Ex Parte Adams et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 30, 2009

10249088 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 30, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte THOMAS LEE ADAMS and JAMES M. DOHERTY
____________

Appeal 2008-5164
Application 10/249,088
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided:1 March 30, 2009
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, STEVEN D.A. MCCARTHY, and
STEFAN STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2008-5164
Application 10/249,088

2
Thomas Lee Adams et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-8. We have jurisdiction
over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6 (2002).

THE INVENTION
The Appellants’ invention is drawn towards a network-based home
vehicular management system (located within a vehicle), including a global
positioning system (GPS) 106 for determining location information, a data
logger 110 that is operatively linked with the GPS, and a wireless network
interface 108 capable of communicating with at least one home gateway
102. The data logger 110 periodically collects and stores location
information when the home vehicular management system is outside of a
fixed wireless network coverage area 112. When the home vehicular
management system is within the fixed wireless network coverage area 112
the wireless network interface 108 is triggered to transmit the stored location
information to the home gateway 102. The home gateway 102 then
forwards the location information to a network-based service location 105,
which utilizes the received location information to offer various historical
vehicular position services. Specification 3, para. [0018] and fig. 1.
Claims 1 and 4 are representative of the claimed invention and read as
follows:
1. A network-based home vehicular management system,
said network comprising a wireless network having a
fixed network coverage area, said system comprising:

a. a global positioning system (GPS) identifying
location information;

Appeal 2008-5164
Application 10/249,088
3
b. a data logger operatively linked with said GPS,
said data logger periodically collecting and storing
location information when said home vehicular
management system is outside said fixed wireless
network coverage area; and

c. a wireless network interface, said wireless network
interface capable of communicating with a
gateway associated with said wireless network via
the IEEE 802.11b protocol to transmit said stored
location information, said transmission triggered
when said home vehicular management system is
within the same fixed wireless network coverage
area,

whereby said transmitted stored location information is
forwarded to a remote network-based service location via
said gateway, said remote network-based service location
offering historical vehicular position services.

4. A method for receiving historical vehicular position
services, said method implemented in a gateway device
located in a premises, said gateway device capable of
communicating over a wireless and wired network, said
wireless network defining a fixed network coverage area
with respect to said premises, said method comprising the
steps of:

a. identifying when a vehicle enters said fixed
network coverage area, said vehicle equipped with
a global positioning system (GPS) for identifying
location information, a logging system for
periodically collecting and storing location
information when said vehicle is outside said fixed
network coverage area, and a wireless network
interface for communicating with said wireless
network via the IEEE 802.11b protocol;
Appeal 2008-5164
Application 10/249,088
4
b. establishing a wireless communication link with a
network interface when said vehicle is within the
same fixed network coverage area;
c. wirelessly receiving said stored location
information that was collected when said vehicle
was outside said fixed network coverage area;
d. forwarding said wirelessly received location
information to a service location over said wired
network, said service location identifying historical
vehicular position services based upon said
received location information; and
e. receiving said identified historical vehicular
position services.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:

Westerlage US 5,970,481 Oct. 19, 1999
Flick US 6,819,269 B2 Nov. 16, 2004

Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (Specification 1-3) (herein referred to
as “AAPA”).

The following rejections are before us for review:2,3

2 We refer herein to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”), filed April 24, 2006,
the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed October 10, 2006, and the Examiner’s
Answer (“Answer”), mailed February 5, 2007.
3 The rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for
failure to comply with the written description requirement, was withdrawn
by the Examiner. Answer 3.
Appeal 2008-5164
Application 10/249,088
5
The Examiner rejected claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Westerlage in view of AAPA.
The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Westerlage in view of AAPA and further in view of Flick.

THE ISSUES
1. Have the Appellants demonstrated that the Examiner erred in
determining that Westerlage discloses a vehicular management
system in which the transmission of periodically collected and
stored location information to a home gateway device is
triggered when the vehicle is within a “fixed wireless network
coverage area?”
2. Have the Appellants demonstrated that the Examiner erred in
determining that the combined teachings of Westerlage and
Flick disclose transmitting vehicle information to a remote
location when the vehicle is within a “fixed network coverage
area,” and based on the vehicle information notifying the user
of the vehicle of any “notifications of preventive maintenance”
(as required by claim 7)?
3. Have the Appellants demonstrated that the Examiner erred in
determining that Westerlage discloses offering historical
vehicular position services including any one of notifications
regarding maximum speed exceptions, notifications regarding
acceptable routes or destinations, notifications of preventive
maintenance, or tax oriented record keeping services (as
required by claim 2)?
Appeal 2008-5164
Application 10/249,088
6
4. Have the Appellants demonstrated that the Examiner erred in
determining that Westerlage discloses the step of
“authenticating a subscriber” (as required in claim 8)?

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are supported by at
least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d
1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for
proceedings before the Office).
1. Westerlage discloses a system 10 for determining the tax of a vehicle
20 traveling from a point of origin X located in taxing region 1 to a
destination Y located in a taxing region 2. The system includes a
mobile unit 22 that uses a global positioning system 50 (GPS) to
determine the location of the vehicle 20, a dispatch 30 (network based
service location) that receives information from the mobile unit 22 for
determining the distance traveled and assessing the appropriate tax,
and a communication link 40 (wireless network) for transmitting
information between the mobile unit 22 of the vehicle 20 and the
dispatch 30. Westerlage, col. 2, l. 66 through col. 3, l. 2, ll. 42-43, and
54-56; col. 4, ll. 44-48 and 52-60; col. 6, ll. 24-26 and 63-67 and fig.
1.
2. The communication link 40 includes at least one receiver site 44
(home gateway) that receives vehicle information from the mobile
Appeal 2008-5164
Application 10/249,088
7
unit 22 and a mobile telecommunications switching office (MTSO) 42
that couples the receiver site 44 to the dispatch 30. Westerlage, col. 5,
ll. 5-8 and fig. 1. The vehicle information is encoded using traditional
data encoders, such as a modem or a dual-tone multi-frequency
(DTMF) coder/decoder. Westerlage, col. 5, ll. 13-16.
3. The mobile unit 22 includes a mobile positioning receiver 80 and a
mobile communications device 90. The mobile positioning receiver
80 receives positioning information from the GPS system 50 and
processes the positioning information using a controller 86 and data
stored within a memory 88. The mobile communications device 90
transmits and receives vehicle information to and from the dispatch 30
using a transceiver 94 and an antenna 92 (wireless network interface)
and a receiver site 44 (home gateway) of the communication link 40.
Westerlage, col. 16, ll. 21-44 and fig. 9.
4. The mobile unit 22 further includes a processor 100 and a memory
102 (data logger) for generating and storing vehicle information
which is routed to the transceiver 94 of the mobile communications
device 90 and transmitted to the dispatch 30 (network based service
location) using the communication link 40. Westerlage, col. 16, l. 58
and l. 65 through col. 17, l. 4.
5. The memory 102 (data logger) stores the region through which the
vehicle is traveling (location information), the miles traveled through
the region, the associated tax for that region, and the determined tax
for that region. Westerlage, col. 19, ll. 48-50 and fig. 11.
6. The transceiver 94 transmits vehicle information to a remote location,
i.e., dispatch 30, when a “configurable condition” is reached such as, a
Appeal 2008-5164
Application 10/249,088
8
“full memory buffer” or a “minimum signal strength [is] received
from communication link 40.” Westerlage, col. 4, ll. 60-67.
7. The Appellants specifically define a “fixed network coverage area” as
an area “within which the home gateway device 102 is able to
communicate wirelessly with the network interface 108 of the vehicle
based system.” Specification 5, para. [0025].
8. The Examiner defines the term “gateway” to be a “device that
connects networks using different communication protocols so that
information can be passed from one network to another.” Answer 13-
14; see also ATIS Telecom Glossary 2007,
http://www.atis.org/glossary/ definition.aspx?id=4990 (last visited
March 27, 2009). Further, the Examiner explains that the term
“home” merely implies that the information is transmitted through a
“gateway” that is located in a particularly designated network
coverage area, which is the same location as the dispatch 30 (the
“home”). Answer 14. The Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s
interpretation.
9. In an embodiment of Westerlage, the dispatch 30 determines the
distance traveled by the vehicle and the tax after receiving vehicle
information from the mobile unit 22. Westerlage, col. 4, ll. 56-58.
10. The information received by the mobile unit 22 from the dispatch 30
in the system of Westerlage includes destination information such as,
appointment information for each destination, tasks to be performed at
each destination, average travel time to each destination, routing
information, rush hour and traffic information, and weather
information and also any information that facilitates the “control or
Appeal 2008-5164
Application 10/249,088
9
monitoring of vehicle 20.” Westerlage, col. 6, ll. 26-39 and col. 7, ll.
26-28.
11. The vehicle information transmitted to the dispatch 30 from the
mobile unit 22 may include vehicle positions, actual time and mileage
at which vehicle 20 travels from one taxing region into another, the
actual route over which vehicle 20 travels, points through which
vehicle 20 passes, the determined distance and tax in a taxing region,
the time of reporting, or information input by the vehicle operator, as
well as any other information collected by processor 100 from various
sensors 108 such as, various engine sensors, truck trailer sensors,
security monitors, or other devices generating information on the
status or condition of mobile unit 22, vehicle 20, or its operator.
Westerlage, col. 17, ll. 64 through col. 18, l. 8.
12. Flick discloses a vehicle tracking system 20 including a vehicle
tracking unit 25 and a remote monitoring station 30. The vehicle
tracking unit 25 includes a controller 40, a vehicle position
determining device 42 (GPS), and a wireless communicating device
44. Flick, col. 5, ll. 32-36 and col. 6, ll. 13-18 and figs. 1 and 2.
13. When the controller 40 of Flick receives a signal from the remote
monitoring station 30, the controller 40 may be used in a diagnostic
mode in which the output driver circuits 53, that are connected to
vehicle devices such as the ignition switch 65, the battery 61, or the
door lock-actuator 62, are tested, such that the user may determine
which of the vehicle devices are not functioning properly. Flick, col.
41, ll. 58-62 and col. 42, ll. 13-15 and Fig. 2.
14. The communication between the mobile unit 22 and the receiver site
44 of Westerlage is accomplished using cellular digital packet data
Appeal 2008-5164
Application 10/249,088
10
(CDPD) technology, code division multiple access (CDMA), time
division multiple access (TDMA), or cellular telephone technology.
Westerlage, col. 5, ll. 36-39 and 57-66.
15. The Examiner finds, and the Appellant does not contest, that a well
known aspect of CDMA cellular phone technology involves a “spread
spectrum” in which each user has a particular code that cannot be used
by others. Answer 8. That is, “the call or communications of one
subscriber are coded digitally and cannot be intercepted by another or
unintended user of the system.” Answer 15-16.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Obviousness
It is elementary that to support an obviousness rejection all words in a
claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against
the prior art. In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970).
"Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when 'the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.'" KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, _, 127
S. Ct. 1727, 1734 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the
basis of underlying factual determinations including (1) the scope and
content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject
matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) where in
evidence, so-called secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co.,
383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See also KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1734 ("While the
Appeal 2008-5164
Application 10/249,088
11
sequence of these questions might be reordered in any particular case, the
[Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that controls.")

Burden
The USPTO has the initial burden of providing a basis in fact and/or
technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that an allegedly
inherent characteristic reasonably flows from the teachings of the applied
prior art. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Once the
USPTO establishes a prima facie case of anticipation based on inherency,
the burden shifts to the applicant to prove that the prior art does not possess
the characteristic at issue. See Id. This is the case whether the rejection is
based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102, prima facie obviousness under
35 U.S.C. § 103, or both alternatively. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255
(CCPA 1977).

OPINION
Issue (1)
The Appellants argue that Westerlage does not disclose a “fixed
wireless network coverage area,” but rather a “plurality of predefined
regions that ‘correspond to boundaries of taxing authorities.’” App. Br. 8.
See also App. Br. 14 and Reply Br. 2-3. Emphasis in original. Further, the
Appellants argue that while in the claimed invention the “data logger
collects and stores location information when the network-based vehicular
management system is outside the fixed network coverage area,” the system
of Westerlage records location and region information throughout each
predefined region that the vehicle travels through. App. Br. 9-10. Emphasis
in original. In other words, as we understand, the Appellants are arguing
Appeal 2008-5164
Application 10/249,088
12
that in contrast to the claimed invention, which collects and stores location
information when the vehicle is outside the fixed network coverage area and
then transmits it when the vehicle enters the fixed network coverage area,
the system of Westerlage collects, stores, and transmits information
continuously as the vehicle passes through the different tax regions. As
such, according to the Appellants, in the system of Westerlage the
transmission of the position information is not triggered when the vehicle
enters within a fixed network coverage area. App. Br. 10. See also App. Br.
15 and Reply Br. 3.
As noted above, Westerlage discloses a system 10 for determining the
tax of a vehicle 20 traveling from a point of origin X located in taxing region
1 to a destination Y located in a taxing region 2 (FF 1). The system of
Westerlage includes a mobile unit 22 that uses a global positioning system
50 (GPS) to determine the location of the vehicle 20, a dispatch 30 (network
based service location) that receives information from the mobile unit 22 and
determines the distance traveled and the appropriate tax, and a
communication link 40 for transmitting the information (wireless network)
(FF 1). The mobile unit 22 includes a mobile positioning receiver 80 that
receives positioning information from the GPS system 50 and processes the
positioning information (FF 3). Further, Westerlage discloses a processor
100 and a memory 102 (data logger) which stores the miles traveled through
a region, the associated tax for that region, and the determined tax for that
region (FF 4 and 5). The mobile unit 22 of Westerlage further includes a
mobile communications device 90 that transmits and receives vehicle
information to and from the dispatch 30 using a transceiver 94, an antenna
92 (wireless network interface) and a receiver site 44 (home gateway) of the
communication link 40 (FF 3). Hence, we find that Westerlage discloses a
Appeal 2008-5164
Application 10/249,088
13
vehicular based system that includes a GPS system for determining the
position of the vehicle as it travels through predefined regions, a memory for
storing the position information (data logger), and a communication link
(wireless network and wireless network interface) that transmits the position
information from the memory to a remote location (remote network-based
service location) via a site receiver (home gateway).
Moreover, Westerlage specifically discloses that the position
information is transmitted to the remote location when a “configurable
condition” is reached, such as a “minimum signal strength [is] received from
communication link 40” (FF 6). We find that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would understand from this disclosure that transmission occurs when
