Ex Parte Elliott et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 10, 2018

14623413 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 2018)

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.
14/623,413 02/16/2015 Doron M. ELLIOTT 83518810 7748
28395 7590 01/12/2018
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET
EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER PATEL, DHAVAL V
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/12/2018 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):
docketing @brookskushman. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DORON M. ELLIOTT, SENA HERMIZ
and FLORIAN FRISCHMUTH
Appeal 2017-006714
Application 14/623,413
Technology Center 2600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection2
of claims 1—20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as one of the Applicants, Ford
Global Technologies, LLC. App. Br. 3; Bibliographic Data Sheet.
2 All rejections are under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. in effect after the
effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 (“ALA”).
Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2017-006714
Application 14/623,413
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ disclosed invention “relates to a vehicle computer
system’s interaction with a mobile device as related to activating a mobile
device’s voice recognition system.” Spec. 11. Claims 1, 3, and 15, which
are illustrative, read as follows:
1. A vehicle computer system comprising:
a wireless transceiver configured to communicate with a
mobile device;
a processor in communication with the wireless
transceiver, configured to:
(i) transmit a voice recognition (VR) request to the
mobile device to activate a voice recognition
session of the mobile device;
(ii) determine an error status of the VR session based
on feedback from the mobile device related to the
VR request not capable of activating the VR
session of the mobile phone based upon an error
on the mobile device; [3]
(iii) output a resolution instruction relating to the error
status of the VR session.
3. The vehicle computer system of claim 1, wherein
the inhibition status includes an indication that operation of the
mobile device is locked.
15. A mobile device comprising:
a processor in the mobile device configured to, in
response to receiving a voice recognition (VR) request from a
vehicle computer system to activate a VR session on the mobile
device, transmit feedback regarding an error status indicating
3 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner and Appellants may wish
to consider whether the phrase “the VR request not capable of activating the
VR session,” recited in claim 1, is unclear due to a missing verb.
2
Appeal 2017-006714
Application 14/623,413
the VR request not being capable of activating the VR session
due to a mobile device error; and output a resolution instruction
to the vehicle computer system relating to the error status.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite
for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. See Final
Act. 2.
Claims 1, 9, 10, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Martin et al. (US 2014/0120892 Al; pub. May 1,
2014; hereinafter “Martin”) and Han et al. (US 2013/0208135 Al; pub.
Aug. 15, 2013; hereinafter “Han”). See Final Act. 3—5.
Claims 2-4, 8, 11, 14, and 16—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Martin, Han, and Tadayon et al.
(US 2012/0214469 Al; pub. Aug. 23, 2012; hereinafter “Tadayon”). See
Final Act. 5—8.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Martin, Han, Tadayon, and Takikawa (US 2013/0137415 Al; pub. May
30, 2013). See Final Act. 8—9.
Claims 6, 7, 12, 13, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Martin, Han, and Takikawa. See Final Act. 9-10.
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.” filed Sept. 28, 2016) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.” filed
Mar. 20, 2017) for the positions of Appellants; the Final Office Action
(“Final Act.” mailed Apr. 28, 2016); the Answer (“Ans.” mailed Jan. 19,
2017) for the reasoning, findings, and conclusions of the Examiner; and the
Specification (“Spec.” filed Feb. 16, 2015).
3
Appeal 2017-006714
Application 14/623,413
ISSUES
The issues presented by Appellants’ arguments are as follows:
Does the Examiner err in concluding that the lack of explicit
antecedent basis for the phrase “the inhibition status” renders claim 3
indefinite?
Does the Examiner err in finding that Han, when combined with
Martin, teaches or suggests “output[ing] a resolution instruction to [a]
vehicle computer system [from a processor of a mobile device] relating to
[an] error status [of the mobile device],” as recited in claim 15?
Does the Examiner err in finding that Han, when combined with
Martin, teaches or suggests “output[ing] a resolution instruction [from a
processor of a vehicle computer system] relating to [an] error status of [a]
VR session,” as recited in claim 1 (the “outputting limitation” of claim 1)?
Does the Examiner err in finding that Han, when combined with
Martin, teaches or suggests “determin[ing] [by a processor of a vehicle
computer system] an error status of [a] VR session based on feedback from
[a] mobile device related to the VR request not [being] capable of activating
the VR session of the mobile phone based upon an error on the mobile
device,” as recited in claim 1 (the “determining limitation” of claim 1)?
ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The Examiner concludes that claim 3 is indefinite because the phrase
“the inhibition status” has no antecedent basis in claim 3 or in claim 1, from
which claim 3 depends. Final Act. 2. Appellants contend that one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand that the antecedent basis for “the
4
Appeal 2017-006714
Application 14/623,413
inhibition status” in claim 3 is “an error status” in claim 1. App. Br. 6. We
agree with the Examiner.
Appellants are correct that the failure to provide explicit antecedent
basis for terms does not always render a claim indefinite. If the scope of a
claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the
claim is not indefinite. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
(MPEP) § 2173.05(e) (9th ed. Rev. 11.2013) (citing Ex parte Porter, 25
USPQ2d 1144, 1145 (BPAI 1992) (non-precedential) (holding “controlled
stream of fluid” provided reasonable antecedent basis for “the controlled
fluid”)). Here, unlike the phrases considered in Porter, the difference
between the phrases “inhibition status” and “error status” is more than a
short-hand omitting of words. Indeed, Appellants’ Specification
distinguishes between an “inhibition,” which is to be “resolvfed],” and an
“error,” which is to be “recovered]” from. Spec. 129. Therefore, we
conclude that the scope of claim 3 would not be reasonably ascertainable by
those of ordinary skill in the art.
Appellants do not demonstrate error in the rejection of claim 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection.4
Rejection of Claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 15 recites “output[ing] a resolution instruction to [a] vehicle
computer system [from a processor of a mobile device] relating to [an] error
status [of the mobile device].” App. Br., Claims App. 3. In other words,
claim 15 recites outputting a resolution instruction to a first device (the
4 Claims 4 and 5 depend directly or indirectly from claim 3. In the event of
further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider whether claims 4
and 5 inherit the indefmiteness of claim 3 by virtue of dependency.
5
Appeal 2017-006714
Application 14/623,413
“vehicle computer system”) from the processor of a second device (the
“mobile device”) based on an error status of the second device.
The Examiner does not provide a separate explanation regarding the
rejection of claim 15, aggregating it with claims 1,10, and 20. See Final
Act. 3—5. As best we can determine, however, the Examiner relies on
Martin to teach activation of a VR session of a mobile device by a vehicle
computer system (Final Act. 3^4 (citing Martin ]f]f 4—6)), and relies on Han
to teach claim limitations regarding the identification and resolution of
errors in the activation of a VR session (Final Act. 4—5 (citing Han || 99,
313, Figs. 3,29, 30)).
Appellants contend, inter alia, as follows:
Han’s resolution instruction is output at a television based on
commands from a voice input of the television or set-top box,
and not output to a vehicle computer system. ([See, e.g.,] Han
at paragraph 148 and 162.) As such, Han’s resolution
instruction is displayed on a television or a display connected to
a “set-top box.” ([See] Han at paragraphs 148, 162, 313). As
such, Han does not even consider interacting with a vehicle or
vehicle computer system. Furthermore, such a combination
lacks the inherent requirement that the mobile device send
information related to the resolution instruction to the vehicle
computer system, as required by the claims[’] requirement of
outputting a resolution instruction at the vehicle computer
system. Instead, the “controller 140 ” of Han has a direct
connection to the “voice input 110[”] and “display 193. ”
([See] Han at Figures 1—3.)
App. Br. 7 (emphasis added).
We agree with the Examiner that to the extent Appellants’ arguments
focus on distinguishing a VR session for a set-top box, or the like, from a
VR session for a vehicle computer and mobile device, such arguments do
not establish error. See Ans. 3 (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA
6
Appeal 2017-006714
Application 14/623,413
1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986)); Ans. 5—6 (citing
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).
However, we agree with Appellants’ underlying position that the cited
passages of Han and Martin lack any teaching of outputting a resolution
instruction to a first device from the processor of a second device based on
an error status of the second device. The cited passages of Martin do teach
the use of two devices, but do not relate to identification and resolution of
errors. The cited passages of Han only discuss the identification and
resolution of errors within a single video device such as a “a smart TV, a set­
top box, or a PC which may be connected to an external network, a digital
TV, a portable phone, or the like” (Han 1148). To be sure, Han does teach
voice control of an external device (Han 112), but there is no teaching in the
cited passages that the external device is involved in the identification and
resolution of VR errors.
Thus, regardless of whether Han’s video device is mapped to the
recited “vehicle computer system” (first device) or the recited “mobile
device” (second device), we agree with Appellants that the Examiner errs in
finding that Han, when combined with Martin, teaches or suggests
“output[ing] a resolution instruction to the vehicle computer system [from a
processor of a mobile device] relating to [an] error status [of the mobile
device],” as recited in claim 15. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejections 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 15, or of claims 16—20, which depend,
directly or indirectly, from claim 15, see In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076
(Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Dependent claims are nonobvious under section 103 if the
independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious.”).
7
Appeal 2017-006714
Application 14/623,413
Rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Outputting Limitation
Appellants contend in the Appeal Brief that claim 1 (and claim 10) is
patentable for the same reasons as claim 15. App. Br. 6. We disagree.
As correctly pointed out by the Examiner, claim 1 (and claim 10) does
not recite the language that forms the basis of our conclusion regarding
claim 15. See Ans. 3. Rather, claim 1 recites “output[ing] a resolution
instruction [from a processor of a vehicle computer system] relating to [an]
error status of [a] VR session.” App. Br., Claims App. 1. In other words,
claim 1 recites outputting a resolution instruction from a first device (the
“vehicle computer system”) relating to an error status of a VR session.
We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have learned from Han to configure Han’s controller 140 to output a
resolution instruction 2901 relating to an error status of a VR session to the
display 193 of Han’s display apparatus. See Final Act. 4—5 (citing Han
99, 313, Figs. 3, 29, and 30). We further agree with the Examiner that
one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of Appellants’
application would have recognized that Han’s teaching of outputting VR
session error resolution instructions would improve Martin’s vehicle
computer system in the same way that it improves Han’s display device, i.e.,
“to effectively start the voice recognition session based on error feedback.”
Ans. 5.
Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments regarding claim 15 do not
demonstrate error in the rejection of claim 1.
8
Appeal 2017-006714
Application 14/623,413
The Determining Limitation
Claim 1 additionally recites “determin[ing] [by a processor of a
vehicle computer system] an error status of [a] VR session based on
feedback from [a] mobile device related to the VR request not [being]
capable of activating the VR session of the mobile phone based upon an
error on the mobile device.” App. Br., Claims App. 1. In other words,
claim 1 recites determining by a processor of a first device (the “vehicle
computer system”) an error status of a VR session based on feedback from a
second device (the “mobile device”) related to the VR request not being
capable of activating the VR session of the second device based upon an
error on the second device. The Examiner relies on Han to teach the
determining limitation of claim 1. See Final Act. 4—5 (citing Han ^ 99, 313,
Figs. 3, 29, 30).
In the Answer, the Examiner makes explicit findings that Martin and
Han are analogous art. Ans. 5—6 (citing Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443; Han 112,
Figs. 3, 29, and 300). In response, Appellants contend as follows:
Han is a set-top box that does not consider interacting with a
vehicle or vehicle computer system, let alone a vehicle
computer system that leverages voice recognition of a mobile
phone connected to the vehicle computer system[,] as disclosed
in several of the limitations in at least claim 1. ([See] Han at
paragraphs 148[, ] 162, 313). As such, such data transferring
and communication (e.g. “transmit a VR request to the mobile
device to activate a VR session ” and receiving “feedbackfrom
the mobile device related to the VR request ”) is not considered
in the combination of Martin and Han, as Han does not
consider interaction with a vehicle computer system.
Reply Br. 2 (emphasis added).
We agree with Appellants for substantially the same reasons as
discussed above for claim 15. In particular, the cited passages of Martin
9
Appeal 2017-006714
Application 14/623,413
teach the use of two devices, but do not relate to determining an error status
of a VR session. The cited passages of Han only discuss determining an
error status of a VR session within a single video device such as “a smart
TV, a set-top box, or a PC which may be connected to an external network, a
digital TV, a portable phone, or the like” (Han 1148). Although Han
teaches voice control of an external device (Han 112), there is no teaching
in the cited passages that the external device is involved in the determination
of an error status of a VR session.
Thus, regardless of whether Han’s video device is mapped to the
recited “vehicle computer system” (first device) or the recited “mobile
device” (second device), we agree with Appellants that the Examiner errs in
finding that Han, when combined with Martin, teaches or suggests the
determining limitation of claim 1.
Summary
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejections under
§ 103 of (1) claim 1; (2) independent claim 10, which recites a limitation
substantially similar to the determining limitation of claim 1 (see App. Br.,
Claims App. 3); or (3) claims 2—9 and 11—14, which depend, directly or
indirectly, from claims 1 and 10 respectively,see Fine, 837 F.2d at 1076.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claim 3 under § 112(b) is
affirmed.
10
Appeal 2017-006714
Application 14/623,413
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—20 under § 103 is
reversed.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§§ 41.50(f), 41.52(b) (2016).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
11