Ex Parte Wadhwa et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 4, 201612844601 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/844,601 07/27/2010 28395 7590 08/08/2016 BROOKS KUSHMAN P,CJFG1L 1000 TOWN CENTER 22NDFLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Sukhwinder Wadhwa 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. 83154481 8373 EXAMINER PATEL, SHARDUL D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3662 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/08/2016 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 SUKHWINDER WADHW A, MICHAEL RAYMOND WESTRA, EDWARD CHARLES ESKER, SAEID SOLEIMANI, HENRY HEPING HUANG, SANDEEP WARAICH, and TIMOTHY ALLAN GEIGER Appeal2014-008896 Application 12/844,601 1 Technology Center 3600 Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Ford Motor Company. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2014-008896 Application 12/844,601 BACKGROlH~D According to Appellants, the Specification describes "[ v ]arious embodiments relate[ d] to methods and systems for providing volumes of data to a vehicle infotainment computing system." Spec. 1. CLAIMS Claims 1-25 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites: 1. A system comprising: a processor configured to: store a customization schedule, customized to a particular, individual vehicle, defining a vehicle-characteristic-based software set, for installing software to a vehicle infotainment computer; receive from the vehicle infotainment computer a software provisioning request to custom install software to the vehicle infotainment computer; responsive to the request, locate the software based on the customization schedule; and transmit the software to memory of the vehicle infotainment computer for customized installation. Appeal Br., Claims App. 1. REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-11, 14, 15, 17-19, and 21-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Villing, 2 in view of Holland, 3 and Shrivathsan. 4 2 Villing, US 2008/0216067 Al, pub. Sept. 4, 2008. 3 Holland, US 2005/0097541 Al, pub. May 5, 2005. 4 Shrivathsan et al., US 2009/0063038 Al, pub. Mar. 5, 2009. 2 Appeal2014-008896 Application 12/844,601 2. The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Villing in view of Holland, Shrivathsan, and Mills. 5 3. The Examiner rejects claims 12, 13, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Villing in view of Holland, Shrivathsan, and Morris. 6 4. The Examiner rejects claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Villing in view of Holland, Shrivathsan, and Barlsen. 7 DISCUSSION Appellants raise separate arguments with respect to independent claims 1 and 8 and dependent claim 22. We address each of these claims separately below. Appellants acquiesce to the rejection of independent claim 18 and dependent claims 19-21 and 23-25. Appeal Br. 9. Thus, we summarily sustain the rejection of claims 18-21 and 23-25. Claim 1 With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Villing discloses a system as claimed except that "Villing might not explicitly disclose defining [a] vehicle characteristic-based software set, for installing software to a vehicle infotainment computer." Final Act. 3, 4 (citing Villing Fig. 1; i-fi-f l- 5, 10-15, 38--40, 42, and 43). With respect to this deficiency, the Examiner relies on Holland and Shrivathsan. Id. at 4. As discussed below, 5 Mills et al., US 2005/0090939 Al, pub. Apr. 28, 2005. 6 Morris et al., US 2008/0140281 Al, pub. June 12, 2008. 7 Barlsen et al., US 2012/0072055 Al, pub. Mar. 22, 2012. 3 Appeal2014-008896 Application 12/844,601 Appellants' arguments only address the Examiner's findings with respect to Villing, and we find that these arguments are not persuasive of error. Appellants first argue that Villing does not teach "a customization schedule, defining a vehicle-characteristic-based software set, being stored by a processor." Appeal Br. 6. However, we agree with the Examiner that "customization schedule" is described in broad terms in the Specification such that "Villing does disclose [a] customization schedule for a particular vehicle by providing 'a vehicle identification item stored in the vehicle; and to only transfer said software if the obtained item corresponds to the vehicle identification item stored in the vehicle (see [V]illing's p12-13)." Ans. 2-3 (quoting Spec. 12). In particular, the Specification provides that the customization schedule "may be based on the build schedule for the vehicle," which includes "brand of vehicle, trim level, [] presence of certain features," etc. Spec. 12. Thus, a customization schedule as used in the Specification may be simply a list of items related to the specific vehicle, and Villing discloses comparing a vehicle identification item stored in the vehicle with an item on a received media and only transferring software if the items correspond. See Villing i-f 12. Based on this disclosure, we find that Villing also teaches "a customization schedule, defining a vehicle- characteristic-based software set, being stored by a processor" under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Ans. 2. Next, Appellants argue that Villing does not mention "a processor (again, a processor configured to store a customization schedule, not just any processor) receiving a request from a vehicle computer 'a software provisioning request to custom install software to the vehicle infotainment computer."' Appeal Br. 6. Appellants' argument is based on an alleged 4 Appeal2014-008896 Application 12/844,601 claim requirement that the infotainment system is "a different computer" and that Villing does not disclose a second computer because the software to be installed is located on a CD. Id. However, we agree with the Examiner that the claim does not require the presence of two separate computers or processors, and that the claimed processor may be part of the vehicle infotainment computer. See Ans. 3--4. Further, we find that Villing's disclosure of first and second control units teaches the claim requirement being argued by Appellants. Specifically, Villing discloses: At least a first control-unit of said control-units is provided with a reprogrammable memory for storing software, which directs the control-unit in controlling a vehicle system that is connected to the control-unit. At least a second control-unit of said control- units is connected to a media-receiver adapted to receive a portable media, which comprises software to be installed in the memory of said first control-unit. Said second control-unit is further arranged to obtain said software from said portable media and to transfer said software to said first control-unit. Villing i-f 10. Thus, one control-unit associated with the media (CD) communicates with another control-unit to coordinate a