Ex Parte Filev et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 15, 2016

13216748 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/216,748 08/24/2011
28395 7590 09/19/2016
BROOKS KUSHMAN P,CJFG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Dimitar Petrov Filev
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.
83196759 4725
EXAMINER
FE!, JORDAN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2016 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 DIMITAR PETROV FILEV and DA VORIN DAVID HROVAT
Appeal2015-000310 1
Application 13/216,7482
Technology Center 3600
Before KEVIN W. CHERRY, BRADLEY B. BAY AT, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 4--15, 18, 21, and 23. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
STATEMENT OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed May 12,
2014), the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed July 25, 2014), and the Final
Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Dec. 10, 2013).
2 Appellants identify "Ford Global Technologies, LLC" as the real party in
interest (Br. 1 ).
Appeal2015-000310
Application 13/216,748
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention "generally relate to methods and
apparatus for a vehicle to cloud to vehicle control system" (Spec. i-f 1 ).
Claim 1, reproduced below with added bracketed notations, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
[a] sending vehicle configuration data and route-related data
to a remote system;
[b] receiving a ride-comfort optimization strategy, based on
the vehicle configuration data and route related data, for
optimizing a suspension system for an upcoming road
segment;
[ c] translating the strategy into a series of suspension control
commands; and and [sic]
[ d] controlling the suspension system based on the suspension
control commands.
Br., Claims Appendix.
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us on appeal.
I. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
being indefinite.
II. Claims 1, 4--15, 18, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Adachi (US 2009/0082917 Al,
pub. Mar. 26, 2009) and Niwa (US 2004/0094912 Al, pub.
May 20, 2004).
Final Act. 2-10.
2
Appeal2015-000310
Application 13/216,748
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Indefiniteness
Appellants do not present any response in the Appeal Brief to the
rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite. Therefore, we summarily sustain the Examiner's rejection.
Rejection II
Obviousness
Appellants argue that claim 1 requires "receipt of a 'strategy ... for
optimizing a suspension system for an upcoming road segment.' No such
strategy is received in Niwa. Since no such strategy is received, there is also
no translation of the strategy into a series of suspension control commands,
as claimed" (Br. 5). The difficulty with Appellants' argument is that claim 1
is rejected as obvious over the combination of Adachi and Niwa. The
Examiner does not rely on either Adachi or Niwa alone as disclosing all of
limitations [b] and [ c] of claim 1; instead, the Examiner relies on their
combined teachings (see Final Act. 4). As such, Appellants' argument that
Niwa alone does not disclose limitation [b] or [ c] is not persuasive of
Examiner error. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986) ("Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.").
We are also not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants' contention that
The cited portions of Adachi that allegedly teach "ride
comfort optimization strategy" actually discuss where traffic is
high or low at what times, and what times to avoid the high traffic
3
Appeal2015-000310
Application 13/216,748
areas. This is not a "ride comfort optimization strategy for
optimizing a suspension system.' Combination of Adachi and
Niwa, therefore, would result in a system that avoided high
traffic areas and sent road segment roughness profile information
to a vehicle for use in suspension control, which is not even
remotely close to what is claimed.
Br. 5---6. We disagree with Appellants' characterization that the cited
portions of Adachi are only limited to traffic conditions. For instance, as
part of improving the vehicle running characteristics and the vehicle driver's
feeling of safety, Adachi teaches that "with regard to each road and each
intersection, the ease of travel can be evaluated separately for the individual
attributes of vehicles, and/or separately for the individual attributes of
drivers" (Adachi i-f 41). Thus, Appellants offer no technical reasoning or
evidence to support their position or to otherwise distinguish the combined
teachings of the prior art from the claimed subject matter.
Finally, Appellants argue that "nothing in Niwa or Adachi teaches or
suggests translation of a 'received strategy' into 'control commands' as
claimed" (Br. 6). This argument is unpersuasive at least because it is not
responsive to the Examiner's findings (see Ans. 3 (Adachi "teaches a system
using data from a remote source to control the vehicle and translating a
'received strategy' into 'control commands' (i-f[21, 84] ... ),"and Niwa
"teaches a suspension control system that sends and receives data from a
remote station for use in controlling the suspension (i-![93-95]).")).
Appellants do not address any of these paragraphs to dispute the Examiner's
actual findings in the rejection of record.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appellants assert that independent claims 4, 18,
21, and 23 are allowable for reasons similar to those presented with respect
4
Appeal2015-000310
Application 13/216,748
to independent claim 1 (Br. 6). Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 4,
18, 21, and 23 for the same reasons as claim 1. We also sustain the
Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 5-15, which are not argued
separately except based on their dependence on independent claim 4 (Br. 6).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 4--15, 18, 21, and 23 are
affirmed.
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
5