Ex Parte Ampunan et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 4, 201111062404 - (D) (B.P.A.I. May. 4, 2011) Copy Citation 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. 11/062,404 02/22/2005 Nathan D. Ampunan GP-305792 7701 60770 7590 05/04/2011 General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. P.O. BOX 4390 TROY, MI 48099-4390 EXAMINER MUSTAFA, IMRAN K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3663 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/04/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ________________ Ex parte NATHAN D. AMPUNAN, SYLVIA C. KARMANOFF and STEVEN J. ROSS ________________ Appeal 2010-001376 Application 11/062,404 Technology Center 3600 ________________ Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, JOHN C. KERINS and MICHAEL L. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal No. 2010-001376 Application No. 11/062,404 2 A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal by the real party in interest, General Motors Corporation, [hereinafter “Appellant”] under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a final rejection of claims 1-11 and 17, the only claims on appeal. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. References Relied on by the Examiner Marko et al. U.S. 2003/0216889 A1 Nov. 20, 2003 DePrez et al. U.S. 2004/0064221 A1 Apr. 1, 2004 The Invention This invention pertains to a vehicle’s telematics unit that, upon a user’s command, wirelessly requests and receives vehicle data and, upon such receipt, wirelessly transmits that data to a monitoring station. Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A method of testing vehicle functions in a vehicle, the method comprising: receiving a user command inputted by a user at a vehicle telematics unit; sending a sensor data request from the telematics unit to at least one sensor via a short-range wireless connection based on the command; receiving data from the sensor at the telematics unit of the vehicle via a short-range wireless connection; and sending the received data from the telematics unit to an engineering monitoring station via a wireless connection. (App. Br. Claims App’x 13). Appeal No. 2010-001376 Application No. 11/062,404 3 The Rejection on Appeal 1. Claims 1-11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious in view of Marko and DePrez (Ans. 3). B. ISSUE Would one of ordinary skill in the art have had reason to construct a telematics unit that wirelessly requests and receives vehicle data for submission to a monitoring station when it was known that telematics units can communicate between a vehicle’s sensors and a monitoring station? C. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Marko discloses a vehicle telematics unit whose operation is triggered by “operator initiated button presses” (Marko ¶ [0016]). 2. Marko’s telematics unit wirelessly communicates with a vehicle’s sensors (Marko Fig. 1 and ¶¶ [00013] and [0027]). 3. Marko specifically teaches that “data requests are sent” to the vehicle’s sensors and that the received data is stored for subsequent transmission (Marko Fig. 6 and ¶¶ [0056] and [0057]).). 4. Marko’s telematics unit further communicates with a monitoring station “via an RF antenna” (i.e. wireless) (Marko Fig. 2 and ¶ [0036]). 5. Marko teaches that upon being triggered, data “both prior to and after the trigger event” is sent to the monitoring station (Marko ¶ [0014]). 6. DePrez discloses a vehicle control system that communicates with vehicle sensors based on established standards “for short-range wireless communications” (DePrez Title and ¶ [0019]). Appeal No. 2010-001376 Application No. 11/062,404 4 7. DePrez discloses many benefits of wireless communications in vehicles including the absence of wire installation costs, the elimination of wires and their connectors as the source of a malfunction and the ability to install sensors in areas where wires would be problematic (DePrez ¶ [0007]). D. PRINCIPLES OF LAW “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). E. ANALYSIS Appellant only presents arguments with respect to independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2 and 11. The arguments for dependent claims 2 and 11 are similar and they will be addressed together. The remaining claims (claims 3-10 and 17) stand or fall with these argued claims. 37 CFR 41.207(b)(1). 1. Claim 1 is Obvious in View of Marko and DePrez Claim 1 requires a user-operated telematics unit that sends a “data request” to a vehicle sensor “via a short-range wireless connection.” The Examiner finds that Marko discloses all the limitations of claim 1 with the exception of data being received “via a short range wireless connection” for which DePrez is relied upon (Ans. 3-4). The Examiner finds that the “motivation of using fewer wires” would cause “one skilled in the art to connect the sensor to the module over a wireless connection” (Ans. 4). Appellant contends that Marko’s telematics unit “does not send a data request” nor does it have a reason to send a data request to a vehicle’s sensor Appeal No. 2010-001376 Application No. 11/062,404 5 (App. Br. 7-9, Reply Br. 1-2). Appellant contends that Marko’s telematics unit passively receives data from a vehicle’s sensors in anticipation of a triggering event and that triggering the unit only identifies the previously- received data that is to be transmitted (App. Br. 7-9, Reply Br. 2). We disagree. Appellant’s claim 1 employs the open-ended transitional phrase “comprising” and Appellant has not specifically defined a “data request” as excluding the request for and receipt of previously recorded data. Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“‘Comprising’ is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.”). Thus, Appellant’s contention that Marko does not teach sending a data request to a vehicle’s sensor is not persuasive in light of the fact that Marko’s telematics unit, after being activated, collects data from the sensor and transmits both newly-collected and past vehicle sensor data (Marko ¶ [0014]). Furthermore, Marko specifically states that “data requests are sent” to the vehicle’s sensors (Marko ¶ [0056] and Fig. 6). Marko also states that the telematics unit can gather information from the vehicle’s sensors “upon demand” (Marko ¶ [0015]). Accordingly, we find that one skilled in the art would have understood that Marko teaches sending a data request to a vehicle’s sensor. Appellant also contends that DePrez does not make up for the deficiencies of Marko and that the Examiner has failed to identify how either Marko or DePrez “would be modified” to render this subject matter obvious (App. Br. 9-10, Reply Br. 2-3). Appellant specifically contends that DePrez Appeal No. 2010-001376 Application No. 11/062,404 6 fails to disclose or otherwise teach “sending a sensor data request” (App. Br. 9, Reply Br. 3). “Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references." In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). DePrez was not referenced by the Examiner for its teaching of sending a data request as alleged. Instead, DePrez was referenced by the Examiner for teaching the transmission of vehicle sensor data “via a short range wireless connection” as required in claim 1 (Ans. 4). DePrez discloses the benefit of wireless connectivity in a vehicle as including the ability to design systems “without regard for wiring requirements” and that such connectivity eliminates the wires and their connectors as “a possible source of malfunction” (DePrez ¶ [0007]). Appellant does not dispute that this manner of vehicle data transmission was known and Appellant does not dispute that DePrez teaches this manner. Accordingly, we hold that one skilled in the art would have understood that it was known to communicate with vehicle sensors via short-range wireless connections in view of DePrez. Based on the record presented, we hold that claim 1 is directed to a combination of known elements (short-range wireless connections and a vehicle telematics unit) for their known purpose (wireless connectivity and data collection) to achieve a predictable result (wireless transmission of vehicle data). We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as being obvious in view of Marko and DePrez. Appeal No. 2010-001376 Application No. 11/062,404 7 2. Dependent claims 2 and 11 are Obvious in View of Marko and DePrez Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and further comprises a user command that occurs remotely and is transmitted wirelessly to the telematics unit. Claim 11 also requires a wireless user command but claim 11 is dependent on claim 10. The Examiner finds that Marko discloses such a remote user command while Appellant contends that because Marko does not send a data request, Marko does not teach sending a user command from a remote location that is then used to send a data request (Ans. 4; App. Br. 11). We disagree with Appellant for the reasons stated above and because Marko specifically teaches that “remote queries allowing vehicle data to be gathered” can be made and that Marko’s system can respond to a “remote command” (Marko ¶¶ [0016] and [0019]).). Based on the record presented, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 11. We also affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3-10 and 17 as these claims were not separately argued. F. CONCLUSION OF LAW One of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to construct a telematics unit that wirelessly requests and receives vehicle data for submission to a monitoring station when it was known that telematics units can communicate between a vehicle’s sensors and a monitoring station. G. ORDER 1. The rejection of claims 1-11 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious in view of Marko and DePrez is affirmed. Appeal No. 2010-001376 Application No. 11/062,404 8 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED ak Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation