Harman Becker Automotive Systems GmbH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 17, 2020

2019004676 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 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.
14/633,007 02/26/2015 Christian HORT HRMN/0139US (P150084) 1066
98031 7590 12/17/2020
Artegis Law Group, LLP - Harman
7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104
Houston, TX 77095
EXAMINER
COONEY, ADAM A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2443
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2020 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):
bkistler@artegislaw.com
jmatthews@artegislaw.com
sjohnson@artegislaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHRISTIAN HORT, ANDREAS HUBER,
HERBERT VOGT, VISHNU SUNDARAM,
DAVID SLUMP, and STEPHEN L. SURHIGH
____________

Appeal 2019-004676
Application 14/633,007
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2019-004676
Application 14/633,007

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 5–14, and 18–26, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to “a portable device, which
can be easily installed and removed by a user of the vehicle, e. g. by
plugging the device into a port, like a USB or HDMI port, of [an] in-vehicle
infotainment system or by placing the removable device inside the vehicle”
(Spec. ¶ 15).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal:
1. A removable device, comprising a processor executing
instructions stored in a memory to provide:

the removable device adapted to connect a mobile
communication device to a head unit of a vehicle, the
removable device comprising:

a first communication module having a first transceiver
and configured for bidirectional communication of data with the
head unit;

a second communication module having a second
transceiver and configured for bi-directional communication of
data with the mobile communication device; and

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Harman Becker Automotive Systems
GmbH. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-004676
Application 14/633,007

3
a control unit configured to provide at least one service to
the head unit via the first communication module based on data
received via the second communication module; and

a memory unit storing an application programming
interface (API) implementing at least a first protocol for the
communication with the head unit via the first communication
module and a second protocol for the communication with the
mobile communication device;

wherein the control unit comprises at least one
processing unit adapted to execute the API;

wherein the control unit is further configured to process
control signals received from the head unit via the first
communication module, by executing the API;

wherein the processing of the control signals comprises
conversion of the control signals between corresponding
specifications of the head unit and the mobile communication
device to produce converted control signals to control at least
one mobile application stored on the mobile communication
device; and

wherein the control unit is further configured to transmit
the converted control signals to the mobile communication
device via the second communication module.

Appeal Br. 15 (Claims Appendix).

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is the following:
Spaur US 2005/0266879 A1 Dec. 1, 2005
Barrett US 2015/0100633 A1 Apr. 9, 2015
Appeal 2019-004676
Application 14/633,007

4
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1, 5–14, and 18–26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Spaur and Barrett. Final Act. 5.

ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Spaur and Barrett teaches or suggests the limitations of
wherein the processing of the control signals comprises
conversion of the control signals between corresponding
specifications of the head unit and the mobile communication
device to produce converted control signals to control at least
one mobile application stored on the mobile communication
device; and
wherein the control unit is further configured to transmit
the converted control signals to the mobile communication
device via the second communication module,

as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claim
14.
ANALYSIS
Except where indicated, we adopt the Examiner’s findings in the
Answer and Final Office Action and we add the following primarily for
emphasis. We note that if Appellant failed to present arguments on a
particular rejection, we will not unilaterally review those uncontested
aspects of the rejection. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI
2010) (precedential); Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313–14 (Fed. Cir.
2008) (The Board may treat arguments Appellant failed to make for a given
ground of rejection as waived).
Appeal 2019-004676
Application 14/633,007

5
Appellant argues that
Barrett does not teach or suggest that the multimedia module
receives control signals from the vehicle subsystem, much less
that Barrett processes the control signals to produce converted
control signals to control at least one mobile application stored
on the mobile device and then transmits the converted control
signals to the mobile device

(Appeal Br. 11, citing Barrett ¶¶ 14, 25). Appellant contends that “the
Barrett reference itself distinguishes between data signals and control
signals” (Appeal Br. 11, citing Barrett ¶¶ 16, 25–26, and 43), and that
“nowhere does Barrett teach or suggest that the modified data signals are
produced to control at least one mobile application stored on the mobile
device” (Appeal Br. 11).
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. We disagree with the
Examiner’s claim interpretation that “processed signals are used in order to
control an application stored on a mobile communication device” (Ans. 14),
because one skilled in the art would recognize the differences between the
claimed “data” and the claimed “control signals.” However, Appellant
admits that Barrett teaches “causing the mobile device to render an
information display on a user interface on the mobile device, [where] the
information display includes information indicative of the modified data
signals” (Appeal Br. 10, quoting Barrett Abstract).
While Barrett does not appear to explicitly identify the control signal
used or how it is modified as it leaves the head and travels to the mobile
phone, one skilled in the art would understand Barrett relies on sending
control signals in this manner. Something (i.e., control signals) has to tell
the mobile phone to render the information display, and that could only be a
Appeal 2019-004676
Application 14/633,007

6
control signal understood by the mobile phone. The Examiner finds, and we
agree, that it would have been obvious
to incorporate the feature of an upgradeable detachable
multimedia module as taught by Barrett into the system of
Spaur in order to provide the benefit of reduced cost and
increased compatibility for future technology

(Final Act. 9, citing Barrett ¶ 14). One skilled in the art, recognizing
Barrett’s aim to increase compatibility, would understand Barrett’s reliance
on converted control signals to ensure compatibility is attained between the
head and the mobile device it communicates with.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1, and independent claim 14 commensurate in scope, as
well as dependent claims 5–13 and 18–26 not separately argued. See Appeal
Br. 13.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Spaur and
Barrett teaches or suggests the limitations of
wherein the processing of the control signals comprises
conversion of the control signals between corresponding
specifications of the head unit and the mobile communication
device to produce converted control signals to control at least
one mobile application stored on the mobile communication
device; and
wherein the control unit is further configured to transmit
the converted control signals to the mobile communication
device via the second communication module,

as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claim
14.

Appeal 2019-004676
Application 14/633,007

7
DECISION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5–14, 18–
26
103 Spaur, Barrett 1, 5–14, 18–
26

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED