Ex Parte Cheney et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 30, 2018

13826003 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/826,003 03/14/2013
60770 7590 06/01/2018
General Motors Corporation
c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C.
755 W. Big Beaver Road
Suite 1850
TROY, MI 48084
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David S. Cheney
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.
P022350-0ST-ALS 9491
EXAMINER
BRADY, MARIE P.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3681
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2018 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):
stevens@reising.com
USPTOmail@reising.com
USPTOmail@gmx.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVIDS. CHENEY, STEVEN P. SCHWINKE, and
HASSAN A. ELNAJJAR
Appeal2017-002226
Application 13/826,003
Technology Center 3600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ERIC B. CHEN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-002226
Application 13/826,003
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 21-35. Claims 1-20 have been cancelled. (App. Br. 29.) We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to providing access to a cloud computer
from a vehicle, in particular, uploading data members to the cloud server and
accessing the cloud server using an e-glovebox. (Abstract.)
Claims 21 and 23 are exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
21. A method of cloud computing from a vehicle,
comprising the steps of:
establishing a first cellular link between a telematics unit
in the vehicle and a cloud server associated with a vehicle call
center, wherein the telematics unit has a cellular chipset;
receiving via the first cellular link at least one first data
member at the telematics unit from the cloud server, wherein the
at least one first data member is stored at the cloud server in a
user account associated with a vehicle user, wherein the at least
one first data member comprises an electronic representation of
a vehicle registration, an electronic representation of a vehicle
insurance proof, or both;
providing the at least one first data member received via
the cellular link from the telematics unit to an electronic
glove box ( e-glovebox) device wherein the at least one first data
member is provided via a wired vehicle connection or a short-
range wireless vehicle connection, wherein the e-glovebox
device receives the at least one first data member directly from
the telematics unit without using a cellular chipset, and wherein
the e-glovebox device is stowable within a cabin of the vehicle
at a vehicle docking station; and
2
Appeal2017-002226
Application 13/826,003
displaying data to the vehicle user at a display of the e-
glovebox device, the data being associated with the at least one
first data member.
23. A method of cloud computing from a vehicle,
comprising the steps of:
(a) establishing a first cellular link between a telematics
unit in the vehicle and a cloud server associated with a vehicle
call center, wherein the telematics unit has a cellular chipset;
(b) receiving via the first cellular link at least one first data
member at the telematics unit from the cloud server, wherein the
at least one first data member is stored at the cloud server in a
user account associated with a vehicle user;
( c) providing the at least one first data member received
via the cellular link from the telematics unit to an electronic
glovebox (e-glovebox) device wherein the at least one first data
member is provided via a wired vehicle connection or a short-
range wireless vehicle connection, wherein the e-glovebox
device receives the at least one first data member directly from
the telematics unit without using a cellular chipset, and wherein
the e-glovebox device is stowable within a cabin of the vehicle
at a vehicle docking station; and
( d) displaying data to the vehicle user at a display of the e-
glovebox device, the data being associated with the at least one
first data member.
Claims 21, 23-26, 28-32, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Douthitt et al. (US 2014/0164579 Al; June 12,
2014), Shinmyoh et al. (US 2010/0036600 Al; Feb. 11, 2010), and Schmidt
II et al. (US 2005/0240343 Al; Oct. 27, 2005).
Claims 22 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Douthitt, Shinmyoh, Schmidt, and Deas et al. (US
2004/0002359 Al; Jan. 1, 2004).
3
Appeal2017-002226
Application 13/826,003
Claims 33 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Douthitt, Shinmyoh, Schmidt, Deas, and Howell et al. (US
2013/0167039 Al; June 27, 2013).
The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 24 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. (Ans. 3.)
§ 103 Rejection-Douthitt, Shinmyoh, and Schmidt
Claim 21
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 8-9) that the
combination of Douthitt, Shinmyoh, and Schmidt would not have rendered
obvious independent claim 21, which includes the limitation "wherein the at
least one first data member comprises an electronic representation of a
vehicle registration."
