Ex Parte Hatton

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 27, 2017

14474834 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 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.
14/474,834 09/02/2014 David Anthony Hatton 83471929 7177
28395 7590 11/29/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET
EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER TAYLOR, NATHAN SCOTT
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2643
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/29/2017 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 @brookskushman. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID ANTHONY HATTON
Appeal 2017-003681
Application 14/474,8341
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Ford Global Technologies, LLC is identified as the real party in interest.
See App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-003681
Application 14/474,834
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to a method and system for emergency
call handling, including connecting a vehicle computing system to a remote
phone system. See Abstract, Spec. 12. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent.
Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference:
1. A system comprising:
a processor configured to:
utilize a wirelessly connected mobile device to establish
communication with an emergency operator;
detect a likely mobile device disconnection state that
would result in communication termination; and
transfer critical emergency information, usable to assist a
vehicle occupant, to the emergency operator without waiting for
a prompt for the critical information from the emergency
operator, responsive to the likely disconnection state.
References and Rejections
The following references are relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
Alperovich
Kuz
Drobot
Cotevino
US 6,408,172 B1
US 2007/0066276 A1
US 2009/0081994 A1
US 8,010,167 B2
June 18, 2002
Mar. 22, 2007
Mar. 26, 2009
Aug. 30, 2011
Claims 1—6, 8—13, and 15—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Drobot, Alperovich, and Kuz. Final Act. 9.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Drobot, Alperovich, Kuz, and Cotevino. Final Act. 9.
2
Appeal 2017-003681
Application 14/474,834
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. Any arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We are not persuaded the Examiner erred; we adopt the
Examiner's findings and conclusions (see Final Act. 2—18; Ans. 2—7) as our
own, and we add the following for emphasis.
A. Transfer Critical Emergency Information
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 is in
error because “the prior art combination merely teaches transfer of other
information under other conditions, and as such” does not teach or suggest
“the transfer of critical emergency information under the constraints
claimed” (emphasis and capitalization omitted). Reply Br. 2. Particularly,
Appellant contends neither Drobot nor Alperovich “teaches transfer of any
information except to tell the remote party (e.g., emergency operator) that
the battery is low,” nor do the references “meet the limitation that the critical
emergency information is ‘usable to assist a vehicle occupant, ’ as the
information itself is not being used to assist the occupant.” Reply Br. 2.
As an initial matter, we give claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification as they would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367
F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellant’s claim 1 recites a system
configured to “transfer critical emergency information, usable to assist a
vehicle occupant, to the emergency operator without waiting for a prompt
for the critical information from the emergency operator, responsive to the
3
Appeal 2017-003681
Application 14/474,834
likely disconnection state.” We note Appellant’s Specification does not
recite the terms “critical emergency information” or “usable to assist.”
Appellant refers to paragraph 172 of the Specification to support the
disputed limitation, which includes the sole mention of the “critical” claim
term: “if the signal strength of the connection between the vehicle
computing system and a nomadic device is low, or if the detected battery
power is low, the vehicle computing system may ‘dump’ critical information
over an established connection without waiting for a prompt,” in order to
“help[] ensure that the important information is transferred before a
connection is lost.” See App. Br. 4.
We find that the cited references teach or suggest the claim
limitations, consistent with the specification as they would have been
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. We agree with the Examiner
that “Drobot in view of Alperovich discloses transmitting information to an
emergency operator as a response to a low battery (i.e. likely disconnection
s[t]ate).” Ans. 2—3. Drobot teaches transmitting information—without
waiting for a prompt2—to users of a calling session upon determining a user
will likely experience a disconnection state. See Drobot || 26, 30-32. This
disconnection state can be due to, for example, a low battery. See id.
Alperovich teaches determining and transmitting low battery information
2 Appellant’s arguments that the claimed “without waiting for a prompt”
requires information that would be requested by the operator are not
commensurate with the scope of the claims, and thus do not persuade us of
Examiner error. See Reply Br. 3; see also Ans. 3^4 (finding the limitation
“without waiting for a prompt” to be met by cited references teaching that
the usable information is transferred without a direct request by the receiving
party).
4
Appeal 2017-003681
Application 14/474,834
(indicative of a likely disconnection) to an emergency operator, without a
prompt. See Alperovich 2:24—34.
As correctly found by the Examiner, the transmitted information of
Drobot and Alperovich is “critical emergency information” that is “usable to
assist a vehicle occupant.” See Ans. 3. One of ordinary skill in the art
would understand the phone battery level of Drobot and Alperovich is
important information that assists in coordinating user communications. See
Drobot 130 (“As a result of implementing the invention, A and B avoid a
‘surprise’ session disruption, and ... A and B can verbally make a ‘backup
plan’ before B’s battery loses its power”); Alperovich 3:39-48 (“battery
status indicator 220 allows the PSAP [(Public Safety Answering Point)] to
provide special handling for low battery calls” so that “the received
emergency call 205 with the low battery indicator 220 should be handled
next in order to prevent subscriber disconnection before the operator
response.”); compare Spec. 1172. Therefore, we find the Examiner’s
determination to be reasonable and agree the disputed limitation is taught or
suggested by the prior art.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Drobot and Alperovich teaches or suggests the disputed
claim limitations.
B. Combination of Cited References with the Teachings of Kuz
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Kuz is properly
combinable with Drobot and Alperovich in the rejection of independent
claim 1, as “Kuz teaches that the data is immediately dumped upon
connection,” and thus “renders a need for Applicant’s claims, Alperovich
5
Appeal 2017-003681
Application 14/474,834
and Drobot all useless, because the ‘goal’ of transferring emergency
information before disconnection is simply met by Kuz.” Reply Br. 4.
Appellant does not persuade us the Examiner erred in finding the
claim limitations are obvious in view of the combined teachings of the cited
references.
To justify combining reference teachings in support of a
rejection it is not necessary that a device shown in one reference
can be physically inserted into the device shown in the
other. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test 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) (internal citations omitted).
We agree with the Examiner that the teachings of Kuz combine with
Drobot in view of Alperovich. See Final Act. 3—4, 11. We note the
Examiner relies on Kuz for teaching transferred critical emergency
information can include “location and data related to the emergency” (Ans.
3); Appellant’s arguments with respect to Kuz are improperly based on
bodily incorporating Kuz’s disclosure into the other cited references, and do
not persuade us one of ordinary skill would not use Kuz’s information in
Drobot and Alperovich’s system for transferring critical emergency
information (see Reply Br. 3^4; see also Ans. 5). See Kuz || 7—8.
Additionally, we do not find the Examiner’s combination is in error,
as Kuz teaches that critical emergency information (e.g., location
information and safety system states) is transmitted, without a prompt, upon
6
Appeal 2017-003681
Application 14/474,834
determining an emergency. See Kuz || 21, 51.3 The combination of Drobot
and Alperovich similarly teaches transferring critical emergency information
upon determining an emergency (e.g., a likely disconnection state). See
Drobot 126; Alperovich 3:8—59. Based on the record before us, we do not
find that Appellant has presented evidence or reasoning sufficient to show
that combining the prior art was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior
art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed.
Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combined teachings of the cited references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art the limitations of independent claim 1.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 8
and 15 for the reasons discussed above (see Ans. 5—7), and dependent claims
2—7, 9-14, and 16—20, which are not separately argued (see App. Br. 9—10).
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 is affirmed.
3 Kuz further teaches transmitting additional emergency information through
an established connection. See Kuz | 54 (“the information may be
synchronized or supplemented”).
7
Appeal 2017-003681
Application 14/474,834
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
8