Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 13, 2020

14920456 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 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.
14/920,456 10/22/2015 Pietro Buttolo 83581000 7589
28395 7590 05/13/2020
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
VO, NGUYEN THANH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/13/2020 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 PIETRO BUTTOLO, STEPHEN RONALD TOKISH,
JAMES STEWART RANKIN II, and STUART C. SALTER
________________

Appeal 2019-001090
Application 14/920,456
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JASON V. MORGAN, and
SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–11 and 13–20. Claim 12 is canceled.
Amend. 4 (filed Nov. 22, 2017). 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-001090
Application 14/920,456

2

Summary of the disclosure
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to a personal device that
scans for in-vehicle components, identifies features of the in-vehicle
components, and provides “feedback to the user of a notification, using at
least one of the in-vehicle components, based on . . . preferences and
features of the in-vehicle components.” Abstract.
Representative claim (key limitations emphasized)
1. A system comprising:
a personal device including
a wireless transceiver;
a memory storing user preferences; and
a processor, programmed to
scan, using the transceiver, for in-vehicle
components of a seating zone of a vehicle in which
the personal device is located,
identify available features of the in-vehicle
components, and
provide feedback of an incoming communication to
the personal device, using at least one of the in-
vehicle components, based on the preferences and
the available features.
The Examiner’s rejections and cited references
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, 5, 15, 16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper et al. (US 2015/0149042 A1;
published May 28, 2015) (“Cooper”) and Gopinath (US 2016/0165031 A1;
published June 9, 2016). Final Act. 3–5.
Appeal 2019-001090
Application 14/920,456

3

The Examiner rejects claims 2 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Cooper, Gopinath, and Kirsch (US 2012/0197523 A1;
published Aug. 2, 2012). Final Act. 5–6.
The Examiner rejects claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Cooper, Gopinath, and Park et al. (US 2016/0021167 A1;
published Jan. 21, 2016). Final Act. 6.
The Examiner rejects claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Cooper, Gopinath, and Divon (US 2006/0103590 A1;
published May 18, 2006). Final Act. 6–7.
The Examiner rejects claims 7–11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Cooper, Gopinath, and Friedl et al. (US 2013/
0191902 A1; published July 25, 2013) (“Friedl”). Final Act. 7–9.
The Examiner rejects claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Cooper, Gopinath, Friedl, and Kirsch. Final Act. 9–10.
The Examiner rejects claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Cooper, Gopinath, and Kobayashi (US 5,963,877;
issued Oct. 5, 1999). Final Act. 10.
ADOPTION OF EXAMINER’S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings as set
forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was taken, and
we concur with the Examiner’s conclusions. We have considered
Appellant’s arguments, but do not find them persuasive of error. We provide
the following explanation for emphasis.
Appeal 2019-001090
Application 14/920,456

4

DETERMINATIONS AND CONTENTIONS
Cooper discloses a mobile computing device that can identify and
control in-vehicle components such as a speaker. See Cooper ¶ 111 (cited in
Final Act. 3). Gopinath discloses adjusting speaker audio settings in
response to a mobile device receiving a call. See Gopinath ¶ 34 (cited in
Final Act. 3). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to
modify Cooper’s system based on the teachings and suggestions of Gopinath
to respond to “an incoming communication . . . directed toward the mobile
device” by “selectively adjusting one or more audio settings of [a] speaker in
the vehicle based on a proximity of that speaker to the location of the mobile
device.” Final Act. 3–4 (citing Gopinath ¶ 6); see also Ans. 12.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “Cooper does not
disclose or suggest that ‘at least one of the in-vehicle components’ that are
scanned for ‘using the transceiver’ are also ‘in-vehicle components’ that are
used to ‘provide feedback of an incoming communication.’” Appeal Br. 7.
Appellant further argues “Gopinath also does not disclose or suggest that ‘at
least one of the in-vehicle components’ that are scanned for ‘using the
transceiver’ are also the ‘in-vehicle components.’” Id. at 8.
Although the Examiner responds that “one cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections
are based on combinations of references” (Ans. 14 (citing In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981))), Appellant submits the appeal addresses
Cooper, Gopinath, “and their alleged combination” (Reply Br. 2).
Specifically, Appellant argues “the Examiner is unable to point to any
teaching in the references or what is known in the art that shows that one
would use the same ‘in-vehicle components’ that are scanned for ‘using the
Appeal 2019-001090
Application 14/920,456

5

transceiver’ to ‘provide feedback of an incoming communication.’” Id.
Appellant argues “the Examiner is attempting to take an advantage of the
invention itself and use that as motivation to make the alleged combination,”
and thus the Examiner relies on “improper hindsight reasoning.” Id.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner “should be aware, of course, of the distortion caused by
hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post
reasoning.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). But a
“person of ordinary skill is . . . a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.” Id. Thus, it is sufficient that the Examiner articulate “reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” Id. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006)).
Here, the Examiner finds that Gopinath suggests “selectively
adjusting one or more audio settings of [a] speaker in the vehicle based on a
proximity of that speaker to the location of the mobile device.” Final Act. 4
(citing Gopinath ¶ 6). The Examiner’s finding is supported by Gopinath’s
disclosure of “determining that an incoming communication is directed
toward the mobile device, and, for more than one speaker in the vehicle,
selectively adjusting one or more audio settings of that speaker in the vehicle
based on a proximity of that speaker to the location of the mobile device.”
Gopinath ¶ 6. Moreover, Cooper discloses mobile device automation of the
functionality of in-vehicle components—such as speakers—based on the
location of the mobile device in the vehicle. Cooper ¶ 111 (cited in Final
Act. 3).
Appeal 2019-001090
Application 14/920,456

6

Thus, the Examiner’s rejection does not rely on impermissible
hindsight reasoning, but instead represents the “combination of familiar
elements according to known methods” to do “no more than yield
predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner that it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to
modify Cooper’s mobile device to adjust (i.e., to automate) speakers in
response to the mobile device receiving an incoming communication. See
Final Act. 3–4.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 1, and the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 2–11 and
13–20, which Appellant argues are patentable for similar reasons. See
Appeal Br. 9–13 (arguing that additional references relied on by the
Examiner fail to cure the alleged deficiencies of Cooper and Gopinath).

Appeal 2019-001090
Application 14/920,456

7

CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 5, 15,
16, 18
103 Cooper, Gopinath 1, 4, 5,
15, 16, 18

2, 17 103 Cooper, Gopinath,
Kirsch
2, 17
3 103 Cooper, Gopinath, Park 3
6 103 Cooper, Gopinath,
Divon
6
7–11, 13 103 Cooper, Gopinath,
Friedl
7–11, 13
14 103 Cooper, Gopinath,
Friedl, Kirsch
14
19, 20 103 Cooper, Gopinath,
Kobayashi
19, 20
Overall
Outcome
1–11,
13–20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking 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