The Examiner found that the vehicle identification number (VIN) of
Douthitt, for registering a new vehicle with a remote content management
system, corresponds to the limitation "wherein the at least one first data
member comprises an electronic representation of a vehicle registration."
(Final Act. 4--5.) In particular, the Examiner found that "the remote content
server [of Douthitt] uses the VIN as a vehicle registration" and "[w]ith the
broadest reasonable interpretation the VIN registration of Douthitt is the
equivalent to the 'vehicle registration."' (Ans. 4.) We do not agree with the
Examiner's findings.
Claim 21 recites "wherein the at least one first data member
comprises an electronic representation of a vehicle registration" (emphasis
added). One relevant plain meaning for "registration" is "a document
certifying an act of registering." MERRIAM-WEBSTER' s COLLEGIATE
4
Appeal2017-002226
Application 13/826,003
DICTIONARY 985 (10th ed. 1999). Moreover, Appellants' Specification
discloses that "the e-glovebox device 92 and/or another client may upload or
download data members which include ... vehicle or driver information
(e.g., insurance information (e.g., including electronic proofs), registration,
driver's license (e.g., electronic copy))" (i-f 39) and "the user may present
his/here-driver's license ore-registration to a police officer by separating
the e-glovebox from the vehicle docking station 91" (i-f 40). Accordingly,
Appellants' Specification discloses "vehicle registration" as one of a list of
items to be presented to a police officer, including driver's license and proof
of insurance. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification, we interpret "vehicle registration" as a document
certifying an act of registering a vehicle with a state's department of motor
vehicles.
Douthitt relates to providing network-based content to in-vehicle
telematics. (i-f 2.) Figure 2A of Douthitt illustrates a "flow diagram of a
process 200A for configuring a user or vehicle account using a remote
content management server." (i-f 37.) In reference to Figure 2A, Douthitt
explains that "[i]f the existing user needs to register a new vehicle (a check
occurs at step 212) or if a new user has just logged in, then a new vehicle
can be registered (at step 210) with the remote content management system"
and that "[v]ehicle registration may occur by storing a VIN at the remote
content server that will be transmitted to the remote content server when the
vehicle electronics are logged into the remote content server." (Id.)
Although the Examiner cited the VIN of Douthitt, which is used to
register a new vehicle with a remote content management server 107, as
illustrated in Figure 2A, the Examiner has provided insufficient evidence to
5
Appeal2017-002226
Application 13/826,003
support a finding that Douthitt teaches the limitation "wherein the at least
one first data member comprises an electronic representation of a vehicle
registration." As discussed previously, under the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification, we interpret "vehicle
registration" as a document certifying the act of registering a vehicle with a
state's department of motor vehicles. While Douthitt explains that the VIN
is used to register a new vehicle with remote content management server 107
(i-f37; see also Fig. 2A), Douthitt is silent with respect to a document
certifying registration with a state's department of motor vehicles. Thus, on
this record, the Examiner has not demonstrated that Douthitt teaches the
limitation "wherein the at least one first data member comprises an
electronic representation of a vehicle registration." 1 Moreover, the
Examiner's application of Shinmyoh and Schmidt does not cure the
deficiencies of Douthitt.
Thus, we are persuaded by Appellants' argument that
Douthitt describes a process 200A (FIG. 2A) for configuring a
user or vehicle account using a remote content management
server, wherein the user can create an account by establishing a
usemame and password, login to the vehicle owner's account,
register a new vehicle at the remote content server, and thereafter
the user may select personalized content
1 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should consider if the
limitation "wherein the at least one first data member comprises an
electronic representation of a vehicle registration" should not be given
patentable weight, as potentially lacking a new and unobvious functional
relationship between descriptive material and a substrate. See In re Lowry,
32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338
(Fed. Cir. 2004); Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272 (BPAI 2005).
6
Appeal2017-002226
Application 13/826,003
and "while the vehicle VIN may be used by the remote server in Douthitt to
register the vehicle, the VIN itself is not a 'registration' or 'proof of
insurance."' (App. Br. 8.)
