Ex Parte Kamdar et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 27, 2011

10690125 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 27, 2011)

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.
10/690,125 10/21/2003 Hitan S. Kamdar GP-304074 (2760/137) 3644
60770 7590 06/27/2011
General Motors Corporation
c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C.
P.O. BOX 4390
TROY, MI 48099-4390
EXAMINER
HAMZA, FARUK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2442
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte HITAN S. KAMDAR and SHPETIM VELIU
____________

Appeal 2009-011487
Application 10/690,125
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before KARL D. EASTHOM, GREGORY J. GONSALVES, and
KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judges.

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-011487
Application 10/690,125

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1-21. (App. Br. 2.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The Disclosed Invention
The disclosed invention includes “a method for accessing email
attachments from a vehicle.” (Spec. 2:3-4.) In the method, an email
attachment is downloaded to a vehicle telematics control unit (TCU) and
stored in memory. (FIG. 2, step 214.) Next, the TCU determines the type of
attachment and routes the attachment to the appropriate communications
unit. (FIG. 2; steps 216 and 218.)
Exemplary claim 1 follows:
1. A method for accessing an email attachment from a mobile
vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving an email attachment from a remote server at a vehicle
telematics unit;
determining at the vehicle a classification of the email attachment;
routing the email attachment within the vehicle based on the
classification such that the email attachment is provided to a vehicle
communication unit enabled to present content of the email attachment.

The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 as obvious under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on U.S. Patent 7,194,513 B2 (Sharif) and U.S.
Patent 6,757,712 B1(Bastian).
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 11, and 18 as obvious under 35 USC
§ 103(a) based on Sharif, Bastian, and U.S. Patent 6,219,694 B1 (Lazaridis).
Appeal 2009-011487
Application 10/690,125

3
The Examiner rejected claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 20, and 21 as obvious
under 35 USC § 103(a) based on Sharif, Bastian, and U.S. Pub. No.
2005/0060373 A1(Ban).
The Examiner rejected claims 5, 12, and 19 as obvious under 35 USC
§ 103(a) based on Sharif, Bastian, Lazaridis and “Official Notice.”
ISSUE
Appellants’ responses to the Examiner’s positions present the
following issue:
Did the Examiner establish that the combination of Sharif and Bastian
renders obvious the steps of “determining at the vehicle a classification of
the email attachment” and “routing the email attachment within the vehicle
based on the classification?”
FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
Sharif
1. Sharif discloses a “system for using an Internet appliance for
sending and receiving digital content files as email attachments [that]
includes a system server and an Internet appliance both connected to a
communication network such as the Internet.” (Abstract.)
Bastian
2. Bastian discloses a “system for using an Internet appliance for
sending and receiving digital content files as email attachments [that]
includes a system server and an Internet appliance both connected to a
communication network such as the Internet.” (Abstract.)
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Examiner bears an initial burden of factually supporting an
articulated rejection. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Under
Appeal 2009-011487
Application 10/690,125

4
§ 103, “‘there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citation omitted).
ANALYSIS
Issue - Claims 1-21
Appellants assert that the combination of Sharif and Bastian does not
render obvious the steps of classifying an email attachment at a vehicle and
routing the email attachment within the vehicle based on the classification.
(App. Br. 6.)
After acknowledging that Sharif does not teach that these claimed
steps are performed at a vehicle, the Examiner reasons that “Bastian teaches
the claimed limitation of email system at a vehicle.” (Ans. 10.) But
independent claims 1, 8 and 15 require more; they require the particular
steps of classifying an email attachment and routing the email attachment to
be performed at or within the vehicle. The Examiner fails to identify any
portion of Sharif or Bastian that teaches or suggests that either of these
claimed steps is performed at the vehicle. (See Ans. 9-10.)
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1, 8, and 15, and claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21 dependent therefrom.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-21.

REVERSED

ke