALYSIS
We find that Watanabe ’334 expressly describes performing the steps,
as recited in claim 1, of receiving a remote-control request signal transmitted
from outside a vehicle having the on-vehicle device (see Watanabe ’334,
paras. 22, 27 & 42); executing remote control of the on-vehicle device when
the remote-control request signal is received (see Watanabe ’334, paras. 7,
22, 23, 27 & 43); and prohibiting the remote control of the on-vehicle device
if an in-use determination is made that the vehicle is in use (see Watanabe
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Appeal 2016-000250
Reexamination Control 96/000,062
Patent No. 8,565,936 B2
’334, para. 44). Watanabe ’334 alone does not expressly describe the
remaining limitations of claim 1.
With regard to claim 2, Watanabe ’334 describes a system including a
receiving means in the form of a receiving circuit of a communication
apparatus 12 for receiving a remote-control request signal transmitted from
outside a vehicle having a remotely controllable on-vehicle device.
(Compare Watanabe ’334, paras. 27 & 42 with ’936 patent, col. 4,11. 50-53
& Fig. 2; see also App. Br. 3). The system described by Watanabe ’334 also
includes remote-control executing means in the form of an electronic control
unit (“ECU”) 11 for executing remote control of the on-vehicle device when
the receiving means receives the remote-control request signal. (Compare
Watanabe ’334, paras. 7, 22, 23, 27 & 43 with ’936 patent, col. 4,11. 43^49;
col. 5,11. 7—10; & Fig. 2; see also App. Br. 3). The system also includes a
use-state determining means in the form of an operation judging means 9
within the ECU 11 for determining whether the vehicle is in use as an in-use
determination. (Compare Watanabe ’334, paras. 7, 22, 23, 26 & 43 with
’936 patent, col. 4,11. 43^49; col. 5,11. 7—10; & Fig. 2; see also App. Br. 3).
The Examiner correctly finds that:
[Watanabe ’334] appreciates the need to prohibit remote control
when the vehicle is in use, that is, during normal use, because
remote control during normal use would be unnecessary and also
undesirable to the occupant present in the vehicle. Further, one
of ordinary skill in the art would [have] appreciate[d] from the
teachings of [Watanabe ’334] that remote control during normal
use may create a safety hazard. However, [Watanabe ’334] does
not contemplate the situation in which the vehicle is in use but
becomes involved in an emergency. This scenario is addressed
by Wada and [Taki ’489], which teach the desirability of
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Appeal 2016-000250
Reexamination Control 96/000,062
Patent No. 8,565,936 B2
enabling remote control in an emergency and how such remote
control is accomplished.
(Ans. 10).
The Examiner correctly finds that Watanabe ’334 “discloses that it is
desirable to prohibit. . . unnecessary or unwanted operation by remote
control when an occupant is present in the vehicle or the vehicle is in use.”
(Ans. 3, citing Watanabe ’334, paras. 2—6). Paragraph 2 of Watanabe ’334
teaches that it is not necessary to operate an on-vehicle device primarily by
means of a portable communications device if the vehicle is occupied.
Because of this, one of ordinary skill in the art had reason to design a remote
control system so as to prohibit remote control of on-vehicle systems of an
occupied vehicle. (See also Watanabe ’334, para. 23). Paragraphs 3 and 4
of Watanabe ’334 teach that a judging means of a remote control system
may determine whether there is a key in the vehicle’s key cylinder (that is, in
the vehicle’s ignition switch) and use that determination as a proxy for
determining if the vehicle is occupied for purposes of deciding whether to
permit or prohibit remote control. (See also Watanabe ’334, para. 23).
Paragraph 4 of Watanabe ’334 points out that one drawback to the use
of a determination whether the key is in the key cylinder as a proxy for
determining if the vehicle is occupied is that the technique cannot be used
when the vehicle has keyless entry, such that the vehicle’s ignition may be
activated without placing a key in a key cylinder. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of
Watanabe ’334 teach that the system may be improved by using a different
parameter as a criterion for deciding whether to permit or prohibit remote
control. Paragraph 10 teaches that a judging means of a remote control
system may determine whether the vehicle is in operation (that is, in use);
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Appeal 2016-000250
Reexamination Control 96/000,062
Patent No. 8,565,936 B2
and to use that determination when deciding whether to permit or prohibit
remote control.
