Ex Parte Bai et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2012

11839700 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2012)

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.
11/839,700 08/16/2007 Fan Bai GP-309327-RD-MJL 8984
65798 7590 09/26/2012
MILLER IP GROUP, PLC
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
42690 WOODWARD AVENUE
SUITE 200
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304
EXAMINER
MORTELL, JOHN F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2012 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 FAN BAI and UPALI PRIYANTHA MUDALIGE
____________

Appeal 2011-007575
Application 11/839,700
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2011-007575
Application 11/839,700

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a message management
protocol that continually transmits messages to a group of vehicles for a
certain period of time and within a certain region when a hazardous road
condition is detected (Spec. ¶ [0001]).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A method for providing a warning message to a
group of vehicles, said method comprising:

detecting a hazardous situation by a detecting vehicle;

broadcasting a warning message from the detecting
vehicle;

broadcasting the message by other vehicles until the
message is received by all of the vehicles in a region of interest
even if the detecting vehicle has left the region of interest;

preventing the warning message from being broadcast for
a first predetermined period of time after the vehicles in the
region of the interest have received the message;

selecting a host vehicle to re-broadcast the message after
the first predetermined period of time has expired;

preventing the message from being broadcast again for
the first predetermined period of time;

repeating the step of determining a host vehicle for re-
broadcasting the message; and

ending the broadcast of the message after a second
predetermined period of time has expired.

Appeal 2011-007575
Application 11/839,700

3
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18,
and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Reumerman
(US Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0186206 A1, Aug. 7, 2008,
filed Jun. 25, 2007), Bachir, and Benslimane, “A Multicast Protocol in Ad
hoc Networks Inter-Vehicle Geocast,” 57(4) Proceedings of 58th IEEE
Vehicular Technology Conference, 2456-24601 (2003) (hereinafter
“Bachir”).
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 11, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Reumerman, Bachir, and Mosko (US Patent
Application Publication No. 2008/0002573 A1, Jan. 3, 2008).
The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Reumerman, Bachir, and Ghosh (US Patent
7,466,664 B2, Dec. 16, 2008).
The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Reumerman, Bachir, Bauer (US Patent
7,427,929 B2, Sept. 23, 2008), and McMillin (US Patent 7,027,773 B1, Apr.
11, 2006).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the “combination of Bachir with Reumerman
results in a system that continues to re-broadcast a message according to the
defer time until the time limit disclosed by Reumerman has expired” (Ans.
20-21). The “time limit disclosed by Reumerman sets an absolute limit on
the overall time period during which vehicles will broadcast and re-
broadcast a message. Bachir teaches the amount of time an individual
Appeal 2011-007575
Application 11/839,700

4
vehicle waits between re-broadcast of the message” (Ans. 21). The
Examiner then acknowledges Reumerman does not specify a period for re-
broadcasting a message and reasons Reumerman does not conflict with
Bachir, which discloses the amount of time an individual vehicle waits
before re-broadcasting a message. Therefore, the Examiner asserts,
Reumerman discloses a time period governing the overall time during which
re-broadcasting occurs and Bachir discloses a time period governing the
amount of time between individual re-broadcasts. (Ans. 31) The Examiner
then finds that Reumerman and Bachir can be combined to obtain
Appellants’ invention as the time limit disclosed by Reumerman is
consistent with the defer time disclosed by Bachir (Ans. 31-32).
Appellants contend Reumerman discloses a vehicle automatically re-
broadcasts a message until a specified time to live expires, i.e., during a time
to live (App. Br. 14, 17; Reumerman, ¶¶ [0079], [0082]). In contrast,
Appellants’ claimed invention re-broadcasts a message only to a new set of
vehicles after a predetermined period of time (Ans. 14). Appellants also
contend Bachir discloses a protocol wherein a decision to re-broadcast or
delete a message is based on the relevancy of the message and not the
expiration of a second predetermined period of time (App. Br. 15). That is,
Bachir re-broadcasts messages if they are relevant and after the expiration of
a defer time. Appellants then assert the conditions associated with
Reumerman only stop the re-broadcast, they do not initiate the re-broadcast,
and thus, there is no reason to combine these two references as they teach
the opposite of each other. (App. Br. 17). We agree with Appellants that the
operating schemes of Reumerman and Bachir are not combinable, as the
Appeal 2011-007575
Application 11/839,700

5
time limit disclosed by Reumerman is not consistent with the defer time
disclosed by Bachir (App. Br. 14-17; Reply Br. 1-3).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 is reversed.

REVERSED

Pgc/peb