Ex Parte Basir

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 24, 2016

13155873 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/155,873 06/08/2011
26096 7590 06/28/2016
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P,C
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Otman A. Basir
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
67182-030PUS1 3874
EXAMINER
FISHER, PAUL R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2016 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
cgolaw@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OTMAN A. BASIR
Appeal2014-002907
Application 13/155,873
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1 and 3-12 which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-002907
Application 13/155,873
THE INVENTION
The Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a system and method
for scheduling vehicle maintenance (Spec., para. 3). Claim 1, reproduced
below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A method of scheduling vehicle service including the
steps of:
a) determining that vehicle service is needed based upon
a diagnostic code received by a
control unit from an on-board diagnostics port;
b) automatically transmitting a request for vehicle service
from the control unit in the vehicle based upon said step a);
c) receiving a proposed appointment for vehicle service
at the control unit in response to said step b );
d) presenting the proposed appointment for vehicle
service as audible speech by the control unit to a user;
e) receiving an audible confirmation of the proposed
appointment from the user at the control unit; and
f) the control unit confirming the proposed appointment
in response to said step e ).
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Tamura (US 2009/0106036, pub. Apr. 23, 2009) and
Tang (US 2004/001575, pub. Jan 1. 2004).
2. Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tamura, Tang, and Kennewick (US 7,693,720 B2, iss.
Apr. 5, 2010).
2
Appeal2014-002907
Application 13/155,873
FINDil-.JGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence. 1
ANALYSIS
The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because
the cited prior art fails to disclose claim limitations "e" and "f' as listed in
the claim above (App. Br. 3, 4).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection is proper
and that the argued claim limitations are suggested in the combination by
Tamura at para. 93 and Tang, which discloses that it is known to make an
appointment using voice recognition as an audible confirmation (Ans. 2, 3).
We agree with the Examiner. Here, the argued claim limitations "e"
and "f' require:
e) receiving an audible confirmation of the proposed
appointment from the user at the controi unit; and
f) the control unit confirming the proposed appointment
in response to said step e ).
Tamura discloses at para. 93 that a user is presented with a proposed
appointment time, and Tang at paras 118-141 discloses that the user gives
an audible response to confirm a time (see Tang for example at paras. 133-
141 ). Tang also discloses in para. 146 that the "system" then confirms the
appointment time. Here, there are a finite number of locations for the
1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
3
Appeal2014-002907
Application 13/155,873
"control unit" that confirms the time, it could be placed in the vehicle, at the
server, or both locations for redundancy. Here, the cited combination would
have been obvious for the reasons set forth in the rejection and placing the
control unit in the vehicle would have been an obvious expedient for the
advantage of having access to the confirmation of the time should the server
go down. For this reason the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. The
Appellants have presented the same arguments for the remaining claims and
the rejection of these claims is sustained for the same reasons given above.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejections section above.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 3-12 is sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4