12691968 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 4, 2015)

Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 4, 2015

12691968 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 4, 2015)

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. 12/691,968 01/22/2010 Shih-Ken Chen P007972-RD-MJL 1863 65798 7590 06/05/2015 MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 42690 WOODWARD AVENUE SUITE 300 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304 EXAMINER CHEN, SHELLEY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3663 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/05/2015 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 SHIH-KEN CHEN and BAKHTIAR BRIAN LITKOUHI ____________ Appeal 2013-003714 Application 12/691,968 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 4–7, 10–13, and 16–23. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 “The real party in interest for this appeal is GM Global Technology Operations LLC.” (Appeal Br. 3.) Appeal 2013-003714 Application 12/691,968 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants’ invention relates to a method “for identifying a vehicle driver using a portable electronic device that the driver carries.” (Spec. ¶ 2.) Illustrative Claim 1. A method for identifying a vehicle driver, said method comprising: detecting a wireless device; identifying a unique ID signal associated with the wireless device that is detected; determining if the ID signal is associated with a vehicle driver stored in a driver profile database in the vehicle; automatically setting vehicle devices to a predetermined setting associated with that driver if the wireless device ID signal is identified for that driver; wherein detecting a wireless device includes detecting multiple wireless devices in proximity to the vehicle and wherein setting vehicle devices includes setting the vehicle devices for a detected wireless device associated with a highest priority vehicle driver; and over-riding the vehicle device settings for the highest priority driver by a person selecting another driver associated with another wireless device as an actual driver. References Cowelchuk US 2005/0261815 A1 Nov. 24, 2005 Wiegand US 2005/0288837 A1 Dec. 29, 2005 Cahoon US 2006/0161320 A1 July 20, 2006 Rejections The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4–7, 10–13, and 16–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cowelchuck in view of Wiegand. Appeal 2013-003714 Application 12/691,968 3 The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4–7, 10–13, and 16–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wiegand in view of Cowelchuck. The Examiner rejects claims 7, 10–12, and 20–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wiegand in view of Cahoon. ANALYSIS Independent claims 1, 7, and 13 each set forth a method including the step of “over-riding a vehicle device setting for the highest priority driver by a person selecting another driver.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Wiegand teaches a method including such an over- riding step. (See Answer 12.) We have considered carefully, but are not persuaded by, the Appellants’ arguments that Wiegand does not show or suggest an over- riding step as required by the independent claims. (See Appeal Br. 8–10; Reply Br. 1–3.) We are unpersuaded because the Examiner shows sufficiently that, when the claim language is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, Wiegand discloses the required over-riding step. In Wiegand, each vehicle key is identifiable by a unique code so that, when the key is detected, vehicle devices can be automatically set to the pre-programmed settings associated with this detected key. Wiegand appreciates that “prioritization is necessary” when, for example, two keys “are in the possession of two approaching passengers intending to enter the vehicle.” (Wiegand, ¶ 39.) Wiegand teaches that prioritization can be accomplished by determining which key “is in closest proximity” to a relevant area of the vehicle, such as the driver’s door. (Id. at ¶ 40.) Appeal 2013-003714 Application 12/691,968 4 As noted above, independent claims 1, 7, and 13 require “over-riding a vehicle device setting for the highest priority driver.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) In Wiegand, the “highest priority driver” is the person standing closest to the driver’s door. As explained by the Examiner, a person “may over-ride this prioritization by simply moving closer to the driver door” so as to become the “new” highest priority driver. (Answer 12–13.) The Appellants argue that “this describes one way that the vehicle device settings are used to select the highest priority driver,” not an over-ride of vehicle device settings. (Reply Br. 2.) However, the Appellants do not explain, persuasively, why the claims preclude an over-ride from being accomplished by designation of a “new” highest priority driver. We note that the claim language does not, for example, specify that the identity of the highest priority driver must remain the same throughout the over-riding step. As also noted above, independent claims 1, 7, and 13 require overriding “by a person selecting another driver.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner finds that, in Wiegand, a person destined to be the actual driver must “choose to approach the door himself” to become the “new” highest priority driver. (Answer 13.) Thus, this actual driver “is selected by a person” (i.e., himself) as required by the claims. (Id.) The Appellants argue that the claim language “person selecting another driver” must be interpreted in light of the Specification, and they direct our attention to paragraphs 12 and 20. (Reply Br. 2–3.) Paragraph 12 states that “[t]he vehicle driver can control the processor 12 to input pre-set or other information, or change settings through a human vehicle interface (HVI) 32.” Paragraph 20 states that an “algorithm” “identifies which device Appeal 2013-003714 Application 12/691,968 5 has the highest priority” and “[t]he driver may wish to over-ride that decision using the HVI 32 at decision diamond 82.” The Appellants submit that paragraphs 12 and 20 “clearly” indicate “that the person will be interacting by touching or perhaps issuing voice commands, but not by orchestrating the arrival of the vehicle occupants.” (Reply Br. 3.) However, these paragraphs do not implicate that the person must interact only by touch or voice. Moreover, the Appellants do not explain, persuasively, why, in Wiegand, a person is not interacting with some type of interface when he moves closest to the driver door. Thus, we are not persuaded by the Appellants’ arguments that Wiegand does not teach the step of “over-riding a vehicle device setting for the highest priority driver by a person selecting another driver” as required by independent claims 1, 7, and 13. We are also not persuaded by the Appellants’ arguments regarding the Examiner’s proposed combination of Wiegand and Cowelchuck. (See Appeal Br. 10–12.) We are not persuaded because the Appellants’ arguments are premised upon Wiegand’s entire key being moved inside the vehicle. As clarified by the Examiner, “[t]he modification moves only the driver profile database to the vehicle, not the entire security device.” (Answer 16.) As for the Examiner’s combination of Wiegand and Cahoon, the Appellants only argue that “Cahoon fails to provide the teaching missing from Wiegand,” namely the above-discussed over-riding step. (Appeal Br. 13.) As we do not agree that this teaching is missing in Wiegand, we are not persuaded by this argument. Appeal 2013-003714 Application 12/691,968 6 Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of the claims 1, 4–7, 10–13, and 16–23. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of the claims on appeal. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED pgc