Ex Parte Forest

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2017

14076434 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 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.
14/076,434 11/11/2013 THOMAS M. FOREST P020905-GMVE-CD/003.1026 1000
70422 7590 06/02/2017
LKGlobal (GM)
7010 E. COCHISE ROAD
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85253
EXAMINER
LYNCH, SHARON S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2438
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2017 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@lkglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS M. FOREST
Appeal 2017-001728
Application 14/076,434
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC B. CHEN, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and SHARON FENICK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1—
14 and 16—20, all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2017-001728
Application 14/076,434
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claims are directed to managing
communications from a device onboard a vehicle. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for managing communications over a
controller area network (CAN) bus, the communications
originating from an electronic control unit (ECU) onboard a
vehicle, the method comprising:
accessing, by a protection apparatus, a message
transmitted from the ECU;
determining, by the protection apparatus, whether the
message is permitted, the protection apparatus being
communicatively coupled to the ECU, and the protection
apparatus comprising a plurality of transistors implemented as a
set of logic gates; and
when the message is not permitted, preventing, by the
protection apparatus, the message from further transmission via
the CAN bus to an intended recipient device.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS1
Claims 1—7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combination of Litichever (US 2015/0020152 Al, pub. Jan. 15, 2015)
and Hood (US 2013/0295900 Al, pub. Nov. 7, 2013). Final Act. 17-25.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combination of Litichever, Hood, and Miao (US 2012/0015690 Al, pub.
Jan. 19, 2012). Final Act. 25-27.
1 The Examiner withdrew rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112. Ans.
2.
2
Appeal 2017-001728
Application 14/076,434
Claims 9, 11, and 16—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Litichever and Miao. Final Act. 27—
35.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combination of Litichever, Miao, and Ricci (US 2014/0310379 Al, pub.
Oct. 16, 2014). Final Act. 35-37.
Claims 12—14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combination of Litichever, Miao, and Hood. Final Act. 37-41.
CONTENTIONS
Appellant argues error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—7
because “Litichever and Hood are not in the same field of endeavor.” App.
Br. 12. Appellant also argues “a person of ordinary skill in the art would not
have a reason to combine” “the serial communication bus discussed in
Litichever with the wireless communication protocol and cellular phone(s)
of Hood” because “the entire vehicle onboard communication system would
be rendered inoperable” and “the combination thereof would frustrate the
principle of operation of Litichever.” Id. 13.
Appellant argues claim 8 based on reasons presented with respect to
claim 1 and because Miao “fails to compensate for the shortcomings and
deficiencies of Litichever and Hood” with respect to claim 1. Id. 13—14.
Appellant argues claims 9, 11, and 16—20 on grounds similar to those
discussed with respect to claim 1. Id. 14—15. Appellant adds that the
rejection of claims 9 and 16 is erroneous because the combination of
Litichever and Miao does not teach or suggest “a transmit enable signal
input port, configured to receive an activation signal transmitted by the
network controller” and “preventing] further transmission of [a received]
3
Appeal 2017-001728
Application 14/076,434
activation signal [to the network transceiver in order] to block receipt of the
data communication at the network transceiver.” Id. 15—16.
Appellant argues claim 10 on the same basis as claim 9, adding that
Ricci “fails to compensate for the shortcomings and deficiencies of
Litichever and Miao” with respect to claim 9. Id. 16—17.
Appellant argues claims 12—14 based on arguments presented with
respect to claim 9, adding that Hood “fails to compensate for the
shortcomings and deficiencies of Litichever and Miao” with respect to claim
9. Id. at 17-18.
OPINION
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments alleging error in the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—14 and 16—20. App. Br. 12—18; Reply Br.
2-4. We disagree with Appellant’s contentions for the reasons stated by the
Examiner. Ans. 2—13. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and
conclusions set forth by the Examiner in the action from which the appeal is
taken (Final Act. 17—41) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 2—13) in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief.
We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the
following for emphasis.
Appellant’s arguments regarding “field of endeavor”—that the
combinations of Litichever and Hood and Litichever and Maio are improper
because the references are not in the same field of endeavor as one another
(see App. Br. 12—13, 14—15; Reply Br. 2-4)—do not persuade us of error in
the Examiner’s rejections. Whether cited references are in the same field of
endeavor with one another is not an argument against obviousness. The
analogous art test requires that the Board show that a reference is either in
the field of the Appellant’s endeavor or is reasonably pertinent to the
4
Appeal 2017-001728
Application 14/076,434
problem with which the inventor was concerned in order to rely on that
reference as a basis for rejection. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed.
Cir. 1992).
To whatever extent Appellant argues error because the Examiner
makes an incorrect finding that the references are in the same field of
endeavor as one another, we disagree that the finding is incorrect. The
Examiner finds “Litichever and Hood are combinable because both are from
the same field of endeavor of restricting communication within a vehicle.”
Final Act. 18; see Litichever Abstract and Hood 123. The Examiner also
finds “Miao is combinable with Litichever because both are from the same
field of endeavor of restricting communication inside a vehicle.” Id. 29; see
Miao Abstract. Appellant does not rebut these findings with sufficient
argument or evidence to convince us of error even if the Examiner’s
rejection was based on this finding. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—7 and the rejection of claim 8, argued on the same
basis.
With respect to the rejection of claims 9, 11, and 16—20, the Examiner
also finds “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate Miao’s method of
receiving a signal from the mobile device with Litichever in order to
improve safety by enabling detection of when a driver is using a mobile
communications device.” Id. 29—30 (citing Miao 14). Appellant has not
presented sufficient persuasive argument or evidence to convince us of error
in the Examiner’s reasoning. With respect to the limitations Appellant
argues in claims 9 and 16 (App. Br. 14—16), we adopt the Examiner’s
findings (Final Act. 27—32; Ans. 6—11), which Appellant does not
persuasively rebut (see generally Reply Br.).
5
Appeal 2017-001728
Application 14/076,434
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 11, and
16—20. We also sustain the rejections of claims 10 and 12—14, which
Appellants argue on the same basis as claims 9.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—14 and 16—20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6