software update. We find that this disclosure teaches a processor receiving a request from the vehicle computer to custom install software on the vehicle computer, contrary to Appellants' assertions. Finally, Appellants argue that the CD used in Villing does not locate software based on a customization schedule because "[i]t merely contains software for installation. There is no indication that software need be located, it is all already on the CD." Appeal Br. 7. This argument is based, at least in part, on the prior argument that the claim requires two separate processors. In that regard, it is unpersuasive. Further, appropriate software for installation must necessarily be located on the CD before it can be 5 Appeal2014-008896 Application 12/844,601 transferred from the second-control unit to the first control unit of Villing. Also, Villing discloses that a check is made to ensure that the software matches the vehicle, which indicates that the system checks whether the appropriate software is located on the CD based on the vehicle identification information. See Villing i-f 3 8. Based on the foregoing, we do not find any of Appellants' arguments persuasive of error with respect to the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, 5, and 6. Further, regarding the rejection of claims 4 and 7, Appellants assert only that Mills does not cure the defects with respect to the rejection of claim 1. Having found no such defects, we sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 7 for the same reasons discussed above. Claim 8 Regarding claim 8, the Examiner finds that Villing discloses a system as claimed except that "Villing might not explicitly disclose defining a vehicle-characteristic-based software for installation, and comprising software for customized installation on the vehicle infotainment computer." Final Act. 5, 6 (citing Villing Fig. 1; i-fi-11-5, 10-15, 28, 29, and 38--45). For these deficiencies, the Examiner relies on Holland and Shrivathsan. Id. at 6. As discussed below, Appellants' arguments only address the Examiner's findings with respect to Villing, and we find that those arguments are not persuasive of error. Appellants argue: Thus, the prior art includes separate configuration data for each new software module, which identifies which software is to be removed when the new software is installed. The claims, on the other hand, call for a customization schedule defining all software to be installed using UR!s. The mere fact that data in 6 Appeal2014-008896 Application 12/844,601 both the art and the claims is usable to identify some software module is insufficient to meet the limitations of the claims. Again, the additions of Holland and Shrivathsan do not cure the noted deficiencies of Villing. Appeal Br. 8. Appellants further assert that Villing discloses only configuration data and states "what configuration data is, and it is not the claimed customization schedule" and that the identification of software to be removed in Villing is not the same as the claimed uniform resource identifiers for each software to be installed. Id. Here, we first agree with the Examiner that Villing teaches that an identification number on the CD must match the vehicle identification number (VIN) in order for software to be installed. See Villing i-f 3 8. Appellants do not provide a definition of uniform resource identifier and we find that the VIN qualifies, i.e., this indicates that the software on the CD is associated with an identifier related to the specific vehicle, which may be considered a uniform resource identifier under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. By linking the software to be installed to the specific vehicle via the vehicle identification number, we find that Villing teaches defining all software to be installed using a uniform resource identifier. Further, without additional explanation from Appellants, it not clear why configuration data as disclosed by Villing "is not the claimed customization schedule." Appeal Br. 8. As noted above, there is no precise definition of customization schedule provided and the Specification indicates that it should be interpreted broadly to include information related to a specific vehicle. Villing discloses that configuration data "may e.g. comprise such information as checksums or similar for the software- 7 Appeal2014-008896 Application 12/844,601 module( s) 151 to be installed, identification numbers of the software- modules that have to be removed from an ECU(s) to be reprogrammed and the number of software modules 151 to be installed etc." Villing i-f 39. Villing neither limits configuration data to these examples nor does the Examiner limit the findings regarding these limitations to Villing' s paragraphs 38 and 39, as suggested by Appellants. We are not persuaded that Villing' s configuration data or the vehicle identification number cannot be considered as part of the customization schedule under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. For these reasons, we are not persuaded of error with respect to the rejection of claim 8. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 8 and dependent claims 9--11, 14, 15, and 17 over Villing, Holland, and Shrivathsan. Further, regarding the rejection of claims 12, 13, and 16, Appellants assert only that Morris does not cure the defects with respect to the rejection of claim 8. Having found no such defects, we sustain the rejection of claims 12, 13, and 16 for the same reasons discussed above. Claim 22 Claim 22 requires "determining if the software provisioning medium has changed; and if the software provisioning medium has changed, restarting the custom install." With respect to this claim, Appellants state: According to the Examiner, this is recited by Villing, pars 1-3, 4-5, 10-11, 12-15, 38-40 and 41-46. Applicant points out, however, that the medium ofVilling is a CD or DVD, which will not change, and, therefore, the notion that the provisioning medium has changed and subsequently, based on a determination of change, restarting the install, is antithetical to the teachings of Villing. 8 Appeal2014-008896 Application 12/844,601 Appeal Br. 9. We find that Appellants have not identified any error in the rejection of this claim. We find that although the information on an individual CD or DVD may not change, the CD or DVD itself may change. Thus, we disagree that the requirements of claim 22 are antithetical to the teachings of Villing. Without further argument or explanation from Appellants, we are not persuaded of any error in this rejection. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 22. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejections of claims 1- 25. 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 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation