Ex Parte Fisk et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 18, 2017

13198373 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 2017)

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.
13/198,373 08/04/2011 Frank C. FISK END920110078US1 7673
46583 7590 04/20/2017
Roberts Mlntknwski Safran Pole Rr PalHernn P P
EXAMINER
Intellectual Property Department
P.O. Box 10064
MAPA, MICHAEL Y
MCLEAN, VA 22102-8064 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/20/2017 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@rmsc2.com
lgallaugher@rmsc2.com
dbeltran @ rmsc2. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FRANK C. FISK, SRI RAMANATHAN, MATTHEW A. TERRY,
and MATTHEW B. TREVATHAN
Appeal 2016-006778
Application 13/198,373
Technology Center 2600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, AMBER L. HAGY, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1—8, 10-17, and 19—29, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 9 and
18 are cancelled. Final Act. 2.
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is International Business
Machines Corporation. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-006778
Application 13/198,373
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ disclosed invention “relates to mobile devices, and more
particularly, to . . . preventing and/or limiting use of mobile devices.” Spec.
11. Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving, by a mobile device, a message from a
transmitter indicating that the mobile device is in a certain
location within one of a plurality of short range fields, wherein
the message includes both location attribute information and a
state of events currently occurring at the certain location, and the
location attribute information describes attributes associated
with the one of the plurality of short range fields;
forwarding the message, by the mobile device, including
both the location attribute information and the state of events, to
a security manager located on a network;
receiving, by the mobile device, a user-configured security
policy selected and sent by the security manager based on the
location attribute information and the state of events;
changing a present user-configured security policy on the
mobile device to the received user-configured security policy on
the mobile device; and
at least one of disabling and enabling, by the mobile
device, one or more functions of the mobile device based on the
received user-configured security policy set for the attributes
associated with the one of the plurality of short range fields,
wherein the received user-configured security policy
includes one or more functionalities for the at least one of
disabling and enabling the one or more function of the mobile
device, and
wherein the state of events currently occurring includes a
velocity of a vehicle and an indication of whether an emergency
has been currently detected at the certain location.
2
Appeal 2016-006778
Application 13/198,373
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Claims 1—6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 22, 23, 26, and 27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 35 U.S.C. 103(a)2 as being unpatentable over Tadayon et al.
(hereinafter “Tadayon”) and Tibbitts et al. (hereinafter “Tibbitts”). See Final
Act. 7-25.
Claims 7, 11, 15—17, 19, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tadayon, Tibbitts, Rao, and Nakamura
et al. (hereinafter “Nakamura”). See Final Act. 25—48.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tadayon, Tibbitts, and Stem et al. (hereinafter “Stem”).
See Final Act. 48-49.
Claims 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tadayon, Tibbitts, and Rao. See Final Act. 49—56.
Claims 28 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tadayon, Tibbitts, and Kelly et al. (hereinafter “Kelly”).
See Final Act. 56—59.
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs (“App.
Br.” filed Dec. 29, 2015; “Reply Br.” filed June 21, 2016) and the
Specification (“Spec.” filed Aug. 4, 2011) for the positions of Appellants
2 All rejections are under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. in effect prior to the
effective date of the Feahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011, i.e., “pre-
AIA.” See Final Act. 6.
Stem et al.
Rao
Nakamura et al.
Kelly et al.
Tadayon et al.
Tibbitts et al.
US 2003/0008662 Al
US 2004/0210752 Al
US 2010/0017411 Al
US 2010/0233959 Al
US 2011/0105097 Al
US 2012/0244883 Al
Jan. 9, 2003
Oct. 21,2004
Jan. 21,2010
Sept. 16,2010
May 5, 2011
Sept. 27, 2012
3
Appeal 2016-006778
Application 13/198,373
and the Final Office Action (“Final Act.” mailed Aug. 6, 2015) and Answer
(“Ans.” mailed Apr. 21, 2016) for the reasoning, findings, and conclusions
of the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have
been considered in this decision. Arguments that Appellants did not make in
the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015).
ISSUES
Based on Appellants’ arguments, we discuss the appeal by reference
to claims 1, 28, and 29. The issues presented by Appellants’ arguments are
as follows:
Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Tadayon and
Tibbitts teaches or suggests “[a] message .. . including ... the state of
events [currently occurring], . . . wherein the state of events currently
occurring includes a velocity of a vehicle and an indication of whether an
emergency has been currently detected at the certain location,” as recited in
claim 1?
Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Tadayon,
Tibbitts, and Kelly teaches or suggests “the emergency being currently
detected at the current location comprises a vehicle accident being currently
detected at the current location,” and “the vehicle accident being currently
detected at the current location comprises detecting that a vehicle air bag has
been deployed at the current location,” as recited in claims 28 and 29
respectively?
4
Appeal 2016-006778
Application 13/198,373
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments and contentions (App. Br.
8—38; Reply Br. 3—19) in light of the Examiner’s findings (Final Act. 7—11,
57—59) and explanations (Ans. 2—14) regarding claims 1, 28, and 29. We
agree with the Examiner’s findings and explanations and, except as set forth
below, we adopt them as our own. The following discussion, findings, and
conclusions are for emphasis.
Claim 1
Appellants’ position is as follows:
Tadayon does not disclose that “the state of events currently
occurring includes a velocity of a vehicle and an indication of
whether an emergency has been currently detected at the certain
location”. In fact, Tadayon only appears to disclose an
emergency message being received at a location in a car.
Therefore, Tadayon does not disclose an indication that an
emergency has been currently detected at the certain location.
Tadayon only discloses a general emergency message without
disclosing any specific information regarding whether an
emergency has been currently detected at the certain location.
App. Br. 11 (discussing Tadayon H 92, 109, 179, 192). Appellants further
contend Tibbitts does not cure the deficiencies of Tadayon. App. Br. 11—12.
We are not persuaded of error. It is not disputed that Tadayon teaches
communicating vehicle status to a remote entity/server (i.e., “security
manager” (claim 1)), that in turn communicates with a mobile device to
modify a feature on the mobile device or to take other action. See Tadayon
191. Tadayon further teaches that information sent to and processed by the
security manager may include location information from a GPS system. See
id. 1135. Tadayon also teaches that any condition can be applied to the
logic to the security manager “as long as there is a sensor or device to detect
5
Appeal 2016-006778
Application 13/198,373
that condition.” Id. 1143. Tibbitts and Tadayon both teach that signals for
control of a mobile device may be obtained by direct connection to vehicle
sensor systems (Tibbitts 1106; Tadayon 192). One of ordinary skill in the
art considering Tibbitts and Tadayon would have known that one of the
vehicle sensor signals typically found in a vehicle is from an “air bag
deployed]” sensor (see, e.g., Kelly 18—193), which is at least indicative
of an accident — an emergency condition (accord Spec. 1 33). Tadayon
teaches that “[ejmergency condition rules may override all others, in terms
of police calling or 911-calls, or any forward calls, showing the Context or
Content flag (as a header information) as being the emergency type.”
Tadayon 1192. Tadayon’s teaching regarding emergency conditions is
explained in more detail as follows:
In one embodiment, upon occurrence of other events (e.g.,
an emergency event indicated by a signal/input to the mobile
device), the disabled or limited feature of the mobile device is
restored. In one embodiment, when user dials an emergency
number or the mobile device enters an emergency mode, the
disabled or limited feature of the mobile device is restored.
Id. ^ 41 (emphasis added). One of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood that, in order for a remote entity/server implementing the logic
(id. 191) to provide the signal/input to the mobile device, the remote
entity/server necessarily receives information indicative of an emergency
situation, such as from a sensor in the vehicle (see id. H 92, 143; Tibbitts
1106).
3 We refer here to Kelly to explain what the person of ordinary skill in the
art would have understood from the teachings of Tadayon and Tibbitts.
6
Appeal 2016-006778
Application 13/198,373
“[T]he test [for obviousness] is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Therefore, “one cannot show non­
obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references.” Id. at 426.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Tadayon, when combined
with Tibbitts, teaches, or at least suggests “[a] message . . . including ... the
state of events [currently occurring], . . . wherein the state of events currently
occurring includes a velocity of a vehicle and an indication of whether an
emergency has been currently detected at the certain location,” as recited in
claim 1.
