Ex Parte Meyer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2018

14894580 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/894,580
145952 7590
Ann Critchell-Ward
De Ruijterkade 154
Amsterdam, 1011 AC
NETHERLANDS
11/30/2015
12/26/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
UlfMeyer
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.
1071/US/2 1080
EXAMINER
LANG, MICHAEL DEAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/26/2018 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):
patents@tomtom.com
tony@parklegal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ULF MEYER, TORS TEN SCHLIEDER,
OLIVER GRUNDLER, and ALEXANDER SCHMIDT
Appeal2018-002837
Application 14/894,580
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 8-10, 13-16, 18, 19, 21, 24, 25,
28, 31, 35, 38, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Ling. 2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, TomTom Telematics B.V., which the Appeal
Brief identifies as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
2 U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0013348 Al, published January 10, 2013
("Ling").
Appeal2018-002837
Application 14/894,580
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to "wireless communication
devices for collecting vehicle on-board diagnostics (OBD) data and
associated methods of handling OBD data in such wireless communication
devices." Spec. 1:5-7. Claims 1, 24, 35, and 39 are independent. Claim 1
is reproduced below.
1. A wireless communication device for collecting vehicle
on-board diagnostics (OBD) data, the device comprising:
a connector for connecting the device to a vehicle OBD port
to receive OBD data;
a processor configured to aggregate the OBD data into risk
profile data comprising at least one of: (i) one or more scalar
indicators and (ii) one or more histogram indicators, wherein
each scalar indicator represents a single average value for a
particular category of OBD data in a given time period;
a memory for storing the risk profile data; and
a wireless transceiver for pairing with an external mobile
telecommunications device to wirelessly transmit the risk
profile data,
wherein the wireless communication device is arranged to
store the risk profile data in the memory until the wireless
communication device is paired with a mobile
telecommunications device and a data transmission instruction
is received.
Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner found that Ling discloses all of the limitations of claim
1, including "a processor configured to aggregate the OBD data into a risk
profile comprising at least one of: (i) one or more scalar indicators and (ii)
one or more histogram indicators, wherein each scalar indicator represents a
2
Appeal2018-002837
Application 14/894,580
single average value for a particular category of OBD data in a given time
period" ( the "risk profile limitation"). Final Act. 3 ( citing Ling ,r 251 ).
Appellant argues that Ling does not disclose the risk profile limitation
because although Ling's device 300 acquires data from a number of sources
and generates its own data, the device itself does not acquire or generate a
risk profile having scalar indicators and/or histograms as required by claim
1. Appeal Br. 9-11. Appellant contends that the portions of Ling that the
Examiner relies upon do not describe the capabilities of Ling's device 300,
but instead describe capabilities of "client-side software" executed on client
products external to Ling's device. Id. at 11-13.
In response, the Examiner found that paragraphs 250 and 251 of Ling
disclose "that the numerical driving performance section aggregates the
recorded parameters recorded by device and calculating 'average or nominal
values."' Ans. 3 ( emphasis omitted). The Examiner further found that these
values are available to display in "graphics or charts, i.e. scalar indicators, in
order to allow the operator to compare individual operating habits to other
operators or drivers." Id.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not adequately
supported the finding that Ling discloses the risk profile limitation. The
findings in the Answer merely provide further support for the finding that
the client-side software Ling discloses is a processor configured to aggregate
data into a risk profile in the manner claimed. Id. The Answer does not
address Appellant's argument that Ling's device 300 corresponds to the
claimed device, and that the device 300 does not include a processor
configured to aggregate the data as claimed. See Appeal Br. 9-13. Based on
our reading of Ling, although not directly addressed by the Examiner's
3
Appeal2018-002837
Application 14/894,580
findings, Ling's device 300 corresponds to the claimed "device" as
Appellant contends. Appeal Br. 9-11, 1 7 ( Claims App.) ( claim 1: "a
connector for connecting the device to a vehicle OBD port to receive
OBD data"); Spec. 12:2-8 (describing "wireless communication device or
dongle 2" that "mate[s] with a vehicle OBD port to receive OBD data and
power"); see also Ling ,r 66 ( describing "on-board portable mobile device
300" and connector to "in-vehicle data bus 304"); Final Act. 3 (relying on
Ling ,r 66, which describes device 300, as disclosing the "wireless
transceiver" limitation of claim 1 ). Because Ling' s device 300 corresponds
to the claimed device, the Examiner's findings must rely on portions of Ling
that describe the functionalities of device 300. Instead, the portions of Ling
the Examiner relies upon, paragraphs 250 and 251, describe embodiments
shown in Ling's Figure 8, which depicts "client-side" capabilities or
processes running on a product separate from device 300. See, e.g., Ling
,r,r 248 ("[I]n FIG. 8, preview software retained and running, for example, on
a personal or local computer .... "), 251 ("In FIG. 8, a client-side scripting
may add interactivity and may customize the viewing or delivery of
documents that may be updated dynamically."). As such, the Examiner's
findings do not address adequately Appellant's argument or establish that
Ling's device 300 includes a processor configured to aggregate the data into
a risk profile as required by claim 1. 3
3 To the extent that the Examiner's findings might be read to rely on client-
side hardware as the claimed "device" for purposes of the risk profile
limitation, such an approach would undermine other findings that appear to
rely on device 300 as meeting certain claim limitations. See, e.g., Final Act.
3 (relying on Ling ,r 66, describing device 300, as disclosing the "wireless
transceiver" limitation). Accordingly, we cannot sustain the anticipation
4
Appeal2018-002837
Application 14/894,580
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Appellant raises the same argument with respect to independent claims 24,
35, and 39, which contain the same risk profile limitation, and we therefore
do not sustain the rejection of those claims, or any of the remaining
dependent claims, for the same reasons discussed above. See Appeal Br. 9,
19--21 (Claims App.).
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3, 8-10,
13-16, 18, 19, 21, 24, 25, 28, 31, 35, 38, and 39.
REVERSED
rejection by interpreting the Examiner's findings as treating the client-side
hardware as corresponding to the claimed "device," without further
explanation and support.
5