Taki ’489 describes a prior art emergency messaging system for a
vehicle which, when the necessity arose, generated an emergency message
and transmitted that message to a center to be forwarded to a rescue service
such as a police or firefighting service. (See Taki ’489, p. 1,11. 7—28). The
prior art emergency messaging system included a communication device.
The communication device permitted a center operator and an occupant of
the vehicle to communicate with one another so that the center operator
might recognize an emergency message triggered accidently within the
vehicle before forwarding the message to a rescue service. (See Taki ’489,
p. 1,1. 29 —p. 2,1. 11; p. 12,1. 29 —p. 13,1. 3). Taki ’489 additionally
recognizes that the occupant or occupants of a vehicle might be
incapacitated during an emergency, such as a sudden illness or a collision.
Because of this, the occupant may be unable to communicate with the center
operator and verily an emergency when an emergency message is
transmitted to the center. (See Taki ’489, p. 2,11. 14—22). It addresses the
problem by providing the emergency messaging system with the capacity to
transmit visual or other indicators of an occupant’s condition to the center to
assist the center operator in deciding whether to forward an emergency
message to a rescue service. (See Taki ’489 at p. 2,11. 23—32 & p. 3,11. 15—
33).
Recognizing that the occupant or occupants of a vehicle might be
incapacitated during an emergency such as a sudden illness or a collision,
Taki ’489 teaches that the center operator may remotely control various on-
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Appeal 2016-000250
Reexamination Control 96/000,062
Patent No. 8,565,936 B2
vehicle systems after receiving an emergency message. For example, Taki
’489 teaches that the center operator may remotely control the lights and
horn of a vehicle in order to assist others in identifying the vehicle where the
emergency has occurred. (See Taki ’489, p. 7,1. 24 — 8,1. 12). Taki ’489
also teaches remotely operating the brakes and transmission of the vehicle in
the event of an emergency so as to slow or stop a vehicle that an occupant is
unable to control. (See Taki ’489, p. 8,11. 13—27 & 24,11. 8—32).
Wada likewise teaches permitting a service center to remotely control
the lights, horn and door locks of a vehicle in an emergency, to assist rescue
service personnel and others to identify the vehicle in which the emergency
has occurred and to more easily access the occupants of the vehicle. (See
Wada, para.33).
The Supreme Court advises us that, in assessing whether the subject
matter of a claim would have been obvious, it must be asked “whether the
improvement [was] more than the predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions.” KSR Int’l Inc. v. Teleflex Co., 550
U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Remote control of on-vehicle equipment was known.
Watanabe ’334 taught that it was desirable to prohibit remote control of on-
vehicle equipment in an occupied vehicle and that a determination whether
the vehicle was in use might serve as a proxy for whether the vehicle was
occupied. Taki ’489 and Wada taught that it was desirable to permit remote
control of on-vehicle equipment after an emergency message was
transmitted in order to identify the vehicle in which the emergency had
occurred; assist in accessing incapacitated occupants of the vehicle; and
prevent the vehicle from harming others. One of ordinary skill in the art
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Appeal 2016-000250
Reexamination Control 96/000,062
Patent No. 8,565,936 B2
would have desired to incorporate both teachings into a remote control
system for their combined functionality. The Patent Owner does not deny
that one having sufficient skill to implement the teachings of Watanabe ’334
also would have had sufficient skill to modify those teachings to permit
remote control after an emergency message was transmitted. Therefore, the
combination would have been obvious.
The Patent Owner argues that Watanabe ’334 teaches away from the
proposed combination (see App. Br. 9-12 & 21—24; Reply Br. 3—5); and that
the combined teachings of Watanabe ’334, Taki ’489 and Wada would not
have provided one of ordinary skill in the art reason to design the system to
determine the vehicle to be in use based on one signal and in an emergency
condition based on a second, separate signal (see App. Br. 12—18 & 24—30;
Reply Br. 9). As to the first argument, the Examiner correctly points out that
Watanabe ’334 does not address emergency situations, much less criticize or
disparage systems permitting remote control in an emergency. (See Ans.
10).
The Patent Owner’s arguments emphasize the teachings of paragraphs
47 and 48 of Watanabe ’334. (See, e.g., App. Br. 9 & 21). Paragraph 46 of
Watanabe ’334 teaches that some remote control vehicle ignition systems
are configured to prevent remote ignition when the hood or a door of the
vehicle is open. The implication is that remote control of other systems,
such as systems designed to help to find the vehicle, may be permitted while
the hood or a door is open. On the other hand, paragraph 47 teaches that the
on-vehicle remote control system may be configured to prohibit the remote
control of any vehicle system, and not simply the ignition system, whenever
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Appeal 2016-000250
Reexamination Control 96/000,062
Patent No. 8,565,936 B2
the use-state and remote-control determining means 9 determines that the
vehicle is in use. Paragraph 48 affirms that prohibiting the remote control of
any vehicle system whenever the use-state and remote-control determining
means 9 determines that the vehicle is in use provides a reliable or
predictable criterion governing whether remote control will be allowed.
Leaving a hood or a door open does not necessarily indicate an
emergency condition. More generally, the description of the embodiment
detailed in paragraphs 46-48 of Watanabe ’334 does not address permitting
remote control when a vehicle in use enters an emergency condition.
Paragraphs 46-48 alone do not suggest permitting remote control in an
emergency; on the other hand, the paragraphs do not criticize or disparage
remote control systems that permit remote control in an emergency. As
such, paragraphs 46-48 of Watanabe ’334 do not teach away from the
claimed invention.
More fundamentally, Watanabe ’334 teaches that it is undesirable to
remotely control on-vehicle equipment when a vehicle is occupied. (See,
e.g., Watanabe ’334, para. 23). This teaching is of less significance in an
emergency situation, where one or more occupants of the vehicle may be
incapacitated and unable to exercise full control of the vehicle. For this
reason, there is no inconsistency in the teachings of Watanabe ’334 as
opposed to those of Taki 489 and Wada. On the contrary, the teachings of
Taki 489 and Wada complement those of Watanabe ’334.
As to the second argument, our reviewing court has repeatedly
emphasized that obviousness may be proven based on a combination of the
teachings of the references rather than on the basis of an attempt to
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Appeal 2016-000250
Reexamination Control 96/000,062
Patent No. 8,565,936 B2
physically combine the structures of disclosed embodiments. The Patent
Owner correctly points out that Watanabe ’334 teaches that the “judging
means” described may prohibit remote control based on a single
determination, that is, whether the ignition system is in an ACC OFF or
ignition-off condition. (See Watanabe ’334, para. 43). This fact does not
imply that one of ordinary skill in the art seeking to combine the teachings
of the references necessarily would have relied on only one signal to
determine both whether the vehicle was in-use and whether the vehicle was
in an emergency condition. Indeed, Taki ’489 and Wada teach generating an
emergency message and permitting remote control in response to either a
signal automatically generated when a collision occurs and an air bag is
deployed; or a signal manually generated when an occupant presses a “help”
button. (See, e.g., Taki ’489, p. 13,11. 4—21).
The determination whether the ignition system is in an ACC OFF or
ignition-off condition is a poor criterion for determining whether an
emergency condition exists in the vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art
seeking to combine the advantages of the systems described by Watanabe
’334, Taki ’489 and Wada would have relied on different signals to indicate
that the vehicle was in-use and in an emergency condition because an in-use
determination alone would not have sufficed to indicate an emergency
condition. Although reliance on different signals to indicate that the vehicle
was in-use and in an emergency condition would have required modification
of the system to receive and process both indications, one having sufficient
skill to implement the system described by Watanabe ’334 would have been
capable of such modification. The desire to combine the advantages taught
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Appeal 2016-000250
Reexamination Control 96/000,062
Patent No. 8,565,936 B2
by Watanabe ’334, Taki ’489 and Wada would have provided sufficient
reason to undertake the necessary modification.
Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner correctly rejected
claims 1—10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Watanabe
’334, Wada and Taki ’489.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s sole ground of rejection and, in doing
so, affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—10.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(vi). A party seeking judicial review must timely serve notice
on the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. See 37
C.F.R. § 90.1 and 3 C.F.R. § 1.983.
AFFIRMED
Patent Owner:
Mori & Ward FFP
225 Reinekers Fane
Suite 690
Alexandria, VA 22314
17