Ex Parte Tengler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 16, 2016

12610861 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/610,861 11102/2009
70422 7590 09/20/2016
LKGlobal (GM)
7010 E. COCHISE ROAD
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85253
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
STEVEN C. TENGLER
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.
P008371-0ST-ALS
087.0010
CONFIRMATION NO.
1315
EXAMINER
GAO, JING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2016 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@lkglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN C. TENGLER and
WILLIAM E. MAZZARA, JR.
Appeal2015-002347
Application 12/610,861
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CATHERINE SHIANG, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is General Motors LLC.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-002347
Application 12/610,861
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to synchronizing changes of a telematics
language with changes made to a vehicle language through involvement of a
call center. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows:
1. A system for synchronizing changes of a telematics
language from a current telematics language to a proposed
telematics language with changes made to a vehicle language
from a current vehicle language to a new vehicle language
through involvement of a call center, the system comprising:
an antenna adapted for attachment to a vehicle and
configured for transmitting and receiving communication
transmissions to and from the call center; and
a telematics unit adapted for attachment to the vehicle and
communicatively connected to the antenna, the telematics unit
being configured to:
monitor a vehicle bus to detect when a user changes the
vehicle language from the current vehicle language to the new
vehicle language, and
automatically initiate contact with the call center when the
change in the vehicle language is detected to confirm a user
desire to change the telematics language to the new vehicle
language, the telematics language comprising a spoken language
for verbal communications between a remote operator or a
system and a user.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, and 14--18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combination of Applicant Admitted Prior Art
(background section) ("AAPA") and Nagatomo (US 2010/0136909 Al;
published June 3, 2010).
2
Appeal2015-002347
Application 12/610,861
Claims 3-5, 7, 10-12, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of AAPA, Nagatomo, and
Reynolds et al. (US 2006/0023869 Al; published Feb. 2, 2006).
Claims 6 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of AAPA, Nagatomo, and Beck (US
7,349,843 Bl; issued Mar. 25, 2008).
ANALYSIS
We have considered Appellants' arguments, but do not find them
persuasive of error. We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's
findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action
from which this appeal was taken, to the extent consistent with our analysis
below. We provide the following explanation for emphasis.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that AAP A teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1 except "monitor a vehicle bus to detect when a user
changes the vehicle language" and "automatically initiate contact with the
call center when the change in the vehicle language is detected," for which
the Examiner relied on Nagatomo. Final Act. 5---6 (citing AAP A i-fi-12, 8, 1 O;
N agatomo i-fi-1 9, 84).
Appellants first contend the cited portions of N agatomo do not teach
or suggest a telematics unit that detects a change to the vehicle language, as
claim 1 requires. App. Br. 13. In particular, Appellants argue that
Nagatomo teaches an on-vehicle device that monitors its own language, not
the language of the vehicle. Id. at 15-16 (citing Nagatomo i-fi-f 10, 11, 71).
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. The
Examiner found that Nagatomo teaches an on-vehicle device that monitors a
3
Appeal2015-002347
Application 12/610,861
language setting and notifies a server when the language setting has been
changed. Ans. 4 (citing Nagatomo i-fi-175, 76, and 84). The Examiner
explained that the recited term "vehicle language" is broad enough to
encompass the language used on the vehicle's monitor in Nagatomo. Id.
(citing Nagatomo i163). Appellants' Specification describes the term
"vehicle language" as the language which with a user interacts with
components in the vehicle such as the vehicle information center or radio.
See App. Br. 8-9; Spec i-fi-19-10. Thus, we agree that the Examiner's broad
interpretation of "vehicle language" is reasonable and consistent with
Appellants' Specification.
Appellants further contend Nagatomo fails to disclose an on-vehicle
device that automatically initiates contact with the call center when a change
in the vehicle language is detected. App. Br. 16-17. Appellants argue that,
in Nagatomo, "it is the server, acting through its DSRC transceivers, that
initiates contact with the on-vehicle device." Id. at 17-18 (citing N agatomo
,-r,-r 73, 74, 83, 84).
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. Appellants attack
Nagatomo individually, even though the Examiner relied on the combination
of AAPA and Nagatomo as teaching or suggesting the disputed features. In
re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)) ("The test for obviousness is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those having
ordinary skill in the art."). The Examiner found that Nagatomo teaches that
"the device feature after the change can be notified to the server." Final Act.
6; Ans. 4 (citing Nagatomo i-fi-175, 76, 84). The Background section of the
Specification describes a call center and a telematics unit that initiates calls.
4
Appeal2015-002347
Application 12/610,861
Final Act. 5---6; AAPA iii! 4, 8. We are not persuaded that combining the
respective familiar elements of the cited references in the manner proffered
by the Examiner would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one
of ordinary skill in the art" at the time of Appellant's invention. Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citing KSR Int'! v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). Thus, we agree
with the Examiner that, based on the combined teachings of AAP A and
Nagatomo, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill that the
recited telematics unit "automatically initiate contact with the call center
when the change in the vehicle language is detected," as claim 1 requires.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of AAP A and N agatomo teaches or suggests
the disputed limitations. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claim 1, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of independent claims 8 and 16, which Appellants contend are patentable for
similar reasons. See App. Br. 19. We also sustain the Examiner's rejections
of dependent claims 2-7, 9-15, and 17-20, for which Appellants refer to and
rely on the arguments made for the independent claims. Id. at 19-20.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-20.
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
5