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 23
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 15) that the
combination of Douthitt, Shinmyoh, and Schmidt would not have rendered
obvious independent claim 23, which includes the limitation "receiving via
the first cellular link at least one first data member at the telematics unit
from the cloud server ... providing the at least one first data member
received via the cellular link from the telematics unit to an electronic
glovebox (e-glovebox)."
The Examiner found that the cellular data network 155 of Douthitt,
which connects vehicle telematics system 106 to remote content
management server 107, as illustrated in Figure 1 B, corresponds to the
limitation "receiving via the first cellular link at least one first data member
at the telematics unit from the cloud server." (Final Act. 8-9; see also
Ans. 11.) The Examiner further found that the portable device of Shinmyoh,
which is mountable to an in-vehicle device, corresponds to the limitation
"providing the at least one first data member received via the cellular link
from the telematics unit to an electronic glovebox (e-glovebox)." (Final
Act. 10-11; see also Ans. 11.) The Examiner concluded that "it would have
been obvious ... to modify the system of Douthitt ... [with] Shinmyoh,
because both Douthitt and Shinmyoh are inventions about portable devices
7
Appeal2017-002226
Application 13/826,003
and telematics device in a vehicle." (Final Act. 11-12.) We agree with the
Examiner's findings and conclusions.
Douthitt relates to "systems and methods [that] interact with network
or 'cloud' -based computing servers in order to manage a vehicle telematics
system [ 106] (e.g., to manage the system software, to manage content, to
extend the user interface, etc.)." (i-f 19.) Figure lB of Douthitt illustrates a
block diagram of an integrated system, including vehicle telematics system
106, remote content management server 107, and cellular data network 155.
(i-f 27.) For example, Douthitt explains that remote content management
server 107 provides content such as audio, video, graphics, or information
content. (i-f 12.) Because Douthitt explains that vehicle telematics system
106 communicates with "cloud" -based remote content management server
107 via cellular data network 155, Douthitt teaches the limitation "receiving
via the first cellular link at least one first data member at the telematics unit
from the cloud server."
Shinmyoh relates to a "portable device [that] is mountable on an in-
vehicle device." (Abstract.) In one embodiment, Shinmyoh explains that
"there is provided a portable device [10] which is mountable on an in-
vehicle device [100]" (i-f 12) and "[t]he portable device may further include
an acquiring unit which is configured to acquire information from the in-
vehicle device" (i-f 13). Shinmyoh explains that "portable device 10 includes
a navigation unit 11, a radio receiving unit 12, [and] a television receiving
unit 13" (i-f 47), such that radio receiving unit 12 can receive satellite
broadcasting (i-f 46). Because Shinmyoh provides an embodiment in which
portable device 10 is mounted to an in-vehicle device 100 and acquires
information from such in-vehicle device 100, Shinmyoh teaches the
8
Appeal2017-002226
Application 13/826,003
limitation "providing the at least one first data member received via the
cellular link from the telematics unit to an electronic glovebox ( e-
glovebox)."
The combination of Douthitt and Shinmyoh is nothing more than
incorporating the known portable device 10 of Shinmyoh, which is
mountable to an in-vehicle device, with the known vehicle telematics system
106 of Douthitt, which communicates with remote content management
server 107, to yield predictable results. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) ("The combination of familiar elements according
to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results."). In particular, the combination of Douthitt and
Shinmyoh incorporates portable device 10 of Shinmyoh (i.e., the claimed
"electronic glovebox"), which is mountable on an in-vehicle device 100,
with vehicle telematics system 106 of Douthitt (i.e., the claimed "telematics
unit"), which connects to remote content management server 107 (i.e., the
claimed "cloud server"). Thus, we agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 11-
12) that modifying Douthitt with Shinmyoh to incorporate portable device
10 of Shinmyoh would have been obvious.
Appellants argue that
even if Douthitt teaches communication between a remote
content management server 107 and telematics electronics 106
and Shinmyoh teaches communication between an in-vehicle
system 100 and a portable device 10, the Examiner erred because
neither reference discloses or suggests any data that would be
first sent from a cloud server to a telematics unit and then from
that telematics unit to an e-glovebox device.
