Ex Parte King et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 30, 201714146951 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 14/146,951 01/03/2014 Ronald O. King LEAR52520PUSP 4344 34007 7590 04/03/2017 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. / LEAR CORPORATION 1000 TOWN CENTER TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER AFRIFA-KYEI, ANTHONY D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2682 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/03/2017 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 RONALD O. KING and CRAIG ELDER Appeal 2016-008666 Application 14/146,951 Technology Center 2600 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1—7 and 9-20, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2016-008666 Application 14/146,951 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention is directed to “remote keyless entry systems for remotely controlling vehicle functions” with a communications device and a fob (Spec. 2, 4). Independent claims 1 and 9, reproduced below, are exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A system comprising: a base station configured to control a vehicle function in response to receiving a passive entry command via a first wireless link; a communications device configured to transmit a request via a second wireless link different than the first wireless link, the request being for the passive entry command to be transmitted to the base station, the communications device being configured to transmit the request via the second wireless link passively without user actuation of the communications device pursuant to passive entry operation; and a fob configured to transmit the command to the base station via the first wireless link in response to receiving the request from the communications device via the second wireless link. 9. A system comprising: a base station configured to control a vehicle function upon receiving a command via a first wireless link; a fob configured to transmit a request via a second wireless link different than the first wireless link; and a communications device configured to transmit the command to the base station via the first wireless link in response to receiving the request from the fob via the second wireless link. 2 Appeal 2016-008666 Application 14/146,951 REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1—7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Sultan (US 2009/0096596 Al; published Apr. 16, 2009) and Gautama (US 2014/0188348 Al; published July 3, 2014). The Examiner rejected claims 9, 10, 12—15, and 17—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Tanaka (JP 2009-257027 Al; published Nov. 5, 2009) and Sultan.1 The Examiner rejected claims 10, 11, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Tanaka, Sultan, and Gusikhin (US 2013/0237174 Al; published Sept. 12, 2013). ANALYSIS Claims 1—7 Appellants contend the combination of Sultan and Gautama does not teach or suggest a communications device configured to transmit to a fob a passive entry command request “passively without user actuation of the communications device pursuant to passive entry operation,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 5—6; Reply Br. 3). Particularly, Appellants argue “neither Sultan nor Gautama teach or suggest a phone [communications device] transmitting a passive entry request indirectly to the base station via the fob” (Reply Br. 3 (emphasis added)). Rather, Sultan teaches a fob, not a communications device, transmits a passive entry request to the base station; and Gautama teaches a cell phone/communication device and a fob each transmit a passive entry request directly to the base station (Reply Br. 3; see 1 The citations to Tanaka in the Final Action, Answer, and Briefs are to the English machine translation of Tanaka. 3 Appeal 2016-008666 Application 14/146,951 also App. Br. 5—6 (citing Sultan | 8; Gautama Tflf 43 44, 47)). We do not agree. We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own. Particularly, we agree with the Examiner that Sultan discloses “a relay transmission from the communication device/cellular phone through the fob to the telematics unit [base station],” thereby teaching the communications device transmits an entry request indirectly to the base station via an intermediary fob (Ans. 5 (citing Sultan || 8—10)). Claim 1 requires that the communications device transmit an entry request, “the request being for the passive entry command to be transmitted to the base station,” but does not preclude indirect transmission. Further, Gautama discloses a cellular phone capable of providing a passive entry request to vehicle central module/control unit, thus teaching the claimed communications device transmitting a request passively without user actuation of the communications device pursuant to passive entry operation (Ans. 5). Additionally, the Examiner has articulated sufficient reasoning with “rational underpinnings” for using Gautama’s passive-entry communications device in Sultan to transmit an entry request indirectly to the base station via Sultan’s intermediary fob “in order to have a secure . . . control means for a vehicle” (Final Act. 3). We agree with the Examiner a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to transmit a passive entry request from Gautama’s communications device/cell phone to the vehicle via Sultan’s fob, to strengthen vehicle access security by controlling the vehicle’s passive entry function with two passive entry gateways (phone and fob) instead of one (Final Act. 3; Ans. 6). That is, an additional gateway is not precluded from Appellants’ claim. 4 Appeal 2016-008666 Application 14/146,951 Thus, for the above reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. We find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness, and therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and claims 2—7 argued for their dependency therefrom (App. Br. 7). Claims 9—20 Appellants contend Tanaka’s fob does not communicate with a vehicle base station via an intermediary communications device, as required by claim 9. Rather, Appellants assert, Tanaka’s fob is the intermediary between Tanaka’s vehicle base station and a communications device (App. Br. 8 (citing Tanaka Fig. 1, vehicle base station 1, fob 2, communications device/cell phone 3); Reply Br. 4). Appellants acknowledge Tanaka’s communications device is an intermediary between the fob and another entity (automobile dealer/insurance company). However, Appellants argue Tanaka’s automobile dealer/insurance company cannot be the claimed base station because the automobile dealer/insurance company does not control a vehicle function (GPS tracking) upon receiving a command from the communications device (App. Br. 9-10 (citing Tanaka Tflf 23, 27, 29)). Appellants also contend Tanaka does not disclose a communications device and base station “directly connected by a [first] wireless link” as required by claim 9 (App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 5). We do not agree. Rather, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own. Particularly, we agree with the Examiner that Tanaka’s vehicle base station 1 is a base station as claimed, and Tanaka’s communications device!cell phone is an intermediary between the vehicle base station and the fob (Ans. 7). As recognized by the Examiner, Tanaka’s communication device/cQ\\ 5 Appeal 2016-008666 Application 14/146,951 phone receives a request for road assistance or software upgrade from the fob, obtains responsive feedback from a third party (insurance company/vehicle manufacturer), and then relays the feedback to the vehicle base station to control the vehicle’s equipment or software upgrade (Ans. 7 (citing Tanaka ]Hf 24—33)). Appellants’ arguments that Tanaka’s “automobile dealer/insurance company” is not the claimed base station have not addressed these findings by the Examiner. App. Br. 9—10; Reply Br. 4. Appellants’ argument that Tanaka’s cell phone and base station are not “directly connected by a [first] wireless link” in contrast to Appellants’ system—in which “the wireless link between the cell phone and the base station [is] a ‘direct communication link’”—is not commensurate with the scope of claim 9, which recites “a first wireless link” not a “direct communication link” (Reply Br. 5 (citing Spec. Fig. 3); App. Br. 9). We therefore agree with the Examiner that Tanaka teaches a first wireless link as claimed, because Tanaka’s “wireless device [communications device] transmits a command via a first wireless link through the fob and back to the vehicle control unit using the first wireless link” (Ans. 7 (emphasis added)). Additionally, Sultan teaches “communication between the fob, vehicle, and communication device [can be] []Bluetooth, Wifi, cellular, WiMax, NFC, IEEE 802.11,” suggesting the use of first and second wireless links, as claimed, between the vehicle base station, communications device, and fob (Ans. 8). In light of the broad claim limitations and the Examiner’s findings, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 9 and 15, argued together, and claims 10-14 and 16—20 argued for their dependency therefrom (App. Br. 7, 10). 6 Appeal 2016-008666 Application 14/146,951 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—7 and 9—20 is 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 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation