Ex Parte Carr

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

12782936 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 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.
12/782,936 05/19/2010 Daryl L. Carr P009459-OST-ALS 5674
60770 7590 08/30/2016
General Motors Corporation
c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C.
P.O. BOX 4390
TROY, MI 48099-4390
EXAMINER
YU, ARIEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2016 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 DARYL L. CARR
__________

Appeal 2014-006503
Application 12/782,9361
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Daryl L. Carr (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of
the final rejection of claims 1–17, 19, and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

1 The Appellant identifies General Motors LLC as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2014-006503
Application 12/782,936

2
THE INVENTION
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method of operating a multimodal vehicle as it travels along a
route, comprising the steps of:
(a) determining at a remote facility using external data a vehicle
route between a starting point and an ending point, wherein the
external data is interpreted by a computer and used by that computer
to create the vehicle route in the form of data capable of being
wirelessly transmitted to the vehicle;
(b) establishing at the remote facility one or more waypoints
along the determined vehicle route based on the external data and
embedding the waypoints as part of the vehicle route using the
computer;
(c) including along with the determined vehicle route an
instruction executable by a processor on the vehicle to change a
propulsion mode of the vehicle at each of the one or more waypoints;
and
(d) wirelessly sending the determined vehicle route and the
instruction from the remote facility to the vehicle.

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

US 2005/0119798 A1
US 2008/0051977 A1
US 2009/0326748 A1
June 2, 2005
Feb. 28, 2008
Dec. 31, 2009
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1–8, 12, 15–17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Frese, Tryon, and Lee.
Appeal 2014-006503
Application 12/782,936

3
2. Claims 9–11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Frese and Lee.

ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1–8, 12, 15–17, 19, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Frese, Tryon, and Lee?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 9–11, 13, and 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Frese and Lee?

FINDINGS OF FACT
We rely on the Examiner’s factual findings stated in the Answer.
Additional findings of fact may appear in the Analysis below.

ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1–8, 12, 15–17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Frese, Tryon, and Lee.
Regarding independent claim 1, the Appellant argues that the cited
prior art “does not teach or suggest establishing one or more waypoints
along a vehicle route at the remote facility” as claimed. App. Br. 6. We
agree.
The Examiner finds that Frese does not disclose “establishing at the
facility one or more waypoints along the determined vehicle route based on
the external data.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds that Tryon, instead,
“teaches (b) establishing one or more waypoints along the determined
vehicle route based on the external data and embedding the waypoints as
part of the vehicle using the computer.” Final Act. 5. Accordingly, the
Appeal 2014-006503
Application 12/782,936

4
Appellant’s argument implicates the Examiner’s characterization of the
scope and content of Tryon.
As evidence that Tryon discloses the claim limitation at issue (“(b)
establishing at the remote facility one or more waypoints along the
determined vehicle route based on the external data” (claim 1)), the
Examiner cites the disclosure of the map database 44. Final Act. 5. We
have reviewed the figures in Tryon depicting the map database 44 and the
associated disclosure at paragraph 27. We do not see there any mention of
establishing at a remote facility one or more waypoints along a determined
vehicle route based on external data, as claimed.
Accordingly, we find that a prima facie case of obviousness has not
been made out for the subject matter of claim 1 and the claims depending
therefrom in the first instance, by a preponderance of the evidence.
Regarding independent claim 15, the Appellant argues that the cited
prior art does not disclose “establishing waypoints based on topography,
sending the established waypoints to the vehicle as part of a route, and
changing an operation mode independent of those waypoints when a rate of
change in elevation/distance travelled exceeds a threshold as detected by
vehicle electronics.” App. Br. 9 (emphasis added). We agree.
According to the Examiner, Frese discloses step “(g) changing an
operational mode of the vehicle propulsion system independent of the one or
more waypoints [at] paragraphs 2-4, 9, 15 and 17-18.” Final Act. 13. We
have reviewed said passages. We cannot find there any mention of using
waypoints and then changing an operational mode independent of those
Appeal 2014-006503
Application 12/782,936

5
waypoints, let alone changing said operational mode under the conditions
claimed.
Accordingly, we find that a prima facie case of obviousness has not
been made out for the subject matter of claim 15 and the claims depending
therefrom in the first instance by a preponderance of the evidence.

The rejection of claims 9–11, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Frese and Lee.
Claim 9 is the independent claim and claims 10, 11, 13, and 14
depend from it.
The Appellant argues that “Lee is silent with respect to associating a
vehicle route request with a telematics service provider, a vehicle, or a
powertrain configuration at a remote facility. Nor does Lee determine a
vehicle route based on such an association.” App. Br. 10.
The Examiner found that Frese did not disclose “associating [a]
computer-readable request [from a vehicle telematics unit for a vehicle
route] at [a] remotely-located facility with a telematics service provider, a
vehicle, or a powertrain configuration” (claim 9), relying on Lee instead.
See Final Act. 19–20. According to the Examiner, said claim limitation is
disclosed in Figures 4 and 5, and described in the associated disclosure, of
Lee. See Final Act. 19–20.
As the Examiner clearly explains in detail (see Final Act. 20), Lee
(Fig. 4) shows route information transmitted from a mobile terminal to a
(remote) information center. The information center is connected to a radio
network and provides information for route guidance to the mobile terminal
and a navigation terminal. See Lee, Fig, 5. However, claim 9 calls for
Appeal 2014-006503
Application 12/782,936

6
associating a computer-readable request from a vehicle telematics unit for a
vehicle route with a telematics service provider, a vehicle, or a powertrain
configuration at a remotely-located facility. While Lee discloses
transmission of information from a vehicle to a remote location, it does not
disclose associating a vehicle route from a vehicle with a telematics service
provider, a vehicle, or a powertrain configuration at a remotely-located
facility, as claimed.
Accordingly, we find that a prima facie case of obviousness has not
been made out for the subject matter of claim 9 and the claims depending
therefrom in the first instance, by a preponderance of the evidence.

CONCLUSIONS
The rejection of claims 1–8, 12, 15–17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Frese, Tryon, and Lee is not sustained.
The rejection of claims 9–11, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Frese and Lee is not sustained.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–17, 19, and 20 is
reversed.

REVERSED