Ex Parte Liu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2017

13751391 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 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.
13/751,391 01/28/2013 Yimin Liu 83250485 3454
28395 7590 07/05/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER PARRY, CHRISTOPHER L
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2451
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2017 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 YIMIN LIU, PERRY ROBINSON MACNEILLE, and
OLEG YURIEVITCH GUSIKHIN
Appeal 2017-004206
Application 13/751,391
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ERIC B. CHEN, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, and 21—24. (App. Br. 1.) Claims 2-4, 6,1,9, 10, 11,
13, 14, and 16—20 have been cancelled. (Claims App’x.) We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Appeal 2017-004206
Application 13/751,391
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a system having a processor
configured to communicate with a remote server to receive a list of friends
who are currently driving their respective vehicles, to display the list of
friends, to receive selection of one or more friends from the list, and to send
data to the remote server to be shared with the one or more selected friends.
(Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A system comprising:
a processor configured to:
communicate with a remote server to establish a group of
vehicles traveling from a common location to a common destination;
designate a first vehicle of the group as a lead vehicle;
receive indicia of a route-deviance indicating a second vehicle
of the group has deviated from a route taken by the lead vehicle; and
open a wireless enabled voice-chat session among the lead
vehicle and a plurality of other group vehicles upon receiving the
indicia.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, and 21—24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Paek (US 2014/0005941 Al; Jan. 2, 2014) and
Habicher (US 2012/0052870 Al; Mar. 1, 2012).
The rejection of claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, and 21—24 under 35 U.S.C
§101 has been withdrawn by the Examiner. (Ans. 2.)
ANALYSIS
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 8; see also
Reply Br. 2) that the combination of Paek and Habicher would not have
rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “open a
2
Appeal 2017-004206
Application 13/751,391
wireless enabled voice-chat session among the lead vehicle and a plurality of
other group vehicles upon receiving the indicia.”
The Examiner found that the alert of Paek provided by a caravan
service (e.g., a selection icon), which presents a message to a leader’s
mobile device that a follower has exited, teaches the limitation “receive
indicia of a route-deviance indicating a second vehicle of the group has
deviated from a route taken by the lead vehicle.” (Final Act. 4.) The
Examiner further found that the conference call button of Habicher for
tracking a lead mobile vehicle, which can be triggered when an event occurs
(e.g., the distance between the lead device and following devices exceeds a
threshold), teaches the limitation “open a wireless enabled voice-chat
session between group vehicles upon receiving the indicia.” (Id.; see also
Ans. 3.) The Examiner concluded that “it would have been obvious ... to
have modified [the] group navigation system of Paek to utilize [the]
conference call feature of the navigation system of Habicher, in order to
provide functionality to the system thereby improving usability and
convenience.” (Final Act. 5.) We agree with the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions.
Paek relates to “navigating to dynamic destinations,” in particular,
“associating a leader mobile device with a follower mobile device”
(Abstract), for example, as part of vehicles in a caravan (| 4). Figure 1 of
Paek illustrates environment 100 for mobile devices operating within
vehicles, for example, user 102 operating mobile device 104 in vehicle 106,
and user 108 operating mobile device 110 in vehicle 112. (| 29.) Paek
explains that “[o]ne mobile device 104 is tagged as the ‘leader’” and “the
other devices 104 are tagged as ‘followers’” such that “[d]uring a trip, the
3
Appeal 2017-004206
Application 13/751,391
leader’s device may continuously share its location with the followers’
devices.” (1 69.) Figure 13 of Paek illustrates a process flow chart for
caravan service 120 {id.), including block 1312, in which “it may be
determined that a follower has left the trail” and block 1314, in which “the
device 104 alerts the leader,” for example, “the leader’s mobile device 104
may provide a selection icon to call the exiting follower’s mobile
device 104” (| 74). Because Paek explains that device 104 alerts the leader
when a follower has exited the trail, Paek teaches the limitation “receive
indicia of a route-deviance indicating a second vehicle of the group has
deviated from a route taken by the lead vehicle.”
Habicher relates to “techniques for sharing location and other tracking
data with other mobile devices.” (12.) Figure 8 of Habicher illustrates a
user interface, including onscreen icons for a lead device and other
followers. (1 56.) Figure 9 of Habicher illustrates a user interface, including
a conference call button, such that the “conference call button may be
automatically displayed when a triggering event occurs, e.g. when the lead
device has strayed too far ahead of the following devices, i.e. when the
distance between the lead device and the following devices exceeds a
predetermined threshold.” (1 58.) Because Habicher explains that a
conference call button is displayed upon the occurrence of a triggering
event, Habicher teaches the limitation “open a wireless enabled voice-chat
session among the lead vehicle and a plurality of other group vehicles.”
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
incorporating the conference call button feature of Habicher, with the device
of Paek, which alerts the leader when a follower has exited the trail, would
improve Paek by providing the ability to conference call to all followers in
4
Appeal 2017-004206
Application 13/751,391
the caravan. SeeKSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)
(“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond his or her skill.”). In particular, the combination of
Paek and Habicher would result in the conference call feature of Habicher
being active after device 104 of Paek has received an alert that a follower
has exited the trail (i.e., the claimed “indicia”) and accordingly, such
combination of Paek and Habicher teaches the limitation “open a wireless
enabled voice-chat session among the lead vehicle and a plurality of other
group vehicles upon receiving the indicia.”
Appellants argue that “Habicher teaches that if, for example, a lead
vehicle has strayed too far ahead, a selectable option for making a
conference call may be presented on a mobile device,” but “[Habicher]
suffers from the same overall deficiency of Paek, however, namely, that the
communication is not initiated (opened) ‘upon receiving the indicia.’” (App.
Br. 8.) However, as discussed previously, the Examiner cited Habicher for
teaching the limitation “open a wireless enabled voice-chat session among
the lead vehicle and a plurality of other group vehicles” and cited Paek for
teaching the limitation “upon receiving the indicia.” (Final Act. 4; see also
Ans. 3.) The rejection of claim 1 is based on the combination of Paek and
Habicher; Appellants cannot show non-obviousness by attacking the
references individually. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
Appellants further argue that “[providing an option to make a group
phone call is not ‘opening] a voice-enabled chat session between the
vehicles’” and “‘[o]pen a voice-chat session’ has a clear and plain meaning
5
Appeal 2017-004206
Application 13/751,391
which is distinct and different from ‘present an option to place a phone call’
as taught by the prior art.” (Reply Br. 2.) However, the limitation “open a
wireless enabled voice-chat session” is broad enough to encompass the
conference call button of Habicher, which is automatically displayed when a
triggering event occurs. (Ans. 3.) Appellants present a conclusory
statement that ‘“[o]pen a voice-chat session’ has a clear and plain meaning
distinct and different from ‘present an option to place a phone call’ as taught
by the prior art.” {Id.) Yet, beyond this conclusory statement, Appellants do
not provide any persuasive arguments or evidence to distinguish claim 1
over the combination of Paek and Habicher. We are unpersuaded by this
argument because mere lawyer’s arguments and conclusory statements that
are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In
re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what
seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not
the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of
obviousness.”); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
Moreover, Appellants do not direct us to any special definition of
“voice-chat session” in the Specification that requires a different
interpretation. Indeed, as the Examiner points out, Appellants’ own
Specification supports the Examiner’s broad but reasonable interpretation of
the claim because the Specification discloses an embodiment of opening a
session upon receiving indicia, receiving some sort of confirmation from the
driver or vehicle, and then opening a communication session. (Ans. 3 (citing
Spec. 11 66-68, Fig. 6).)
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under
6
Appeal 2017-004206
Application 13/751,391
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claim 5 depends from claim 1, and Appellants have not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to this claim.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for
the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
Independent claims 8 and 15 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
We sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 15, as well as dependent claims 12
and 21—24, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, and 21—24 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