the mobile unit 22 of Westerlage receives “minimum signal strength.” The
same person of ordinary skill in the art would further infer that if the
“minimum signal strength” is not received by the mobile unit 22 of
Westerlage, transmission of the position information to the remote location
does not occur. As such, the vehicular based system of Westerlage stores
the position information and transmits it to the remote location only when it
receives “minimum signal strength.” Furthermore, as noted above, the
Appellants specifically define a “fixed network coverage area” as an area
“within which the home gateway device is able to communicate wirelessly
with the network interface 108 of the vehicle based system” (FF 7). In other
words, a “fixed network coverage area” is merely an area in which the home
gateway device is able to communicate wirelessly with the network
interface. Applying the Appellants’ definition of a “fixed network coverage
area,” we find that the regions in Westerlage in which the mobile unit 22 has
minimum signal strength sufficient to transmit position information
wirelessly to the remote dispatch location (network based service location)
Appeal 2008-5164
Application 10/249,088
14
via the receiver site 44 (home gateway) satisfy the limitation of a “fixed
network coverage area.” Moreover, because transmission occurs only in the
presence of “minimum signal strength,” we find that transmission of the
position information in the system of Westerlage is triggered when the
vehicle enters within such a region, i.e., a “fixed network coverage area,” as
required by claims 1 and 4.
With respect to claim 1, the Appellants also argue that the cellular
receiver site 44 of Westerlage does not constitute a “home gateway” that
receives location information from a network-based home vehicular
management system when the system is within a fixed wireless network
coverage area, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 12. Emphasis added. At
the outset, we note that the Appellants’ Specification does not expressly
define the term “home gateway.” However, as noted above, a person of
ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications would reasonably understand
that a “home gateway” is a device that is located in a particular designated
network coverage area and connects networks using different
communication protocols so that information can be passed from one
network to another (FF 8). The mobile communications device 90 of the
mobile unit 22 transmits and receives vehicle information to and from the
dispatch 30 using a transceiver 94, an antenna 92, and a receiver site 44
(cellular) (FF 2). Hence, the receiver site 44 of Westerlage is located in the
network area coverage of the dispatch 30 (“home” area) and wirelessly
connects the network of the mobile unit 22 with the network of the dispatch
30. Therefore, we are in full agreement with the Examiner that the receiver
site 44 of Westerlage constitutes a “home gateway.” Lastly, we note that, as
detailed supra, the mobile unit 22 of Westerlage transmits the position
information wirelessly to the remote dispatch location 30 (network based
Appeal 2008-5164
Application 10/249,088
15
service location) via the receiver site 44 (home gateway) when a “minimum
signal strength” is present (FF 6), i.e., when the vehicle is in a “fixed
network coverage area.”
For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 and 4 over Westerlage in view of AAPA. Accordingly,
the rejection of claims 1 and 4 as unpatentable over Westerlage in view of
AAPA is sustained.
With respect to claim 3, the Appellants make the same argument as
previously presented with respect to the rejection of claim 4. This argument
is unpersuasive for the same reasons provided supra in our analysis of the
obviousness rejection over the combined teachings of Westerlage and
AAPA. Therefore, the rejection of claim 3 as unpatentable over Westerlage
in view of AAPA is sustained.
Lastly, with respect to claims 5 and 6, the Appellants have not
presented arguments for patentability apart from claim 4. Therefore, claims
5 and 6 fall with claim 4. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 5 and 6 as
unpatentable over Westerlage in view of AAPA is likewise sustained.

Issue (2)
The Appellants argue that,
Flick, either by itself or in combination with
Westerlage, fails to teach transmission of
information when the vehicle is within the same
fixed network coverage area, wherein such
information is then used for preventive
maintenance.

App. Br. 15.
Appeal 2008-5164
Application 10/249,088
16
As noted above, Westerlage discloses a vehicular based system that
includes a GPS system for determining the position of the vehicle, a memory
for storing the position information (data logger), and a communication link
(wireless network and wireless network interface) that transmits the position
information from the memory to a remote location (remote network-based
service location) via a site receiver (home gateway) when a “minimum
signal strength” is present (FF 6), i.e., when the vehicle is in a “fixed
network coverage area.” Further, Westerlage discloses that vehicle
information transmitted to the dispatch 30 from the mobile unit 22 may
include information collected by processor 100 from sensor 108 such as
various engine sensors, truck trailer sensors, security monitors, or other
devices generating information on the status or condition of the vehicle 20
(FF 11). Furthermore, Westerlage discloses that the information received by
the mobile unit 22 from the dispatch 30 includes any information that
facilitates the “control or monitoring of vehicle 20” (FF 10). Emphasis
added.
We find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably
infer from this language that based on the vehicle information received from
the mobile unit 22 the dispatch 30 transmits information that can be used to
determine the operational condition of the vehicle and hence whether the
vehicle is operating within normal parameters. Flick discloses a vehicle
tracking system 20 including a vehicle tracking unit 25 and a remote
monitoring station 30 (FF 12). The vehicle tracking unit 25 includes a
controller 40, a vehicle position determining device 42 (GPS), and a wireless
communicating device 44 (FF 12). When the controller 40 receives a signal
from the remote monitoring station 30, the controller 40 may be used in a
diagnostic mode in which the output driver circuits 53 that are connected to
Appeal 2008-5164
Application 10/249,088
17
vehicle devices such as the ignition switch 65, the battery 61, or the door
lock-actuator 62 are tested, such that the user of the vehicle may determine
which of the vehicle devices are not functioning properly (FF 13). Hence,
we agree with the Examiner that “it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art of wireless communications to modify the
Westerlage device as taught by [F]lick for the purpose of better maintaining
the performance of a vehicle.” Answer 8.
In conclusion, we find that the combined teachings of Westerlage and
Flick would reasonably suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art
transmitting vehicle information to a remote location (remote network-based
service location), when the vehicle is in a “fixed network coverage area,”
and based on the vehicle information notifying the user of the vehicle of any
problems with the vehicle, hence notifying the user of any “notifications of
preventive maintenance,” as required by claim 7. Accordingly, the rejection
of claim 7 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Westerlage,
AAPA, and Flick is sustained.

