Ex Parte Sumcad et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2016

10875001 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
10/875,001 0612212004
7590 09/30/2016
General Motors Corporation
Legal Staff, Mail Code 482-C23-B21
300 Renaissance Center
P.O. Box 300
Detroit, MI 48265-3000
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Anthony J. Sumcad
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.
GP-304857 (2760/177) 9266
EXAMINER
SAFAIPOUR, BOBBAK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2648
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2016 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
Exparte ANTHONY J. SUMCAD, RUSSELL A. PATENAUDE,
and
HITAN S. KAMDAR
Appeal2015-000300
Application 10/875,001
Technology Center 2600
Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2015-000300
Application 10/875,001
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to a "method, computer usable
medium and system for deactivating and reactivating a satellite radio system
in vehicles equipped with a telematics system and a satellite digital audio
radio system" (Spec. 1 :9-12).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A method for confirming deactivation of a mobile vehicle
satellite radio service, the method comprising:
receiving a satellite radio termination signal at a call
center;
sending a termination notification from the call center to
a telematics unit via a wireless interface responsive to the
termination signal; and
sending a termination confirmation from the telematics
unit to the call center responsive to the termination notification.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings ofVidetich (US 2003/0204577 Al; pub. Oct. 30, 2003)
and Raith (US 6,510,515 Bl; iss. Jan. 21, 2003).
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Videtich or Raith,
alone or in combination, teach or suggest confirming deactivation of a
mobile satellite radio service as claimed (App. Br. 4). Particularly,
Appellants contend, the cited references do not disclose "sending a
termination confirmation" (id.). Appellants assert Raith discloses "actually
2
Appeal2015-000300
Application 10/875,001
deactivating" satellite radio; whereas the claim recites "confirming
deactivation" of satellite radio (id.). We do not agree.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings as our own (Ans. 4--
5). Particularly, the Examiner finds Videtich discloses the call center passes
adjustments via a mobile vehicle communication unit (MVCU) and updates
provider records to reflect the implemented adjustments (Videtich i-fi-1 66-68,
see f 67, "the call center updates call center records to reflect the
implemented adjustments resulting from the user requested satellite radio
subscription modification (SRSM)"; Ans. 4). Although Videtich does not
expressly disclose "termination confirmation" from the telematics unit to the
call center, an adjustment (or modification) to a subscription can include
termination. Appellants have not provided evidence to the contrary.
Further, the Examiner relies on Raith for disclosing "deactivation of a
mobile vehicle satellite radio service and a termination signal" (App. Br. 5;
Raith col 7, 11. 51---67 "When a subscriber terminates his or her subscription,
the system can send disable signals addressed to the subscriber's remote
device"), thus, providing evidence that termination as a service modification
was known to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention. We also agree
with the Examiner that the combination of Raith's termination as a service
modification with Videtich's removing parts of a programming package,
would suggest sending a service modification, including deactivation by a
call center, confirming that the deactivation occurred by the MVCU, and
sending notification to the call center that the modification was made (Ans.
5; Videtich Fig. 4 steps 450-460).
The Examiner also did not err in finding subscriptions/services are
either enabled/disabled; activated/terminated (id.). We further note
3
Appeal2015-000300
Application 10/875,001
Appellants appear to be arguing limitations not found in the claims (App. Br.
5 "parallel sequence of actions"; App. Br. 6 "If the user does not request the
renewal ... a termination notification is sent. ... ").
Thus, in light of the broad terms recited in the claims and the
arguments presented, Appellants have failed to clearly distinguish their
claimed invention over the prior art relied on by the Examiner. We are
therefore not persuaded of Examiner error. We find the weight of the
evidence supports the Examiner's ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness,
and therefore sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, and
independent claims 9 and 13, which contain substantially the same
limitations and were argued for substantially the same reasons, and claims
2-8, 10-12, and 14--20 dependent therefrom.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 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 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4