Ex Parte Protopapas

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2016

14045031 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/045,031 10/03/2013
28395 7590 07/01/2016
BROOKS KUSHMAN P,CJFG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Maria Eugenia Protopapas
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.
83395306 4861
EXAMINER
CASILLASHERNANDEZ, OMAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2016 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 MARIA EUGENIA PROTOP AP AS
Appeal2015-003714
Application 14/045,031
Technology Center 2600
Before HUNG H. BUI, BETH Z. SHAW, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-18, which are the only claims currently pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
iT 2.
We AFFIRM.
INVENTION
The invention is for a user authentication process for a vehicle. Spec.
Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A computer implemented method comprising:
engaging, responsive to authenticating an approaching
vehicle owner, one or more vehicle sensors to detect the
presence of one or more unexpected people in proximity to a
vehicle; and
Appeal2015-003714
Application 14/045,031
alerting the approaching vehicle owner of the presence of
one or more detected unexpected people in proximity to the
vehicle.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4--7, 10-13, and 16-18 under 3 5
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al. (US 5,334,969, issued
Aug. 2, 1994) and Yang et al. (US 7,304,564 B2, Dec. 4, 2007). Final Act.
2--4.
The Examiner rejected claims 2, 8, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Abe, Yang, and Plaster (US 8, 131,429 B2, issued
Mar. 6, 2012). Final Act. 5.
The Examiner rejected claims 3 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Abe, Yang, Plaster, and Nomura (US 8,103,448 B2,
Jan. 24, 2012). Final Act. 5---6.
ISSUES
Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejections are in error. App. Br.
7-10. The dispositive issue presented by these arguments are:
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Abe and Yang
teaches or suggests "engaging, responsive to authenticating an approaching
vehicle owner, one or more vehicle sensors to detect the presence of one or
more unexpected people in proximity to a vehicle," as recited in claim 1?
Did the Examiner err in combining Abe and Yang?
2
Appeal2015-003714
Application 14/045,031
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant's arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellant's
arguments. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
rejection from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellant's Appeal Brief. See Ans. 3--4, Final Act. 2-8. We
highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as
follows.
Appellant argues that Yang has no secondary activation of an
additional sensor based on the detection that the owner approaches. Br. 5.
However, the Examiner maps the recited "engaging, responsive to
authenticating an approaching vehicle owner, one or more vehicle sensors"
to Yang's teaching of a system that detects if an identity device is close to an
automotive, and then if so, opens at least one door locking mechanism. Ans.
3. The Examiner explains that the system engages a different vehicle sensor
(the door lock mechanism). Id. (citing Yang, Fig. 3, step 304). We agree
with the Examiner's finding that Yang therefore teaches "engaging,
responsive to authenticating an approaching vehicle owner, one or more
vehicle sensors," as recited in claim 1.
Appellant also argues that Abe "would actually have to be broken in
order to practice the claimed invention, because its functionality would have
to be fundamentally changed to differentiate between an owner and an
unexpected person." Br. 5. The Examiner, however, explains that Yang
teaches the detection of an unexpected person and activating an alarm
because ofit. Ans. 4 (citing Yang Fig. 3, step 318, Col. 4, Lines 37--40).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
3
Appeal2015-003714
Application 14/045,031
skill in the art to modify the sensor of Abe so it could differentiate between
an owner and an unexpected person, such that the system could determine if
a threat such as a burglar is present. Ans. 4.
Upon reviewing the record before us, we find that the Examiner's
suggestion for the proposed modification in the prior art suffices as an
articulated reason with some rational underpinning to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007). In summary, we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of
the claimed invention would have combined Yang's teaching of detecting a
vehicle owner as compared to a burglar (see Yang, Fig. 3, 4:37--40), with
Abe's teaching of alerting of the presence of the approach of a person
approaching the vehicle or an "abnormal situation" (see Abe, 4:48-53, 5:23-
29). In the absence of sufficient evidence or line of technical reasoning to
the contrary, the Examiner's findings are reasonable and we find no
reversible error.
Because Appellant has not presented separate patentability arguments
or has reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously
discussed for patentability above (see Br. 5---6), the remaining pending
claims fall forthe same reasons as claim I. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-18 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4