Ex Parte Profitt-Brown et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 15, 2016

12985492 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2016)

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.
12/985,492 01/06/2011 Elizabeth Profitt-Brown 83178519 4444
28395 7590 12/19/2016
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER DO, TRUC M
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2016 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 @brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ELIZABETH PROFITT-BROWN,
KELLY LEE ZECHEL, JOSEPH PAUL RORK,
BRIAN PETERSEN, and EDWARD ANDREW PLEET
Appeal 2015-002044
Application 12/985,492
Technology Center 3600
Before BRETT C. MARTIN, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Elizabeth Profitt-Brown et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 from the rejection of claims 1—4, 6—12, and 14—16. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2015-002044
Application 12/985,492
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A computer-implemented method, executable by a vehicle
associated computing system, comprising:
receiving a request for display of local refueling points;
determining current coordinates of vehicle;
determining one or more fuel point locations within a
defined map range, including identification of at least one non­
commercial charging point location; and
displaying a map display containing the current vehicle
location and the location of the one or more fuel point locations.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Geelen US 2004/0243307 A1 Dec. 2,2004
Cox US 2010/0106514 A1 Apr. 29,2010
Lowenthal US 2010/0211643 A1 Aug. 19, 2010
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Geelen and Lowenthal.
II. Claims 3, 4, 6—8, 11, 12, and 14—16 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Geelen, Lowenthal,
and Cox.
2
Appeal 2015-002044
Application 12/985,492
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 together. See Br. 5—6. We
select independent claim 1 as the illustrative claim, and claims 2, 9, and 10
stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Geelen discloses all of the limitations of
claim 1 except for “identification of at least one non-commercial charging
point location.” The Examiner further finds that “Lowenthal teaches this
feature.” Id. at 3 (citing Lowenthal 4, 20). Based on these findings, the
Examiner determines that it would have been obvious “to incorporate
Lowenthal’s teaching into the system and method of Geelen to allow vehicle
to be charged at a private charging station to improve system flexibility.” Id.
Appellants argue that:
in the cited portions of Lowenthal, the disclosure discusses that
the charging station may be owned and operated by utility
companies or owned and operated by private persons/companies.
Mere ownership by a private entity does not make a station
“noncommercial.” Many gas stations are owned by private
companies and/or persons, and yet, they are all still commercial
gas stations.
Br. 5.
Although we agree that Lowenthal does not explicitly state that its
privately owned charging point locations are non-commercial, we
understand Lowenthal’s teachings to implicitly encompass both commercial
and non-commercial private charging point locations, further, the Examiner
finds that “there are charging stations installed around the world that are
owned by private companies and/or persons and are not for commercial
purposes.” Ans. 2. Thus, we understand the rejection to rely on Lowenthal’s
implicit disclosure of non-commercial charging point locations and the
3
Appeal 2015-002044
Application 12/985,492
Examiner’s finding that such charging stations were known. Appellants do
not contest the Examiner’s finding or explain why Lowenthal’s disclosure
does not encompass non-commercial charging point locations. Accordingly,
Appellants do not apprise us of error.
Appellants further argue that “there is no teaching or suggestion in
Lowenthal of any identification of these stations within a defined map
range.” Br. 5. Appellants’ argument is not responsive to the rejection as
articulated by the Examiner, which relies upon Geelen, not Lowenthal for
identification of locations within a defined map range. See Final Act. 3.
Moreover, this argument attacks Lowenthal separately, rather than address
the combined teachings of Geelen and Lowenthal. Nonobviousness cannot
be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is
predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck &
Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, Appellants do not
apprise us of error.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim
1, and claims 2, 9, and 10 which fall therewith.
Rejection II
Appellants do not present separate arguments for the patentability of
claims 3, 4, 6—8, 11, 12, and 14—16. See Br. 6. Rather, Appellants argue
that Cox “does not cure the noted deficiencies of the Geelen/Lowenthal
combination.” Id. As we find no such deficiencies, we sustain the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 3, 4, 6—8, 11, 12, and 14—16.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—4, 6—12, and 14—16 are
AFFIRMED.
4
Appeal 2015-002044
Application 12/985,492
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5