Ex Parte Le et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 30, 201613444207 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016) 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. 13/444,207 04/11/2012 Jialiang Le 83220382 7654 28395 7590 01/04/2017 RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER 1000 TOWN CENTER JAIN, ANKUR 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2649 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2017 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 JIALIANG LE, KWAKU O. PRAKAH-ASANTE, and MANOHARPRASAD K. RAO Appeal 2016-004740 Application 13/444,2071 Technology Center 2600 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—21, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 The real party in interest is identified as Ford Global Technologies, LLC. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2016-004740 Application 13/444,207 Claimed Subject Matter The claimed invention relates to a method and apparatus for a mobile safety platform with multiple communication interfaces for securely communicating with a vehicle computing system (VCS). Spec. Title, Abstract, | 59. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A system comprising: one or more sensors; one or more output devices; a vehicle computing system (VCS) configured to receive information from the one or more sensors and to output information to the one or more output devices; a wireless receiver in communication with the VCS; and a wireless transmitter, separate from the receiver, in communication with the VCS, wherein the VCS is further configured to filter information received from the one or more sensors and broadcast the information through the wireless transmitter to a first device, while simultaneously communicating with the first device over the wireless receiver to receive a request relating to use of a vehicle output device, to verify the permissibility of the request and to provide output in accordance with a verified request over the vehicle output device. Examiner’s Rejection and References Claims 1—21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ozaki (US 2008/0280655 Al; pub. Nov. 13, 2008) and Ruther et al. (US 8,560,168 B2; iss. Oct. 15, 2013) (“Ruther”). Final Act. 2—6. 2 Appeal 2016-004740 Application 13/444,207 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 6—8; Reply Br. 2—3). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and in the Answer (Ans. 6—9). We highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. Appellants argue Ozaki fails to teach a wireless transmitter, separate from a wireless receiver, in communication with a VCS, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6—7; Reply Br. 2. Appellants contend embodiments of separate transmitters and receivers in their Specification are “sufficient for a skilled artisan to understand that the claimed scope is the two components as different (i.e., separate) elements'” that are not part of a single transceiver. App. Br. 6—7 (emphasis added) (citing Spec. Tflf 32—39, 47, Figs. 2, 5). Appellants additionally contend the claimed transmitter, separate from the receiver, enables secure communication because “no one can use the transmitter as an ‘in-pipe’ to hack the system, which allows the transmitter to be connected to secure components without fear of hacking.” Reply Br. 2 (citing Spec. 132). Thus, Appellants contend, the “separate Bluetooth transmitter and receiver functionality in Ozaki is not the same as the components being separate, as claimed.” App. Br. 7 (emphasis added). The Examiner responds that “Appellant does not explicitly state in the claims what it means for a receiver and transmitter to be separate, how they are separate, and to what extent they are separate,” i.e., whether the transmitter and the receiver are separate in terms of structure or functionality. Ans. 7. The Examiner also finds there is separate transmitter 3 Appeal 2016-004740 Application 13/444,207 and receiver Bluetooth functionality within Ozaki’s cellular phone 11, since in transceiver technology there is a receive signal path and a separate transmit signal path using separate amplifiers. Id. In addition, the Examiner relies on Ruther’s teaching of multiple transceivers within wireless transceiver 402 for allowing simultaneous transmission and reception of data as recited in the claim. Final Act. 3^4 (citing Ruther col. 9,11. 52—67, col. 19,11. 4—23). Appellants’ arguments do not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 1. Even under Appellants’ interpretation of “separate” being separate physical components (see App. Br. 7), the combined teachings of Ozaki and Ruther relied on by the Examiner teach or suggest “a wireless transmitter, separate from the receiver,” as recited in claim 1. A preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that Ozaki teaches a wireless transmitter and a wireless receiver in communication with the VCS because Ozaki’s paragraphs 31 and 32 teach Bluetooth communication device 3 included in in-vehicle navigation apparatus 1 communicates with cellular phone 11, via Bluetooth. See Final Act 2—3 (citing Ozaki || 31—32). Ruther teaches that with “two or more transceivers, data received from one device on a first transceiver may be routed to the second transceiver for transmission to the another different device concurrently with reception of additional data on the first transceiver.” Ruther col. 9,11. 57—61; Final Act. 3^4 (citing Ruther col. 9,11. 52—67). Modifying Ozaki to include multiple transceivers within Ozaki’s Bluetooth communication device 3, as contemplated by the Examiner’s rejection, results in “a wireless transmitter, separate from the receiver,” under Appellants’ interpretation of claim 1. 4 Appeal 2016-004740 Application 13/444,207 Appellants also contend neither reference teaches a VCS configured to “broadcast the information through the wireless transmitter to a first device, while simultaneously communicating with the first device over the wireless receiver,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2—3. Rather, Appellants contend, Ruther discloses “simultaneous transmission with different devices in the two transceiver configuration, and buffering for reception and transmission with two different devices in the one transceiver configuration,” therefore Ruther does not teach simultaneous transmission to and reception from a single device. App. Br. 7 (citing Ruther 9:57—61, 19:4—35); see also Reply Br. 2—3. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments, which do not address the Examiner’s findings regarding what Ruther would have suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to concurrently broadcast to and receive from the same device as recited in claim 1, in view of Ruther’s concurrent transmission and reception using two or more transceivers. (Final Act. 4, 8 (citing Ruther 9:52—67, 19:4—35); Ans. 8—9 (citing Ruther, 9:35—52, Fig. 1).) In addition, Appellants do not address the Examiner’s findings directed to Ruther in combination with Ozaki. In particular, the Examiner finds Ozaki’s hands free telephone call entails simultaneous communication back and forth through wireless Bluetooth transmitters and receivers in cellular phone 11 and Bluetooth communication device 3, thereby teaching simultaneous transmission to and reception from a single device. (Ans. 9 (citing Ozaki || 24—25, 27).) We agree with the Examiner that broadcasting through a transmitter to a first device, while simultaneously communicating with the first device over a receiver is suggested by Ozaki’s hands-free telephone call 5 Appeal 2016-004740 Application 13/444,207 between Bluetooth devices and Ruther’s concurrent reception and transmission by two or more Bluetooth transceivers. (Ans. 8—9.) Appellants have not persuasively challenged the combination of these teachings or that combining them would be beyond the abilities of the skilled artisan. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ozaki and Ruther. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. For the same reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 8 and 15 argued for substantially the same reasons as claim 1, and the rejection of dependent claims 2—7, 9— 14, and 16—21 not argued separately. App. Br. 8. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation