Ex Parte Chander et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2016

13437986 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/437,986 04/03/2012
28395 7590 06/30/2016
BROOKS KUSHMAN P,CJFG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bala Chander
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.
83214797 1057
EXAMINER
NEALON, WILLIAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2643
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2016 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BALA CHANDER, ROBIN J. STIYER, and
MICHAEL DANIEL SHANE
Appeal2014-007721
Application 13/437 ,986 1
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LARRY J. HUME, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-007721
Application 13/437,986
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention "generally relate to a
method and apparatus for recall notification handling." Spec. if 1.
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1, 11, and 21, reproduced below, are representative of the
subject matter on appeal (emphasis added to contested limitations):
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a recall message at a vehicle computing system
(VCS) from a remote source;
comparing, via the VCS, the recall to stored vehicle data
to determine if a recall repair has already been completed;
contingent on the non-completion of the recall repair,
delivering the recall message to at least one vehicle occupant
through a vehicle output system.
11. A non-transitory computer readable storage
medium storing instructions that, when executed by a
processor, cause the processor to perform the method
compnsmg:
receiving a recall message from a remote source;
comparing the recall to stored vehicle data to determine
if a recall repair has already been completed;
2 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed
Jan. 21, 2014); Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Apr. 21, 2014); Final
Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Aug. 28, 2013); and the original
Specification ("Spec.," filed Apr. 3, 2012). We note Appellants did not file
a Reply Brief in response to the factual findings and legal conclusions in the
Examiner's Answer.
2
Appeal2014-007721
Application 13/437,986
contingent on the non-completion of the recall repair,
delivering the recall message to at least one vehicle occupant
through a vehicle system.
21. A computer implemented method comprising:
detecting that a primary phone is paired with a vehicle
computing system (VCS);
comparing a phone number of the primary phone to a
stored primary phone number;
wherein, if the phone number of the primary phone
differs from the stored primary phone number the VCS asks a
user for new primary contact information once a vehicle is in a
parked state.
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Groskreutz et al. ("Groskreutz") US 2006/0047415 Al
Tamura et al. ("Tamura") US 2009/0106036 Al
Yuhara et al. ("Yuhara") US 2010/0165909 Al
Imbimbo et al. ("Imbimbo") US 2011/0035476 Al
Henry, JR. et al. ("Henry") US 2011/0263197 Al
Oesterling et al. ("Oesterling") US 2013/0059575 Al
Rejections on Appeal
Mar. 2, 2006
Apr. 23, 2009
July 1, 2010
Feb. 10,2011
Oct. 27, 2011
Mar. 7, 2013
RI. Claims 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Groskreutz. Ans. 2.
R2. Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Groskreutz and Yuhara. Ans. 3.
3
Appeal2014-007721
Application 13/437,986
R3. Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Groskreutz, Yuhara, and Henry. Ans. 4.
R4. Claims 6-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Groskreutz, Yuhara, and Tamura. Ans. 5.
RS. Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over the combination of Groskreutz and Henry. Ans. 6.
R6. Claims 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Groskreutz and Tamura. Ans. 7.
R7. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Imbimbo and Oesterling. Ans. 9.
CLAIM GROUPING
Based on Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 5-8), we decide the appeal
of anticipation Rejection RI of claims 11-13 on the basis of representative
claim 11; we decide the appeal of obviousness Rejection R2 of claims 1-3
on the basis of representative claim 1; and we decide obviousness Rejection
R 7 of separately argued independent claim 21, infra.
Remaining claims 4--10 and 14--20 in rejections R3 through R6, not
argued separately with specificity, stand or fall with the respective
independent claim from which they depend. 3
3 "Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of
appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together
shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the
patentability of any grouped claim separately." 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
4
Appeal2014-007721
Application 13/437,986
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments that
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs, and we
deem any such arguments waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We disagree with Appellants' arguments with respect to claims 1-21,
and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellants' arguments. We incorporate such findings, reasons,
and rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise noted. However, we
highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claims 1,
11, and 21 for emphasis as follows.
1. § 102 Rejection R 1 of Claims 11-13
Issue 1
Appellants argue (Br. 5---6) the Examiner's rejection of claim 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Groskreutz is in error. These
contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art discloses a "[n]on-
transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions that, when
executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform," inter alia, the
steps of "comparing the recall to stored vehicle data to determine if a recall
repair has already been completed; [and] contingent on the non-completion
of the recall repair, delivering the recall message to at least one vehicle
occupant through a vehicle system," as recited in claim 11?
5
Appeal2014-007721
Application 13/437,986
Analysis
Appellants contend the Examiner provided no further explanation of
the rejection of claim 11 other than to point to paragraphs 25 and 50 and
Figure 1 of Groskreutz. Br. 5. Appellants also present arguments related to
the obviousness rejection of claim 1, purporting to demonstrate the
Examiner's findings and legal conclusions regarding the § 103 rejection of
claim 1 provides a basis for error in the anticipation rejection of claim 11.