Turning to Appellants’ contention that the Examiner improperly
imports limitations from the Specification into the claims {see, e.g., Reply
Br. 4 (citing MPEP § 2103) we see nothing in the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions that indicate the Examiner has imported un-recited limitations
from the Specification. Furthermore, in view of our findings and
conclusions discussed supra, we find unpersuasive Appellants’ contention
that “Tadayon does not relate to the Appellants’] claimed invention because
Tadayon is directed toward automatically restricting the texting ability of a
mobile device, which is different from providing an indication of whether an
emergency has been currently detected at the certain location” (Reply Br. 3).
Indeed, Appellants’ Specification states that Appellants’ invention relates to
“preventing and/or limiting use of mobile devices” (Spec. 11) such as
texting (see id. 12).
Appellants do not persuade us of error in the rejection of claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Appellants argue the
7
Appeal 2016-006778
Application 13/198,373
patentability of independent claims 15 (App. Br. 16—20), 20 (App. Br. 26—
30), 22 (App. Br. 12—14), and 24 (App. Br. 20-25) utilizing substantially the
same arguments as presented for claim 1 (see App. Br. 8—12) and
additionally arguing that neither Rao nor Nakamura cures the alleged
deficiencies of Tadayon and Tibbitts (App. Br. 20, 24, 30). We find these
arguments unpersuasive for the reasons discussed supra for claim 1 and
sustain the rejections of claims 15, 20, 22, and 24. Appellants do not
separately argue with particularity the patentability of claims 1—8, 10-14, 16,
17, 19, 21, 23, and 25—27, which variously depend, directly or indirectly,
from claims 1, 15, 20, 22, and 25. See generally App. Br. 8—38. Therefore,
for the same reasons as discussed for the independent claims, we sustain the
rejections of claims 1—8, 10-14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, and 25—27.
Claims 28 and 29
Appellants contend as follows: “. . . Kelly only appears to disclose
vehicle faults and vehicle air bag deployment codes, and limiting
functionality based on an evaluation of movement parameter and/or vehicle
diagnostic information. Therefore, Kelly does not disclose the emergency
comprising a vehicle accident being currently detected at the current
location.” App. Br. 34 (discussing claim 28) (emphasis omitted).
Appellants further contend “Kelly does not disclose the emergency
comprising detecting that a vehicle air bag has been deployed at the current
location.” App. Br. 38 (discussing claim 29).
We are not persuaded of error. As pointed out by the Examiner, the
rejection is based on the combination of Tadayon, Tibbitts, and Kelly. See
Ans. 11—12 (citing Keller, 642 F.2d at 425—26; In re Merck Co., Inc., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). One of ordinary skill in the art would
8
Appeal 2016-006778
Application 13/198,373
have understood air bag deployment to be indicative of the occurrence of an
accident. The Examiner explains, and we agree, that
Kelly discloses that the functionality of the mobile device can be
modified based on a number of parameters including speed and
air bag deployment codes (i.e. claimed vehicle accident) and
since the combination of Tadayon in view of Tibbits [sic]
discloses a server receiving information corresponding to an
emergency message together with the velocity and location
information within the vehicle, then one of ordinary skill in the
art would recognize that the emergency message could be
directed towards a vehicle accident indicated by] the air bag
deployment codes.
Ans. 13.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Tadayon, Tibbitts, and Kelly teaches or suggests “the emergency being
currently detected at the current location comprises a vehicle accident being
currently detected at the current location,” and “the vehicle accident being
currently detected at the current location comprises detecting that a vehicle
air bag has been deployed at the current location,” as recited in claims 28
and 29 respectively.
Appellants do not persuade us of error in the rejection of claims 28
and 29; we, therefore, sustain the rejection of claims 28 and 29.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—8, 10—17, and 19—29
is affirmed.
9
Appeal 2016-006778
Application 13/198,373
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).
AFFIRMED
10