Ex Parte Murlidar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2015

11306235 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2015)

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.
11/306,235 12/20/2005 Jaycee Murlidar GP-307519 1234
60770 7590 02/23/2015
General Motors Corporation
c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C.
P.O. BOX 4390
TROY, MI 48099-4390
EXAMINER
MUSTAFA, IMRAN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JAYCEE MURLIDAR and NATHAN AMPUNAN
____________

Appeal 2012-011373
Application 11/306,235
1

Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and
GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jaycee Murlidar and Nathan Ampunan (“Appellants”) appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 5–18, and 20.
The Board has jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Examiner’s decision is AFFIRMED-IN-PART.

1
The Appeal Brief identifies General Motors Company LLC as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2012-011373
Application 11/306,235

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal:
1. An electronically-controlled method of arbitrating
between separate vehicle navigation systems that are available
to an occupant on board a vehicle, comprising the steps of:
(a) determining the operational status of at least one
of first and second vehicle navigation systems that are
accessible to the occupant in order to determine if more than
one of said separate vehicle navigation systems are currently
activated, wherein said first vehicle navigation system is a
telematics-based vehicle navigation system and said second
vehicle navigation system is an autonomous vehicle navigation
system that is separate from said first vehicle navigation
system;
(b) if more than one of said separate vehicle
navigation systems are currently activated, then:
(b1) selecting one of said separate vehicle navigation
systems;
(b2) running an active session for the selected vehicle
navigation system so that the selected vehicle navigation
system provides the occupant with navigation-related services;
and
(b3) preventing an active session from running on the
unselected vehicle navigation system so that the unselected
vehicle navigation system is prevented from providing the
occupant with navigation-related services, wherein only one of
said separate vehicle navigation systems is running an active
session at a time.
Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphasis added).
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 5–12, and 14–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Hayama (US 6,970,786 B2, iss. Nov. 29, 2005).
Appeal 2012-011373
Application 11/306,235

3
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hayama and Rasin (US 2006/0036356 A1, filed Aug. 12, 2004, pub.
Feb. 16, 2006).
Claims 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sychta (US 2004/0151285 A1, pub. Aug. 5, 2004) and
Hayama.
ANALYSIS
A. Anticipation Rejection based upon Hayama
Appellants contend the anticipation rejection is improper as to claim 1
because Hayama fails to disclose determining the operational status of a
vehicle navigation system in order to determine if more than one vehicle
navigation system is currently activated. Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 5. For
the following reasons, this contention is persuasive.
The Specification defines the claim term “activated,” as follows:
As used herein, the term ‘activated’ broadly refers to the
state or condition where a vehicle navigation system has been
manually, automatically or otherwise turned on. The term
‘active session’, on the other hand, broadly refers to a session of
activity when a vehicle navigation system is activated and is
providing the user with information, data, services, etc.; for
example, a turn-by-turn directions session would be an active
session. Thus, it is possible for a vehicle navigation system to
be activated and not be running an active session, but if an
active session is running then the vehicle navigation system
must be activated.
Spec. ¶ 29. The Specification goes on to describe three different exemplary
techniques for determining if a vehicle navigation system is “activated.”
Id. ¶ 31. They are querying the system, receiving a signal periodically sent
by the system indicating its operational status, and receiving an activation
Appeal 2012-011373
Application 11/306,235

4
signal sent by the system upon its initial activation. Id. Based on these
disclosures in the Specification, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
conclude that determining if a vehicle navigation system is “currently
activated” in claim 1 means determining if the system is turned on.
The Examiner finds Hayama discloses that claim limitation, and
initially cites the Hayama disclosure at Figure 1 and column 3, line 57
through column 4, line 31 in support. Ans. 5, 19. We find nothing in that
disclosure which reflects determining if more than one navigation system is
turned on. Rather, that disclosure assumes that the processors and related
components located at remote information center 10 and in the vehicle with
terminal device 15 are already turned on, and describes some of the ways in
which they work together to provide navigation route searching and display
to a user in the vehicle.
The Examiner further relies on the Hayama disclosure at column 9,
line 50 to column 10, line 6, which describes the flowchart of Figure 13.
Ans. 20. The Examiner finds, based on that disclosure:
If the system determines that the user wishes to receive
navigation data from the remote center th[e]n the operational
status of the telematics navigation system would be active [the
operational status of the telematics systems would be active]
since the navigation data is being gathered from the remote
navigation center using the telematics navigation system. Thus
clearly there is the step of determining the operational status of
at least one first navigation system and second navigational
system since the system clearly queries the user for an input as
to whether or not to use the map information from the remote
center or use the information on the CD based navigation
system.
Id. (emphasis in original). However, we find nothing in the cited Hayama
disclosure or the Examiner’s analysis of that disclosure which reflects
Appeal 2012-011373
Application 11/306,235

5
determining if more than one navigation system is turned on. Rather, the
cited Hayama disclosure reflects only two determinations: whether the map
data stored at the remote server is the same version as the map data stored
locally by an apparatus in the vehicle, and whether the user in the vehicle
chooses to receive data from the remote server. Hayama, 9:50–10:6.
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner errs in finding that Hayama
discloses “determin[ing] if more than one of said vehicle navigation systems
are currently activated,” as recited in claim 1. The other independent claim
rejected as anticipated by Hayama, claim 14, recites “receiving an activation
signal indicating that a first vehicle navigation system has been activated.”
Appeal Br., Claims App. The Examiner relies on the same disclosure in
Hayama for both limitations. Ans. 5 (claim 1, citing Hayama, Fig. 1, 3:57–
4:31), 8 (claim 14, citing Hayama, Fig. 1, 4:8–31). For the reasons
discussed above in connection with claim 1, the cited disclosure does not
support the Examiner’s finding that Hayama discloses receiving an
activation signal indicating that a first vehicle navigation system has been
activated, as recited in claim 14.
Thus, the anticipation rejection of independent claims 1 and 14, and
their respective dependent claims 5–12, 15, and 16, is not sustained.
B. Obviousness Rejection based upon Hayama and Rasin
This rejection applies only to claim 13, which depends from claim 1.
The rejection relies on the Examiner’s finding that Hayama discloses, as
recited in claim 1, determining if more than one vehicle navigation system is
currently activated. Ans. 10, 23. That finding is in error, for the reasons
provided above. The Examiner’s findings concerning Rasin do not cure this
deficiency of Hayama. Id. Therefore, this rejection is not sustained.
Appeal 2012-011373
Application 11/306,235

6
C. Obviousness Rejection based upon Sychta and Hayama
Appellants contend this rejection of independent claim 17 and its
dependent claims 18 and 20 is improper on the sole basis that Hayama “does
not disclose first and second vehicle navigation systems,” so “assuming
arguendo that the proposed combination is proper, it still fails to disclose all
of the elements of claims 17, 18 and 20.” Appeal Br. 12. Appellants’
contention is not persuasive, for two reasons.
First, Appellants do not address the entirety of the Examiner’s
rejection. The Examiner finds both Sychta and Hayama disclose two
sources of electronically-produced speech, as recited in claim 17. In
particular, the Examiner finds Sychta discloses a method of arbitrating
between two speech sources meeting all the requirements of claim 17,
except that the speech sources in Sychta are telephone systems providing
audio communications, rather than the claimed vehicle navigation systems
providing driving directions. Ans. 10–13, 23. Thus, even if Appellants are
correct that Hayama does not disclose first and second vehicle navigation
systems, we would still sustain the rejection on the alternative finding that
Sychta discloses two speech sources, which Appellants do not address.
Second, we are not persuaded that Hayama fails to disclose first and
second navigation systems, as recited in claim 17. Appellants refer back to
their discussion of claim 1 in support of their contention in this regard.
Appeal Br. 12. However, claim 1 recites that the two systems are
“separate,” and that limitation is not found in claim 17. We agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Hayama discloses a first vehicle navigation system
comprising in-car terminal device 15 searching an on-board disc storing map
data in order to provide route guidance, and a second vehicle navigation
Appeal 2012-011373
Application 11/306,235

7
system comprising in-car terminal device 15 using a telematics system to
communicate with information center 10 to obtain route guidance. Ans. 12
(citing Hayama, Fig. 1, 3:57–4:31). Whether or not the common
involvement of in-car terminal device 15 in both systems runs afoul of the
“separate” system requirement in claim 1 is not relevant to claim 17.
Appellants do not argue dependent claims 18 and 20 separately from
claim 17. Appeal Br. 12. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the rejection
of claims 17, 18, and 20 as unpatentable over Sychta and Hayama is
sustained.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 5–12, and 14–16 as anticipated by Hayama,
and the rejection of claim 13 as unpatentable over Hayama and Rasin, are
both REVERSED. The rejection of claims 17, 18, and 20 as unpatentable
over Sychta and Hayama is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
rvb