Ex Parte Elzein

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 25, 2019

15147947 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/147,947 05/06/2016
28395 7590 03/27/2019
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
HadiElzein
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.
83675087 6419
EXAMINER
WU,DAXIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2191
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2019 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 HADI ELZEIN
Appeal2018-006249
Application 15/14 7,947
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DENISE M. POTHIER, and JOHNNY A.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 21--40, which are all the claims pending in this application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Exemplary claim 21 under appeal reads as follows:
21. A vehicle computer system (VCS) configured to
communicate with a mobile device, comprising:
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-006249
Application 15/147,947
a processor configured to:
1.) receive a message from a wireless transceiver
in communication with a mobile device, wherein the
message indicates a version of the mobile device
software stack;
2.) download an update to the VCS software stack
configured to interact with the mobile device software
stack from an off-board server, in response to a
determination that the VCS requires an update to the
VCS software stack located in memory of the VCS;
3.) update the VCS to include the updated VCS
software stack.
The Examiner rejected claims 21, 22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over Quinn (US 2011/0225259 Al; pub. Sept. 15,
2011), Lovitt (US 2013/0219381 Al; pub. Aug. 22, 2013), and
Krzyzanowski (US 2012/0303476 Al; Nov. 29, 2012). See Final Act. 3-9.
The Examiner further added Barman (US 2003/0188303 Al; pub.
Oct. 2, 2003) to reject claim 23; Garrett (US 8,942,888 B2; iss. Jan. 27,
2015) to reject claims 25 and 26; Jun (US 2008/0046880 Al; pub. Feb. 21,
2008) to reject claims 27-29; Brown (US 2010/0088367 Al; pub. Apr. 8,
2010) to reject claim 30; Jun, Garrett, Habermas (US 2005/0256614 Al;
Nov. 17, 2005) and Baek (US 2012/0233365 Al; pub. Sept. 13, 2012) to
reject claims 31, 32, and 34; and Jun, Baek, Garrett, and Hess (US
2008/0010014 Al; pub. Jan. 10, 2008) to reject claim 33. See Final Act. 10-
25.
The Examiner rejected claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Lovitt, Paek (US 2012/0167071 Al; pub. June 28, 2012),
Habermas, Quinn, and Barman. See Final Act. 25-29.
2
Appeal2018-006249
Application 15/147,947
The Examiner rejected claims 36-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Quinn, Baek, Garrett, Hess, Brown, and Barman.
See Final Act. 30-32.
ANALYSIS
Claim 21
In rejecting claim 21, the Examiner relies on Quinn for disclosing a
vehicle computer system (VCS) comprising a processor configured to
receive a message from a wireless transceiver, download an update to the
VCS software stack, and update the VCS to include the downloaded update.
Final Act. 3-5. The Examiner further relies on Lovitt as disclosing the
received message "indicates a version of the mobile device software
stack" and on Krzyzanowski as disclosing the downloaded VCS software
stack is configured to interact with the mobile device. Final Act. 5-7. The
Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to combine the teachings of Quinn with Lovitt and Krzyzanowski to
provide software updates in synchronization with the service provider and
improve access to or performance of mobile devices. Final Act. 6-7.
Appellant contends:
But Quinn, however, does not relate to "a VCS software
stack ... configured to interact with the mobile device software
stack" as the claim requires. As disclosed in paragraph 28 of
the instant application specification, "the software stack may
refer to software that is an implementation of the Bluetooth
protocol stack." Quinn, however, is simply related to loading
and restoring applications that are customized to a user. (See
Quinn at paragraphs 29-33). Quinn fails to show an update of
applications related to "a mobile device software stack" as the
3
Appeal2018-006249
Application 15/147,947
claims require, such as software that is an implementation of
the Bluetooth protocol stack.
App. Br. 3. Appellant further argues the proposed combination of references
also fails to disclose "a mobile device software stack" and merely relates to
general updates of applications. App. Br. 4. Additionally, Appellant argues
that the proposed combination would change the principle of operation of
Lovitt and Krzyzanowski to conform and "relate to both a VCS and mobile
device." App. Br. 6.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments that the Examiner
erred. Appellant's contentions focus on the references separately and ignore
the fact that the proposed rejection is based on the combination of Quinn
with Lovitt and Krzyzanowski. See Br. 4---6; Reply Br. 2--4. See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We agree with the Examiner's claim
interpretation to the extent that the broadest reasonable meaning of the claim
term "interact" within the phrase "the VCS software stack configured to
interact with the mobile device software stack" encompasses any
functionality that involves the mobile device and the VCS software, such as
downloading a software update. See Ans. 3 6. Therefore, as found by the
Examiner (Ans. 37), the cited portions of Quinn in paragraphs 4, 5, and 28
describe using a mobile device for accessing or receiving vehicle data meet
the recited interacting.
Additionally, the Examiner correctly finds and we agree that the
recited "download an update to the VCS software stack configured to
interact with the mobile device software stack from an off-board server"
is taught or suggested by Quinn's disclosure in paragraphs 31, 3 2, and 3 8
4
Appeal2018-006249
Application 15/147,947
where application packages are looked up and communicated to the wireless
device as an update is required and/or based on a determination that the
mobile device is configured to connect to the VCS, as further disclosed by
paragraphs 363-364 of Krzyzanowski. See Ans. 38--40. We also agree with
the Examiner that the recited "software stack" is not limited to "an
implementation of the Bluetooth protocol," as described in paragraph 29 of
Appellant's Specification, but instead is reasonably interpreted as any
general software application or software. Ans. 40.
With respect to whether the proposed combination requires changes to
Lovitt and Krzyzanowski, we also agree with the Examiner that both
references relate to VCS software downloads using a wireless device. Ans.
43. As explained by the Examiner, the disclosure of indicating the mobile
device's (1) version in Lovitt's paragraphs 7 and 11 and (2) compatibility in
Krzyzanowski's paragraphs 363-364, when considered together with the
disclosure of software updates to the VCS in Quinn's paragraphs 4, 5, and
28, does not require any changes to Quinn, or to any other reference. Ans.
43--44. Furthermore, minor modifications to make the combination work
would have been obvious because the skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton," and this is a case in which the skilled artisan
would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of
a puzzle." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,420,421 (2007).
For the above-stated reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner erred in finding the disclosure of Quinn in
combination with Lovitt and Krzyzanowski teaches or suggests the disputed
features of claim 21. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of independent claim 21, independent claim 31 which is argued based on
5
Appeal2018-006249
Application 15/147,947
similar reasons stated for claim 21, and the remaining claims which are not
argued separately with sufficient particularity. See App. Br. Br. 6-11.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 21--40.
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
6