2019005305 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2020)

FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 2, 2020

2019005305 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 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. 15/399,913 01/06/2017 Jason Michael MILLER 83711029 6375 28395 7590 12/02/2020 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL 1000 TOWN CENTER 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER THATCHER, CLINT A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2191 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/02/2020 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 JASON MICHAEL MILLER, SANGEETHA SANGAMESWARAN, DANIEL JOSEPH MADRID, and PARVATHY VISWAMOHAN Appeal 2019-005305 Application 15/399,913 Technology Center 2100 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DAVID J. CUTITTA II, and SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges. RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 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 AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-005305 Application 15/399,913 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims relate to systems and methods for providing over-the-air software updates to vehicle controllers. See Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system for a vehicle comprising: a controller; and a telematics control unit configured to, in response to receiving instructions that indicate transfer and installation techniques supported by the controller to update the controller with a software update, transfer the software update to the controller responsive to vehicle state being compatible with the transfer technique, and install the software update to the controller responsive to vehicle state being compatible with the installation technique. REJECTION Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Molin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0309784 A1, published Oct. 29, 2015). Final Act. 5. ANALYSIS We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Arguments not made are waived. See id.; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). Appellant makes two arguments. First, Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Molin discloses “transfer the software update to the controller responsive to vehicle state being compatible with the transfer technique,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 5–6. Referring to Molin Appeal 2019-005305 Application 15/399,913 3 paragraph 64, cited by the Examiner for describing this limitation, Appellant states that Molin’s “‘safe operational mode permitting the updating without danger to a driver operating the motor vehicle’ . . . bears no relation to” the disputed limitation. Id. at 5. The Examiner finds that the teachings of Molin, including Molin’s “successful data transfer of an update between a server and vehicle over a network,” discloses this limitation. Ans. 10; see also Final Act. 6 (citing Molin ¶ 64). Molin describes a “hub controller [that] selectively updates the at least one software component of selected one or more of the motor vehicle subsystems.” Molin ¶ 64. That sentence goes on to say that the update is “responsive to the operational condition of the motor vehicle being in a predetermined safe operational mode permitting the updating without danger to a driver operating the motor vehicle.” Id. Appellant focuses on the latter disclosure (“safe operational mode”) while ignoring the former (“updates the at least one software component”). See id.; Appeal Br. 5. Appellant does not point us to any claim language that would exclude a software update made for the express purpose of updating without danger to the driver operating the motor vehicle. To the contrary, the claimed “transfer” is worded broadly. Accordingly, Appellant does not persuade us of Examiner error. Second, Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Molin discloses “receiving instructions that indicate transfer and installation techniques supported by the controller,” also recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 6–7. But while the Examiner relies on paragraph 28 of Molin for this limitation, Appellant instead argues that Molin paragraphs 40 and 41 do not disclose this limitation. Id.; Final Act. 5. Appellant’s argument is not Appeal 2019-005305 Application 15/399,913 4 responsive to the Examiner’s rejection. What is more, the Examiner further finds in the Answer that paragraph 6 of Molin discloses this limitation, but Appellant did not file a Reply Brief addressing this finding. Arguments not made are waived. See Frye, 94 USPQ2d at 1075. We, therefore, sustain the rejection, along with the rejection of independent claims 9 and 17 argued collectively with claim 1 and the dependent claims, which Appellant does not argue separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019); Appeal Br. 7–8. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–20 102(a)(1) Molin 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED