Ex Parte Namaky

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 2, 2016

14041032 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/041,032 09/30/2013
10800 7590 11/02/2016
Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
Indianapolis, IN 46204
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hamid Namaky
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.
1576-1503CNT5 7664
EXAMINER
BEAULIEU, YONEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2016 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 BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE SOLUTIONS INC. and
ROBERT BOSCH GmbH,
Appellant
Appeal2015-004504
Application 14/041,032
Technology Center 2100
Before MARC S. HOFF, STEPHEN C. SIU, and
JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SIU, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 2-21. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
The disclosed invention relates generally to a cellular phone
configured to connect to a vehicle diagnostic system. Spec i-f 0001.
Independent claim 2 reads as follows:
2. A method of displaying vehicle data comprising:
Appeal2015-004504
Application 14/041,032
generating with a handheld device with cellular
connectivity a vehicle computer module communication protocol
for communicating with a vehicle computer module;
placing the handheld device in circuit communication with
the vehicle computer module using the generated communication
protocol;
generating vehicle data with the vehicle computer module;
processing the generated vehicle data; and
displaying on a display of the handheld device display data
based upon the processed received vehicle data.
The Examiner rejects claims 2-21under35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Ying.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 2-21?
ANALYSIS
Claim 2
Appellants argue that Ying fails to disclose a handheld device "with
cellular connectivity," as recited in claim 2. App. Br. 3, 4 (citing Final Act.
3, Ying i1i161, 74, 96-99, 133). The Examiner disagrees with Appellants.
Ans. 2, 3 (citing Ying i-f 146). As the Examiner explains, Ying discloses a
device "having ... wireless communication capability with the control
network" and "may include circuitry for communicating wirelessly over a
cellular telephone network," for example. Ying i-f 146. Appellants do not
demonstrate persuasively a difference between communicating wirelessly
over a cellular network of Ying and the claim feature of "cellular
connectivity." See, e.g., Reply Br. 2, 3.
Appellants argue that Ying fails to disclose displaying data based
upon the processed received vehicle data, as recited in claim 2. App. Br. 4,
5 (citing Final Act. 3). As the Examiner points out, Ying discloses, for
2
Appeal2015-004504
Application 14/041,032
example, that "the portable electronic diagnostic equipment ... may
comprise, among other things, a graphical display for displaying diagnostic
and maintenance information." Ying i-f 146. Appellants do not sufficiently
point out differences between displaying vehicle data of Ying and displaying
vehicle data as recited in claim 2, for example. See, e.g., Reply Br. 2, 3. In
both cases, data is displayed.
Claims 3 and 15
Claim 3 recites transmitting vehicle data to a remote computer and
processing the vehicle data at the remote computer. Claim 15 recites a
similar feature. Appellants argue that "nothing [in Ying] suggests that
vehicle data is transmitted to a remote computer for processing." App. Br. 7,
17 (citing Final Act. 4, Ying i-fi-153, 68). The Examiner disagrees with
Appellants. Ans. 3, 4 (citing Ying i-fi-166, 84, 111, 143, 150, 156). We agree
with the Examiner. For example, as the Examiner indicates, Ying discloses
that "the system ... also include[ s] a remote processing site ... whereby ...
operations may be conducted." Ying i1 156. Hence, Ying discloses
processing the data at a remote computer.
Appellants argue that Ying discloses that "operations may be
'conducted' at the remote site" but fails to disclose "detail regarding the
manner in which any such operations would be 'conducted."' App. Br. 7;
Reply Br. 7. Claim 3 recites "processing" the data at the remote computer.
One of skill in the art would have understood that a "processing site," as
disclosed by Ying, would "process" data, as recited in claim 3. Appellants
do not demonstrate sufficiently that claim 3 also recites a specific "detail" of
the processing that Ying fails to disclose. Therefore, for at least this reason,
we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument.
3
Appeal2015-004504
Application 14/041,032
Claims 8, 20, and 21
Claim 8 recites transmitting error/fault codes from a remote computer
system to the handheld device. Claims 20 and 21 recite a similar feature.
Appellants argue that "[n]othing ... [in Ying] indicates that any data is
received from a remote computer, much less an error/fault code." App. Br. 9,
10, 18, and 19 (citing Final Act. 4, Ying i-f 109). The Examiner disagrees
with Appellants. Ans. 4, 6 (citing Ying i-fi-151, 109, 148, 150, 153, 154, Fig.
31 ). We agree with the Examiner.
For example, as the Examiner points out, Ying discloses that
"diagnostic information ... [is obtained] from a ... remote source" or "from
various remote vendor computer systems" and that such information may
include, for example, "an error message [that] may be displayed on the
screen image of the personal digital assistant." Ying i-fi-1 51, 109, 150, Fig. 31.
Appellants do not explain sufficiently a difference between a "remote
source" transmitting information to a handheld device, the information
including an error/fault code (e.g., an "error message") and the disputed
claim feature.
Claim 11
Claim 11 recites that the display data comprises instruction data.
Appellants argue that Ying fails to disclose "anything being displayed ...
much less displaying instruction on the handheld device after vehicle data is
processed." App. Br. 10, 11 (citing Final Act. 4, Ying 77, 80, Figs. 7-8).
The Examiner disagrees with Appellants. Ans. 4 (citing Ying i-f 97). As the
Examiner indicates, Ying discloses a "graphical screen display" that
"includes a graphical screen display ... [that] provide[s] ... instructions."
Ying i-f 97. Appellants argue that Ying discloses "no indication ... that any
instruction is displayed" (App. Br. 10) but does not explain a sufficient
4
Appeal2015-004504
Application 14/041,032
difference between displaying instructions of Ying and displaying
instruction data, as recited in claim 11. We are not persuaded by Appellants'
argument.
Claim 12
Claim 12 recites that the display data comprises a message to a
customer indicating that a vehicle needs to be serviced. App. Br. 12, 13
(citing Final Act. 4, Ying i-fi-1 68, 108, Fig. 17). The Examiner disagrees with
Appellants. Ans. 4 (citing Ying i-fi-1 68, 108). We agree with the Examiner.
For example, Ying discloses a user "enter[s] a transit vehicle type" and
"transit vehicle ID," which "identifies the specific vehicle to be serviced."
i-f 108. Appellants do not point out sufficient differences between Ying and
the disputed claim feature.
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites transmitting data associated with a vehicle to a
remote computer using the handheld device and transmitting the
communication protocol to the handheld device based upon the transmitted
data. Appellants argue that "nothing [in Ying] suggests that a
communications protocol is transmitted to the handheld device, much less
such transmission after first transmitting vehicle related data to the remote
computer from the handheld device." App. Br. 15 (citing Final Act. 4, Ying
i-fi-153, 68, Fig. 27). The Examiner disagrees with Appellants. Ans. 5. We
agree with the Examiner.
For example, as the Examiner explains, Ying discloses a handheld
device (i.e., a "portable wireless diagnostic equipment") in "wireless
communication with [a] control network" via "appropriate electronics to
enable wireless communication" and "communication protocols" that is
information that is used "for transporting data to and from" devices in a
5
Appeal2015-004504
Application 14/041,032
network. Ying i-fi-159, 65, 70. The handheld device of Ying (i.e., "portable
electronic diagnostic equipment") "has wireless cellular capability" and
provides "vehicle ... identification information" "directly ... [to] the
remote ... computer ... via the cellular network," the remote computer
"support[ing] Internet-based communication protocols, and therefore
provid[ing the protocols] ... for the portable electronic diagnostic
equipment ... to retrieve information from [the] remote ... computer."
i-fi-f 151-152. Hence, Ying discloses portable electronic diagnostic equipment
(i.e., handheld device) that transmits vehicle data to a remote computer (or
server) and receives a transmission of a communication protocol "to retrieve
information from [the] remote ... computer." Appellants do not provide a
sufficient explanation of any substantial alleged differences between Ying
and the disputed claim feature.
Reply Brief Argument
Appellants argue that all of the Examiner's findings are "new [after-
final] rejections [that] are improper." Reply Br. 3. "On the second or any
subsequent examination or consideration by the examiner the rejection or
other action may be made final" and "[p]etition may be taken to the Director
in the case of objections." See 37 C.F.R. § 1.113(a). Under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.181 (a)( 1 ), a petition may be taken to the director from any action or
requirement of any examiner which is not subject to appeal. Appellants do
not indicate that a petition was filed in this matter. In any event, we do not
consider such petitionable matters that are not subject to appeal.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-21under35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as anticipated by Ying.
6
Appeal2015-004504
Application 14/041,032
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (1) (iv).
AFFIRMED
7