Id. We disagree with Appellants' contentions.
In rebuttal, the Examiner points to the details in the explanation of
Rejection RI provided in the "Response to Arguments" section of the Final
Office Action. Ans. 10 (citing Final Act. 12). In addition, the Examiner
provides further analysis in the Answer, clearly mapping the claim
limitations to Groskreutz, and finding the cited prior art anticipates claim 11.
Ans. 10. We adopt the Examiner's factual findings herein as our own.
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the disclosure of the cited
prior art to disclose the disputed limitation of claim 11, nor do we find error
in the Examiner's resulting finding of anticipation. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent claim 11, and grouped
claims 12 and 13 which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra.
2. § 103 Rejection R2 of Claims 1-3
Issue 2
Appellants argue (Br. 6-7) the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Groskreutz and
Yuhara is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue:
6
Appeal2014-007721
Application 13/437,986
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art discloses a method
that includes, inter alia, the steps of "comparing, via the VCS, the recall to
stored vehicle data to determine if a recall repair has already been
completed," as recited in claim 1?
Analysis
Appellants contend "Claim 1 contains similar limitations to those of
claim 11, namely, 'comparing, via the VCS, the recall to stored vehicle data
to determine if a recall repair has already been completed,' and 'contingent
on the non-completion of the recall repair, delivering the recall message to at
least one vehicle occupant through a vehicle output system.'" Br. 6.
In response to the Examiner's reliance upon Yuhara to teach or
suggest the claimed "comparing" step, Appellants argue Yuhara does not
teach or suggest the contested limitation, but instead argue "[t]he
comparison in Yuhara is to determine whether or not the message, in its
current version, was already received. Nowhere in Yuhara, even in
discussing diagnostic information, does Yuhara suggest determining 'if a
recall repair has already been completed.'" App. Br. 6-7.
In response, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Yuhara teaches or
suggests techniques in which a vehicle system does not provide a reminder if
the vehicle has already been serviced using "[d]ata identifiers (338) [which]
may be compared with data already stored in the vehicle unit and/or if the
data needs to be updated or deleted. [0005, 0029, 0036, 0041]." Ans. 11.
7
Appeal2014-007721
Application 13/437,986
We also find the Examiner has provided proper motivation to combine
Groskreutz with Yuhara, unchallenged by Appellants, and which we find
meets the requirements of KSR. 4 Ans. 3--4.
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings and
suggestions of the cited prior art combination to teach or suggest the
disputed limitation of claim 1, nor do we find error in the Examiner's
resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, and grouped
claims 2 and 3 which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra.
3. § 103 Rejection R7 of Claim 21
Issue 3
Appellants argue (Br. 8) the Examiner's rejection of claim 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Imbimbo and
Oesterling is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests a method that includes all limitations recited in claim 21?
Analysis
Appellants contend Oesterling does not teach or suggest the
conditional "wherein" clause because the reference only mentions a parked
state being utilized for message delivery, and does not teach or suggest "the
VCS asks a user for new primary contact information." App. Br. 8.
4 See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
8
Appeal2014-007721
Application 13/437,986
In addition, Appellants contend Imbimbo fails to teach or suggest the
contested "detecting" and "comparing" steps of claim 21, and "fail[ s] utterly
to mention anything relating to comparing a phone number of the primary
phone to a stored primary phone number .... " Id.
Appellants' contention does not persuade us of error on the part of the
Examiner because the Appellants are responding to the rejection by
attacking the references separately, even though the rejection is based on the
combined teachings of the references. N onobviousness cannot be
established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is
predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck &
Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Examiner provides a detailed mapping of the limitations of
claim 21 to the cited prior art. See Final Act. 10; Ans. 11-14. We note
Appellants do not file a Reply Brief to rebut the Examiner's factual findings
and legal conclusions. Therefore, we adopt the Examiner's findings,
reasoning, and legal conclusions as our own.
Accordingly, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are
not persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings
and suggestions of the cited prior art combination to teach or suggest the
disputed limitation of claim 21, nor do we find error in the Examiner's
resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 21.
3. § 103 Rejections R3-R6 of Claims 4--10 and 14--20
In view of the lack of any substantive or separate arguments directed
to obviousness Rejections R3 through R6 of claims 4--10 and 14--20 under
9
Appeal2014-007721
Application 13/437,986
§ 103 (see Br. 7), we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims,
Arguments not made are considered waived.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err with respect to anticipation Rejection
RI of claims 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over the cited prior art of
record, and we sustain the rejection.
(2) The Examiner did not err with respect to obviousness
Rejections R2 through R7 of claims 1-10 and 14--21under35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the cited prior art combinations of record, and we sustain the
rejections.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-21.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10