Ex Parte Cuddihy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

13217591 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/217,591 08/25/2011
28395 7590 09/30/2016
BROOKS KUSHMAN P,CJFG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mark A. Cuddihy
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.
83201260 6284
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, NGA X
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2016 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 MARK A. CUDDIHY and MANOHARPRASAD K. RAO
Appeal2015-001030
Application 13/217,591
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Mark A. Cuddihy and Manoharprasad K. Rao (Appellants) seek our
review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-9.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a system having a near-
field communication (NFC) reader and a plurality of antennae in
communication therewith. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
Appeal2015-001030
Application 13/217,591
1. A system comprising:
at least three antennas, positioned to be capable of receiving a
wireless near field communication (NFC) device signal
associated with a device located in any one of a driver's back
pocket or front pocket, a center console or a passenger seat,
wherein antennas are deployed, individually, in at least a driver
side door, a passenger side door, and in a center console [0041];
an NFC reader, in communication with the plurality of
antennas, wherein the NFC reader is operable to assign, based
at least in part on a number of signals received and a signal
strength, one of one or more devices associated with detected
signals to a driver, wherein
the NFC reader is in communication with a vehicle computing
system, operable to retrieve additional information associated
with the device assigned to the driver and to apply that
information to control vehicle settings.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-3 and 6-9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rector (US 2011/0137520 Al,
published June 9, 2011) in view of Bolduc (US 7,474,264 B2, issued Jan. 6,
2009).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that the Rector near-field communication system
fails to disclose a plurality of antennas that are deployed in at least a driver
side door, a passenger side door, and a center console. Final Act. 6. The
Examiner cites to Bolduc as disclosing a vehicle equipped with a plurality of
antennas mounted in various configurations, but not specifically the claimed
positions. Id. at 6-7; Ans. 2-3. The Examiner states that "[i]t is obvious
Bolduc's system [is capable of arranging] the antennas [to be] mounted in
2
Appeal2015-001030
Application 13/217,591
the driver side door, a passenger side door, and in a center console because it
could be done with no new or unexpected results." Final Act. 7. The
Examiner further concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
Rector to include a plurality of antennas in its vehicle, and to arrange the
antennas in the claimed positions, "because it could be done with no new or
unexpected results." Id.
The Examiner further opines that Appellants' Specification, in
describing two different antenna positioning schemes, evidences that the
arrangement of the plurality of antennas is not critical. Ans. 2-3. Also, the
Examiner notes that Bolduc discloses at least four different antenna
positioning schemes, albeit not the one claimed. Id. at 3.
Appellants, in reference to the Examiner's statement that no "new
result" would obtain from positioning the antennas as claimed, characterize
the position as being that "placing antenna anywhere in the vehicle would
have the same result as the specific layout in Bolduc and/or the claims."
Appeal Br. 7. Appellants note that, whereas antenna positioned in headrests,
as in Bolduc, risk having signals blocked by a body interposed between the
antenna and the wireless device, the claimed configuration avoids this
problem by placing antennas adjacent each side of a driver and passenger.
Id.
Appellants have the better position here. The combination of the
teachings of Rector and Bolduc does not result in meeting all claim
limitations, and the Examiner's position is essentially that the further
modification could be made, without evidence or articulated reasoning as to
why it would have been obvious to make the further modification. That the
system resulting from the combination of Rector and Bolduc could be
3
Appeal2015-001030
Application 13/217,591
modified as proposed does not necessarily make the modification obvious
where the cited art does not suggest the desirability of the modification and
where the results emanating from the modification have not been shown to
have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Gordon,
733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Here, as Appellants note (Appeal Br.
6), the references do not appear to recognize the potential blocking and short
transmission range problems with using NFC, and thus do not suggest the
desirability of the further modification necessary to reach the claimed
subject matter.
The rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-9 is not sustained.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.
REVERSED
4