FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 21, 2020

2019006285 (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 2020)

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.
15/090,688 04/05/2016 Devinder Singh KOCHHAR 83628187 3473
28395 7590 05/21/2020
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
SMITH, ISAAC G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/21/2020 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 DEVINDER SINGH KOCHHAR and
MICHAEL JAMES WHITENS

Appeal 2019-006285
Application 15/090,688
Technology Center 3600

Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford
Global Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-006285
Application 15/090,688

2
According to Appellant, the invention “relate[s] to a method
and apparatus for predictive driver assistance.” Spec. ¶ 1. Below, we
reproduce independent claim 1 as illustrative of the appealed claims.
1. A system comprising:
a processor configured to:
predict driver behavior based on a correlation between
received context variable values and previously observed driver
behavior;
request confirmation that predicted behavior is intended
by a driver;
responsive to confirmation receipt, change an in-vehicle
display to include a control usable to enact the predicted
behavior.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART2
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. Claims 1–11 and 13–20 under U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Penilla3; and
II. Claim 12 under U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Penilla and Nitz.4
ANALYSIS
Rejection I—Anticipation rejection of claims 1–11 and 13–20
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part,
a system comprising a processor configured to “request confirmation
that predicted behavior is intended by a driver; [and] responsive to

2 Although the Final Office Action includes rejections under §§ 101
and 112, the Examiner withdraws these rejections in the Answer. Final
Action 7–17; Answer 3.
3 Penilla et al., US 2016/0080500 A1, published Mar. 17, 2016.
4 Nitz et al., US 2014/0052681 A1, published Feb. 20, 2014.
Appeal 2019-006285
Application 15/090,688

3
confirmation receipt, change an in-vehicle display to include a control
usable to enact the predicted behavior.” Appeal Br., Claims App.
The Examiner does not support adequately that Penilla discloses
receiving confirmation that a driver intends a predicted behavior, and
then changing a display to include a control usable to control that
predicted behavior in response to that confirmation.
In the Answer, the Examiner appears to rely on Penilla’s
paragraph 15 to disclose displaying a control, in accordance with
claim 1’s recitation. See Answer 4. In particular, according to the
Examiner, “the action . . . [in paragraph 15 of] Penilla . . . of ‘setting
customization of display applications on the screen of the vehicle’
performed in response to accepting an action recommendation clearly
changes a display to include a ‘control’ as claimed.” Answer 4. As
set forth above, claim 1 recites that “responsive to confirmation
receipt [that a predicted behavior is intended by the driver], [a
processor is configured to] change an in-vehicle display to include a
control usable to enact the predicted behavior.” Appeal Br., Claims
App. (emphasis added). The Examiner does not support adequately
that Penilla’s paragraph 15 discloses changing a display to include a
control that is usable to enact a predicted behavior. See id. at 6–7.
Instead, we agree with Appellant that this paragraph appears to
disclose, at most, “a list of settings . . . that . . . [may] be changed,”
rather than disclosing how a control is used to change the settings. Id.
at 6.
Although the Examiner also references Penilla’s paragraphs 11,
50, 51, and 55 in the Answer, none of these paragraphs, alone or
Appeal 2019-006285
Application 15/090,688

4
together, discloses “responsive to confirmation receipt [that a
predicted behavior is intended by the driver], [a processor is
configured to] change an in-vehicle display to include a control usable
to enact the predicted behavior.” Answer 4–11; Appeal Br., Claims
App. (Claim 1). For example, we agree with Appellant that, with
respect to paragraph 55 of Penilla,
even if one considers the presentation of the app icon to
be an instance of presenting a control usable to enact
predicted behavior (the launching of the app presumably
being the predicted behavior), the presentation of the icon
is not responsive to a request for confirmation as to
whether or not the app icon should be presented in the
first place. Instead, [this] paragraph . . . teaches that the
example relates to analyzing historical actions to change
configuration settings in a user profile.
Reply Br. 6–7 (emphases added). Restated, Penilla’s paragraph 55, at
most, discloses changing a display to present a control usable to enact
a predicted behavior based on the driver’s historical actions, but not
in response to any confirmation from the driver.
We note the following explanation by the Examiner:
The Examiner emphasizes to the Board that
[c]laim 1 does not define what is meant by “usable,” and
the act of a user viewing the display applications of
Penilla . . . is equivalent to the user “using” the display
applications, making the display applications “usable”
within the scope of the claim by being displayed on the
screen of the vehicle (for example, a user may use a map
or any type of application displayed on a screen by
simply viewing the screen). Furthermore, Penilla . . .
teaches determining action recommendations based on a
user history profile ([see Penilla ¶ 11]), and the claimed
“behavior” may be interpreted as being the user’s wish to
view or in some way interact with the customized display
Appeal 2019-006285
Application 15/090,688

5
applications resulting from the action of “setting
customization of display applications on the screen of the
vehicle.” Therefore, a user may “enact” this “behavior”
by simply viewing or interacting with the customized
display applications resulting from accepting the action
recommendation.
Answer 5 (emphases omitted). We disagree with the Examiner,
however. As set forth above, claim 1 recites that “responsive to
confirmation receipt [that a predicted behavior is intended by the
driver], [a processor is configured to] change an in-vehicle display to
include a control usable to enact the predicted behavior.” Appeal Br.,
Claims App. (emphasis added). We do not agree with the Examiner
that, for example, even if (using nomenclature from claim 1) Penilla’s
processor receives confirmation that its prediction is correct that the
driver intends to view a map, and the processor changes the display to
show the map, this amounts to displaying a control that is usable to
enact the predicted behavior of intending to view the map. Rather,
with reference to Penilla, the Examiner describes a scenario in which
a processor, responsive to confirmation receipt that a predicted
behavior (of displaying map) is intended by the driver, changes the
display to enact the predicted behavior (of displaying the map)—there
is no changing of the display to include a control usable to enact the
predicted behavior. That is, we determine that claim 1 requires
something in addition to showing the map, as would occur in the
Examiner’s scenario.
Appeal 2019-006285
Application 15/090,688

6
Rejection II—Obviousness rejection of claim 12
Claim 12 depends from independent claim 1. For the above
reasons, we do not sustain claim 1’s anticipation rejection based on
Penilla. The Examiner does not rely on Nitz to disclose anything that
would remedy the above-discussed deficiency in claim 1’s rejection.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 12 based on Penilla and Nitz.

CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness
rejections of claims 1–20.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1–11, 13–20 102(a)(1) Penilla 1–11, 13–20
12 103 Penilla, Nitz 12
Overall
Outcome
1–20
REVERSED