Ex Parte Protopapas

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 21, 2016

13278270 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/278,270 10/21/2011
28395 7590 06/23/2016
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.
83204731 4487
EXAMINER
CASILLASHERNANDEZ, OMAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/23/2016 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
Appeal2015-003347
Application 13/278,270
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 1-7 and 21-32, which are the only claims currently
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
iT 7.
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:
logging a GPS location in a wireless device responsive to
a vehicle entering a parked state;
after the wireless device has moved a predetermined
distance from the logged GPS location, comparing device GPS
Appeal2015-003347
Application 13/278,270
coordinates to the logged GPS coordinates to determine if the
device is in vehicle proximity; and
sending a signal to the vehicle to activate a user
authentication process when the device returns within vehicle
proximity.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 6, 7, 21-23, 26, 27-29, and 32
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ben Ayed et al. (US
2011/0215921 Al published Sept. 8, 2011) ("Ben"), Asakura et al. (US
6,998,958 B2, issued Feb. 14, 2006), and Chestnutt et al. (US 2009/0167524
Al, published July 2, 2009). Final Act. 3---6.
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 5, 24, 25, 30, and 31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ben, Asakura, Chestnutt, and Nam et al.
(US 2012/0054036 Al, published Mar. 1, 2012). Final Act. 6-7.
ISSUES
Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejections are in error. App. Br.
7-10; Reply Br. 2--4. The dispositive issues presented by these arguments
are:
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Ben, Asakura, and
Chestnutt teaches or suggests "after the wireless device has moved a
predetermined distance from the logged GPS location, comparing device
GPS coordinates to the logged GPS coordinates to determine if the device is
in vehicle proximity," as recited in claim 1?
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Ben, Asakura,
Chestnutt, and Nam teaches or suggests, "wherein the predetermined
2
Appeal2015-003347
Application 13/278,270
distance is manufacturer set" as recited in claim 4 or "is set by a vehicle
owner" as recited in claim 5?
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. 2--4, Final Act. 2-9. We
highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as
follows.
Claim 1
The Examiner maps the recited "after the wireless device has moved a
predetermined distance from the logged GPS location, comparing device
GPS coordinates to the logged GPS coordinates to determine if the device is
in vehicle proximity" to Ben's disclosure of a system that logs a GPS
coordinate in a wireless device. Ans. 2-3 (citing Ben i-fi-f 196-198, Figs. IA
and IB). The Examiner finds that Ben discloses that once a user wishes to
return to his parked vehicle, the system gets the GPS information
representing the last known vehicle position (i.e. logged GPS) and the
current position of the user, and using these two GPS positions, calculates
the distance (i.e., compares). Id. In particular, Ben discloses that "[ w ]hen
the user walks away from the parked vehicle, system for wireless
authentication 10/11 will have the last known GPS position of the vehicle
stored on it." Ben i-f 196. We agree with the Examiner's finding that in
order to return to the vehicle, the user must have moved a predetermined
3
Appeal2015-003347
Application 13/278,270
distance from the logged GPS location. Ans. 2-3. Thus, we are not
persuaded by Appellant's arguments that Ben does not teach a
"predetermined distance" or a computation of a distance between user
position and vehicle. Reply Br. 3. For these reasons, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and of claims 21 and 27, which were argued
together with claim 1. See App. Br. 9.
Claims 4 and 5
The Examiner maps "the predetermined distance is manufacturer set"
as recited in claim 4 to Nam's disclosure of a predetermined radius that is set
"by a manufacturer." Final Act. 6 (citing Nam i-f 41). The Examiner maps
the predetermined distance is set "by a user" as recited in claim 5 to Nam's
teaching of a predetermined distance that is set by a vehicle owner. Id. We
are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's findings.
Appellant argues that the disclosure in Nam is "inapplicable" to the
recited "after the wireless device as moved a predetermined distance from
the logged GPS location." App. Br. 10. However, the Examiner relies on
Ben, not Nam alone, to teach the limitation in claim 1 of "after the wireless
device as moved a predetermined distance from the logged GPS location,"
as discussed above with respect to claim 1. See Ans. 2-3. Moreover, we are
not persuaded of error in the Examiner's finding that Nam is reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which Appellant was concerned, i.e.,
allowing a vehicle owner or manufacturer "to set its own preference in
regards to certain distance." Ans. 4. For these reasons, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 4 and 5.
4
Appeal2015-003347
Application 13/278,270
Because Appellant has not presented separate patentability arguments
or has reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously
discussed for patentability above (see App. Br. 7-11), the remaining pending
claims fall for the same reasons as claims 1, 4, and 5. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-7 and 21-32 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
5