Ex Parte Samolinski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 11, 2014

11967347 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 2014)

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.
11/967,347 12/31/2007 Steven J. Samolinski P001171-OST-ALS 6809
60770 7590 06/11/2014
General Motors Corporation
c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C.
P.O. BOX 4390
TROY, MI 48099-4390
EXAMINER
ARAQUE JR, GERARDO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/11/2014 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 1
___________ 2
3
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD 4
___________ 5
6
Ex parte STEVEN J. SAMOLINSKI, MICHAEL MATEN, 7
JOHN J. CORREIA, and KELLEY J. KETTENBEIL 8
___________ 9
10
Appeal 2012-001793 11
Application 11/967,347 12
Technology Center 3600 13
___________ 14
15
16
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and 17
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges. 18
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 19
DECISION ON APPEAL 20
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 21
Steven J. Samolinski, Michael Maten, John J. Correia, and Kelley J. 22
Kettenbeil (Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final 23
rejection of claims 1-17, the only claims pending in the application on 24
appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 25
The Appellants invented systems and methods for providing subscribers 26
of vehicle telematics services with diagnostic and maintenance information 27
for their vehicle (Spec., para. [0001]). 28

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed June 20, 2011) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed October 31,
2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed August 29, 2011), and
Final Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed January 18, 2011).
Appeal 2012-001793
Application 11/967,347
2

An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 1
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some 2
paragraphing added]. 3
1. A method of providing enhanced diagnostic and 4
maintenance reporting for a vehicle over a wireless 5
communications system, wherein the vehicle includes a 6
telematics unit installed on the vehicle that communicates 7
electronically with various vehicle system modules to receive 8
vehicle data from the vehicle system modules, the method 9
comprising the steps of: 10
[a] receiving a telephone call from a caller requesting 11
vehicle operational condition assistance, wherein the telephone 12
call includes at least a portion of the call in which the caller 13
speaks with an advisor at a call center; 14
[b] retrieving operational condition data that includes 15
diagnostic data associated with the caller's request, wherein the 16
retrieval of operational condition data includes sending the 17
diagnostic data from the vehicle to a central facility via the 18
telematics unit; 19
[c] retrieving additional data relating to vehicle 20
maintenance by sending the additional data from the vehicle to 21
the central facility via the telematics unit; 22
[d] providing a verbal response to the caller over the 23
telephone call based on the retrieved diagnostic data; and 24
[e] providing additional maintenance information to the 25
caller based on the retrieved additional data. 26
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 27
McCutchen US 2007/0173992 A1 Jul. 26, 2007 28
Claims 1-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 29
over McCutchen. 30
Appeal 2012-001793
Application 11/967,347
3

ISSUES 1
The question of the obviousness of claim 1 turns on whether it would be 2
within the common experience of one skilled in the art to receive a verbal 3
response during a telephone call requesting assistance. 4
The question of the obviousness of claim 13 turns on whether it would 5
be within the common experience of one skilled in the art to have a 6
telephone call for assistance involve being connected to an advisor in 7
addition to the advisor who first receives the call. 8
The question of the obviousness of claim 14 turns on whether it would 9
be within the understanding of the skilled artisan to employ voice/data 10
multiplexing in order to switch communication back and forth between 11
voice and data modes on a telephone call capable of transmitting both voice 12
and data. 13
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 14
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 15
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 16
Facts Related to the Prior Art 17
McCutchen 18
01. McCutchen is directed to techniques for wirelessly collecting 19
vehicle information and providing that information to the vehicle 20
owner or other authorized person. (McCutchen, para. [0002]). 21
02. McCutchen discloses in background: 22
[N]avigation and emergency assistance services can be obtained 23
by voice communication with an advisor at the call center. 24
Monitoring of vehicle operating conditions by the call center is 25
also possible via the telematics device. For example, an air bag 26
deployment event can be automatically reported to the call 27
Appeal 2012-001793
Application 11/967,347
4

center where it triggers a return call to the vehicle from a live 1
advisor to determine if emergency services are needed. Other 2
vehicle data such as diagnostic trouble codes (DTCs) can 3
similarly be reported to the call center. 4
(McCutchen, para. [0003]). 5
03. McCutchen discloses “a graphical indicator such as a green, 6
yellow, or red graphic that indicates whether some action is 7
required to address one or more of the vehicle conditions and 8
possibly the importance or severity of the vehicle condition.” 9
(McCutchen, para. [0028]). 10
04. McCutchen discloses two categories of data in the vehicle: 11
diagnostic and maintenance. (McCutchen, para. [0029]). 12
05. McCutchen discloses a vehicle communicating data with a central 13
facility. (McCutchen, para. [0031]). 14
06. McCutchen discloses storing data from a vehicle in a central 15
database for later retrieval by an advisor. (McCutchen, para. 16
[0037]). 17
07. McCutchen discloses a vehicle-based “unit provides 18
communication and interactivity with the driver and with various 19
remote locations including the VDU 160, WAS center 170, and 20
the dealer service center 180.” (McCutchen, para. [0038]). 21
08. McCutchen discloses vehicle-based communications module 122 22
provides both voice and data communications with a central 23
facility that “allows data communication with at least the VDU 24
160, as well as voice and, if desired, data communications with 25
the WAS center 170 and dealer 180.” (McCutchen, para. [0041]). 26
Appeal 2012-001793
Application 11/967,347
5

09. McCutchen discloses centrally-located live advisors who handle 1
calls from vehicles, providing “remote live assistance in 2
connection with in-vehicle safety and security systems.” 3
(McCutchen, para. [0047]). 4
10. McCutchen discloses voice messages from the central facility to 5
the vehicle driver. (McCutchen, para. [0084]). 6
ANALYSIS 7
Claims 1-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 8
McCutchen 9
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that McCutchen fails to 10
disclose “on-demand verbal responses from a call center involving 11
diagnostic and/or maintenance data” because McCutchen discloses a phone 12
call to enroll. (App. Br. 8-9, Reply Br. 3-4). McCutchen discloses in 13
background that services which provide a verbal response to a caller over the 14
telephone call based on received vehicle diagnostic data are commonplace. 15
(FF 022). McCutchen discloses communicating data in vehicles to central 16
facilities which receive and store the data (FF 045-0808), and provide “live 17
advisors” and “voice messages” to vehicle drivers (FF 09, 10). One of 18
ordinary skill would recognize that calling a live advisor would lead to some 19
sort of verbal response from that advisor. “In many fields it may be that 20
there is little discussion of obvious techniques or combinations, and it often 21
may be the case that market demand, rather than scientific literature, will 22
drive design trends.” KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 23
(2007). “Granting patent protection to advances that would occur in the 24
ordinary course without real innovation retards progress and may, in the case 25
Appeal 2012-001793
Application 11/967,347
6

of patents combining previously known elements, deprive prior inventions 1
of their value or utility.” Id. at 419. 2
For these reasons, we affirm the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of 3
claim 1, and dependent claims 2-12 that are not separately argued. (App. Br. 4
15). 5
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 6
McCutchen 7
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that McCutchen fails to 8
disclose retrieving “operational condition data associated with a caller’s 9
request during the telephone call.” (App. Br. 10-11). McCutchen discloses 10
reporting vehicle data to a central facility (FF 025, 058), storing the vehicle 11
data centrally (FF 066), and voice-and-data calls (FF08) with “live advisors” 12
to provide assistance “in connection with in-vehicle safety and security 13
systems.” (FF09). One of ordinary skill would understand the small leap 14
from what is disclosed in McCutchen to the claimed invention. In making 15
the obviousness determination one “can take account of the inferences and 16
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 17
550 U.S. at 418. 18
We also are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that McCutchen 19
fails to disclose communicating data via a verbal call for assistance (App. 20
Br. 11), because McCutchen discloses voice and data communicated during 21
a single call. (FF08). 22
In addition, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that 23
McCutchen fails to disclose connecting a caller to a second, different 24
advisor. (App. Br. 12-13). McCutchen discloses “communication with 25
WAS center 170 and dealer 180.” (FF08). It is the common experience of 26
Appeal 2012-001793
Application 11/967,347
7

nearly everyone that has ever called for assistance, that occasionally an 1
additional person must be brought onto the call where the person receiving 2
the call has insufficient knowledge or capacity to resolve the issue presented. 3
This is not speculation; it is shared experience in such call-for-assistance 4
situations. Therefore, the feature of “connecting the caller to a second, 5
different advisor” represents an aspect “that would occur in the ordinary 6
course without real innovation . . .” and is an obvious improvement. KSR, 7
550 U.S. at 419. 8
For these reasons, we affirm the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of 9
claim 13. 10
Claims 14-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 11
McCutchen 12
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that McCutchen fails to 13
disclose “high/low processing capabilities and their relationship to voice and 14
data modes.” (App. Br. 14). McCutchen discloses both voice and data 15
communications over a wireless call (FF08). One of ordinary skill in the art 16
at the time of the invention would recognize that sharing voice and data 17
services over a single communications link is often implemented with 18
voice/data multiplexing techniques, which meet the claim language of “the 19
telephone call is switched from a voice mode to a data mode, the at least one 20
computer obtains the operational condition data, the telephone call is 21
switched back to the voice mode.” 22
For these reasons, we affirm the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of 23
claim 14, and dependent claims 15-17 that are not separately argued. (App. 24
Br. 15). 25
Appeal 2012-001793
Application 11/967,347
8

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1
The rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 2
over McCutchen is proper. 3
DECISION 4
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-17 is affirmed. 5
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this 6
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. 7
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011). 8
9
AFFIRMED 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
mls 17