Ex Parte Kristinsson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2018

13856041 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2018)

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.
13/856,041 04/03/2013 Johannes Geir Kristinsson 83347338 3648
28395 7590 02/02/2018
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET
EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER NGUYEN, TUAN S
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2145
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2018 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 JOHANNES GEIR KRISTINS SON,
RYAN ABRAHAM MCGEE, FINN TSENG, and
JEFF ALLEN GREENBERG
Appeal 2017-008000
Application 13/856,041
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8—11, 15, 16, 18, 20, and 21. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Ford Global Technologies, LLC, as the real party in
interest (App. Br. 1).
Appeal 2017-008000
Application 13/856,041
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a “vehicle controller
having at least one contextual module configured to receive a sensor input
and generate an output representing a driving context” (Abstract).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal:
1. A vehicle controller comprising:
a processor configured to receive output from a
vehicle sensor representing a driving context of a vehicle,
generate a feature score for each of a plurality of
selectable options based on the output,
select a subset of the selectable options having a
feature score above a predetermined threshold, and
determine an order of the subset of selectable
options based on the feature scores.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is the following:
Shahine
Kumagai
Hurwitz
US 2004/0070627 A1 Apr. 15, 2004
US 2006/0200286 A1 Sept. 7, 2006
US 2008/0042814 A1 Feb. 21, 2008
US 2012/0002515 A1 Jan. 5, 2012Muench
Jagannathan US 2013/0014040 A1 Jan. 10, 2013
2
Appeal 2017-008000
Application 13/856,041
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Jagannathan, in view of Muench. Final Act. 3.
Claims 10 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jagannathan, in view of Muench and Shahine. Final Act.
6.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Jagannathan, in view of Muench and Hurwitz. Final Act. 7.
Claims 18 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jagannathan, in view of Muench and Kumagai. Final Act.
8.
ISSUES
The issues are whether the Examiner erred in finding that:
1. the combination of Jagannathan and Muench teaches or
suggests the limitations of
generate a feature score for each of a plurality of
selectable options based on the output,
select a subset of the selectable options having a feature
score above a predetermined threshold, and
determine an order of the subset of selectable options
based on the feature scores,
as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent
claims 8 and 15; and
2. the combination of Jagannathan, Muench, and Kumagai teaches
or suggests the limitation of (a) “categorizing selectable options to be
3
Appeal 2017-008000
Application 13/856,041
associated with a departure group and an arrival group,” as recited in claim
18, and (b) “the arrival group includes selectable options associated with in­
route vehicle features, and wherein the departure group includes selectable
options associated with leaving a location,” as recited in claim 21.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and Final Office
Action and we add the following primarily for emphasis. We note that if
Appellants failed to present arguments on a particular rejection, we will not
unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection. See Ex parte
Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential); Hyatt v. Dudas,
551 F.3d 1307, 1313—14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (the Board may treat arguments
Appellants failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived).
Claim 1
Appellants argue Examiner error because “Jagannathan does not
‘select a subset of the selectable options having a feature score above a
predetermined threshold’ and ‘determine an order of the subset of selectable
options based on the feature scores’” (Reply Br. 2 (emphasis omitted); see
also App. Br. 3). Particularly, Appellants contend Jagannathan instead
teaches “pinning,” which causes “the application representation to be
completely fixed, such that display of the application representation cannot
be affected by changes in application relevance scores” (Reply Br. 2,
quoting Jagannathan | 62).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that Jagannathan’s “subset of applications is dynamically
4
Appeal 2017-008000
Application 13/856,041
updated displaying a number of applications and arranged according to the
application relevance scores” (Ans. 3—4, citing Jagannathan Figs. 6, 7 (item
716), 115). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that
Figure 6 shows an example of the applications [that] are
automatically execute[d] to display (i.e. Map, Media Gallery,
Search) on the user interface and automatically stop to display
(i.e. Message Inbox, Clock, Calendar) according to their
relevance scores above the predetermined threshold value or
below the predetermined threshold value, respectively.
Ans. 4 (emphasis omitted). Regarding Appellants’ argument that
Jagannathan teaches no selection by a “predetermined threshold” or ordering
based on “feature scores,” a careful reading of the paragraph of Jagannathan
cited by Appellants states that the “behavior of a particular application
representation” includes operations in which “display of application
representations can be affected (e.g., resized, rearranged, reordered,
removed, etc.) according to the application relevance scores” (Jagannathan
1 62, citing Fig. 5A, emphasis added). Accordingly, we find Jagannathan
teaches the disputed limitations.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and
independent claims 8 and 15 not argued separately with particularity (see
App. Br. 4), and dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 9—11, 16, and 20 not argued
separately with particularity (see App. Br. 4—5).
Claims 18 and 21
Appellants argue Examiner error because “Kumagai simply discloses
a ‘mileage logger 110’ that categorizes user interfaces into three phases”
(App. Br. 5) and because
5
Appeal 2017-008000
Application 13/856,041
[t]he Examiner has attempted to align the “initial set-up” with
the departure group and the “in-vehicle operations” with the
arrival group. However, these simply describe various phases
of a mileage logger and have nothing to do with selectable
options within the context of the claims.
Reply Br. 2.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that
Kumagai teaches this feature by vehicle user interface 260
[that] categorizes in [the] “initial setup” and “in-vehicle
operations” phases. The “initial setup” phase[] indicates as
departure group including setting up the source of leaving
location for a trip; the “in-vehicle operations” phase[] indicates
as arrival group including parking or the like options.
Ans. 5, citing Kumagai 137. In addition to the features identified by the
Examiner, we note Kumagai teaches other selectable options, such as
whether the captured data is “for personal use or business use” (associated
under the departure group) and whether “further configuration of data
capture in view of changes made after initialization” is made (associated
under the arrival group) (Kumagai 137). Additionally, Appellants’
argument that Kumagai has “nothing to do with selectable options within the
context of the claims” ignores the combined teaching of the references. One
cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18 and
21.
6
Appeal 2017-008000
Application 13/856,041
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in finding that:
1. the combination of Jagannathan and Muench teaches or
suggests the limitations of
generate a feature score for each of a plurality of
selectable options based on the output,
select a subset of the selectable options having a feature
score above a predetermined threshold, and
determine an order of the subset of selectable options
based on the feature scores,
as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent
claims 8 and 15; and
2. the combination of Jagannathan, Muench, and Kumagai teaches
or suggests the limitation of (a) “categorizing selectable options to be
associated with a departure group and an arrival group,” as recited in claim
18, and (b) “the arrival group includes selectable options associated with in­
route vehicle features, and wherein the departure group includes selectable
options associated with leaving a location,” as recited in claim 21.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8—11, 15, 16, 18,
20, and 21 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