Issue (3)
The Appellants argue that Westerlage does not disclose offering
historical vehicular position services such as notifications regarding
maximum speed exceptions, notifications regarding acceptable routes or
destinations, notifications of preventive maintenance, or tax oriented record
keeping services, as required by claim 2. App. Br. 13. In response, the
Examiner takes the position that Westerlage discloses “tax oriented record
keeping services.” Answer 15. We agree with the Examiner. Westerlage
specifically discloses that after receiving vehicle information from the
mobile unit 22, the dispatch 30 determines the distance traveled by the
Appeal 2008-5164
Application 10/249,088
18
vehicle and the tax (FF 9). Moreover, Westerlage discloses that the dispatch
30 transmits to the mobile unit destination information such as, appointment
information for each destination, tasks to be performed at each destination,
average travel time to each destination, routing information, rush hour and
traffic information, and weather information and also any information that
facilitates the “control or monitoring of vehicle 20” (FF 10). Hence, we find
that Westerlage discloses at least notifications regarding acceptable routes or
destinations and notifications of tax oriented record keeping services, as
required by claim 2. In conclusion, the rejection of claim 2 as unpatentable
over Westerlage in view of AAPA is likewise sustained.

Issue (4)
The Appellants argue that Westerlage does not disclose a step of
authenticating a subscriber, as recited in claim 8, “for providing historical
vehicular position services” to the user of a vehicle. App. Br. 16.
Westerlage discloses that the communication between the mobile unit 22
and the receiver site 44 is accomplished using cellular digital packet data
(CDPD) technology, code division multiple access (CDMA), time division
multiple access (TDMA), or cellular telephone technology (FF 14). The
Examiner explains that,
It is inherent that the technologies used in the
above communication modes must authenticate a
user or a subscriber using the system. If no
authentication took place then the account of one
person could not be differentiated from that of
another. In addition, CDMA, TDMA, and
cellular technologies implement spread spectrum,
a technology which assures that the call or
communications of one subscriber are coded
digitally and cannot be intercepted by another or
Appeal 2008-5164
Application 10/249,088
19
unintended user of the system. The host or
receiver of the information transmitted from a
subscriber must have a special decoder to decode
the coded messages from the subscriber, hence
authentication. Westerlage et al (col. 5, lines 30-
32) also disclose that information shared between
the components of their system is validated,
implying "authentication". Therefore, a
subscriber can only receive the calls or
communication intended for that particular
subscriber.

Answer 15-16.
We agree with the Examiner’s position that because Westerlage
discloses “communications using CDMA, TDMA, cellular, and information
validation, the prior art [satisfies] the limitation ‘authenticating a
subscriber.” Answer 16. Furthermore, we note the well known aspect of at
least CDMA cellular phone technology where the call of a phone user
(subscriber) is encoded such that the call cannot be intercepted by
unintended users and only the user that has the decoder can receive the call
(see FF 15). Hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate
that providing an encoded transmission (authentication) would provide the
same benefits to the method of Westerlage of providing a secure channel of
communication between the subscriber and the user of the vehicle.
Moreover, the Appellants have not come forward with any evidence
contraverting the Examiner’s finding that authentication is not inbuilt to
communications using CDMA, TDMA, cellular, and information validation
technology. In conclusion, the rejection of claim 8 as unpatentable over the
combined teachings of Westerlage, AAPA, and Flick is also sustained.

CONCLUSIONS
Appeal 2008-5164
Application 10/249,088
20
1. The Appellants have failed to demonstrate that the Examiner erred in
determining that Westerlage discloses a vehicular management system
in which the transmission of periodically collected and stored location
information to a home gateway device is triggered when the vehicle is
within a fixed wireless network coverage area.
2. The Appellants have failed to demonstrate that the Examiner erred in
determining that the combined teachings of Westerlage and Flick
would have suggested transmitting vehicle information to a remote
location when the vehicle is in a “fixed network coverage area,” and
based on the vehicle information notifying the user of the vehicle of
any “notifications of preventive maintenance.”
3. The Appellants have failed to demonstrate that the Examiner erred in
determining that Westerlage discloses offering historical vehicular
position services such as notifications regarding maximum speed
exceptions, notifications regarding acceptable routes or destinations,
notifications of preventive maintenance, or tax oriented record
keeping services, as required by claim 2.
4. The Appellants have failed to demonstrate that the Examiner erred in
determining that Westerlage discloses the step of “authenticating a
subscriber,” as required by claim 8.

Appeal 2008-5164
Application 10/249,088
21
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-8 is affirmed.
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)(1)(iv) (2007).

AFFIRMED

hh

IP AUTHORITY, LLC
RAMRAJ SOUNDARARAJAN
4821A EISENHOWER AVE
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22304