(App. Br. 15 (emphasis omitted).) However, as discussed previously, the
combination of Douthitt and Shinmyoh would result in the incorporation of
9
Appeal2017-002226
Application 13/826,003
portable device 10 of Shinmyoh, which is mountable on an in-vehicle device
100, with vehicle telematics system 106 of Douthitt, which connects to
remote content management server 107. Thus, the combination of Douthitt
and Shinmyoh would result in the transfer of information content from
remote content management server 107 of Douthitt to portable device 10 of
Shinmyoh. The rejection of claim 23 is based on the combination of
Douthitt, Shinmyoh, and Schmidt, and Appellants cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking the references individually. See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
Appellants further argue that "the skilled artisan would not be
motivated to modify Douthitt accordingly" because "the data sent from the
remote content management server 107 to the vehicle telematics electronics
106 (streaming Pandora, streaming iHeartRadio, Facebook data, etc.) would
not be receivable or usable at Shinmyoh's portable device 10." (App.
Br. 15.) However, contrary to Appellants' argument, Shinmyoh explains
that portable device 10 includes radio receiving unit 12 that receives satellite
broadcasting. (i-f 46).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Douthitt,
Shinmyoh, and Schmidt would have rendered obvious independent claim 23,
which includes the limitation "receiving via the first cellular link at least one
first data member at the telematics unit from the cloud server . . . providing
the at least one first data member received via the cellular link from the
telematics unit to an electronic glovebox ( e-glovebox)."
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 24, 25, 28-30, 32, and 35 depend from claim
23, and Appellants have not presented any additional substantive arguments
10
Appeal2017-002226
Application 13/826,003
with respect to these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims
24, 25, 28-32, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the same reasons
discussed with respect to independent claim 23.
Claim 26
Dependent claim 26 recites limitations similar to those discussed with
respect to independent claim 21. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 26
for the same reasons discussed with respect to the rejection of independent
claim 21.
Claim 31
Claim 31 depends from independent claim 23, and Appellants merely
reiterate arguments previously presented with respect to the combination of
Douthitt and Shinmyoh. (App. Br. 21-22.) Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claim 31 for the same reasons discussed with respect to rejection
of independent claim 23.
§ 103 Rejection-Douthitt, Shinmyoh, Schmidt, and Deas
Independent claim 22 recites limitations similar to those discussed
with respect to independent claim 23, and Appellants merely reiterate
arguments previously presented with respect to the combination of Douthitt
and Shinmyoh. (App. Br. 23-25.) Claim 27 depends from claim 22.
Moreover, Appellants nominally argue that "Schmidt, which is asserted to
disclose a 'cloud server associated with a vehicle call center,' does not make
up for the deficiencies of Douthitt and Shinmyoh" and "Deas, which is
asserted to disclose 'wherein the at least one first data member comprises an
11
Appeal2017-002226
Application 13/826,003
electronic representation of an advertisement directed to the vehicle user for
discounting goods, services, or both,' does not make up for the deficiencies
of Douthitt, Shinmyoh, and Schmidt." (App. Br. 26.) We are not persuaded
by those arguments for the reasons previously presented with respect to the
rejection of independent claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Douthitt,
Shinmyoh, and Schmidt. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 22
and 27 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
§ 103 Rejection-Douthitt, Shinmyoh, Schmidt, Deas, and Howell
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claims 33 and 34 separately (App. Br. 28), the arguments presented do not
point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent
claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants merely argue that
"Howell is relied upon to disclose one or more limitations found in the
dependent claims and nothing in Howell makes up for the deficiencies of
Douthitt, Shinmyoh, Schmidt, and Deas discussed above with respect to
claim 23, from which claims 33-34 ultimately depend." (Id.) We are not
persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to
claim 23, from which claims 33 and 34 depend. Accordingly, we sustain
this rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 21 and 26 is reversed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 22-25 and 27-25 is
affirmed.
12
Appeal2017-002226
Application 13/826,003
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-IN-PART
13