Ex Parte LU et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2016

13488502 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/488,502 06/05/2012
70422 7590 11/02/2016
LKGlobal (GM)
7010 E. COCHISE ROAD
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85253
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
TSAI-CHING LU
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
P019118-RD-SDJ(003.0957) 8963
EXAMINER
SMITH, JELANI A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2016 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@lkglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TSAI-CHING LU, DAVID L. ALLEN,
YILU ZHANG, and MUTASIM A. SALMAN
Appeal 2015-001220 1,2
Application 13/488,502
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
According to Appellants, the invention "relates to methods and
systems for diagnosing a vehicle." Spec. i-f 1. Claims 1 and 9 are the only
1 Our decision references Appellants' Specification ("Spec.," filed June 5,
2012) and Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed May 22, 2014), as well as the Final
Office Action ("Final Action," mailed Jan. 17, 2014) and the Examiner's
Answer ("Answer," mailed Aug. 28, 2014).
2 According to Appellants, GM Global Technology Operations LLC is the
real party in interest. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-001220
Application 13/488,502
independent claims. See Br., Claims App. We reproduce claim 1, below, as
representative of the appealed claims.
Id.
1. A method of monitoring a vehicle, comprising:
rece1vmg traffic data that includes messages
communicated between control modules from a vehicle
communication bus;
identifying, by a processor, net-motifs from the traffic
data; and
detecting a mode of components of the vehicle based on
the net-motifs.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-11, 14, 15, 17, and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Breed (US 2008/0147265 Al, pub.
June 19, 2008).
The Examiner rejects claims 4, 5, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Breed and Matsuyama (US 2008/0154964 Al, pub.
June 26, 2008).
The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Breed and Jordan (US 2006/0083229 Al, pub. Apr. 20,
2006).
See Final Action 3-12; see Answer 2.
ANALYSIS
Based on our review of the record, for the reasons discussed in detail
below, we affirm the rejections of claims 1-18.
2
Appeal2015-001220
Application 13/488,502
Appellants argue that independent "[ c ]laims l and 9 were previously
amended to clarify that the net-motifs are identified based on traffic data that
includes messages that are communicated between control modules and that
are from the communication bus. At least these features are not disclosed in
the art of record." Br. 3. More specifically, Appellants argue as follows:
The Examiner, however, suggests in the Final Office Action that
the inflator control system discussed in paragraph [0551] of
Breed is part of a vehicle network and communicates messages
that are received and analyzed to diagnose the vehicle.
Appellants respectfully disagree. In particular, Appellants fail to
find mention in Breed that the messages communicated by the
inflator control system are received and analyzed to diagnose the
vehicle.
Thus, these messages may be generated as a result of a diagnosis
however, are not used in performing the diagnosis (or the
detection of a mode of a component of the vehicle).
Id. at 4--5 (square brackets original). We disagree with Appellants that
Breed is limited to "messages ... generated as a result of a diagnosis" and
agree with the Examiner's finding that Breed discloses "recogniz[ing] or
determin[ ing] whether the component or subsystem has a fault condition,
e.g., actual or potential failure of a component or subsystem," and that this
disclosure does, in fact, teaches messages that are used to perform diagnosis
(i.e., the claim limitation "detecting a mode of components of the vehicle
based on" messages). Answer 5, citing Breed i-f 161.
Thus, based on the foregoing, we sustain the anticipation rejection of
independent claims 1 and 9. Inasmuch as Appellants do not separately argue
the anticipation rejection of claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, and 18 that
depend from the independent claims, we also sustain the anticipation
rejection of the dependent claims. Still further, because Appellants do not
3
Appeal2015-001220
Application 13/488,502
separately argue the obviousness rejections of claims 4, 5, 8, 12, 13, and 16
that depend from independent claims 1 and 9, we also sustain the
obviousness rejections of these dependent claims.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's anticipation and obviousness rejections
of claims 1-18.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
4