Lear Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 26, 2021

2019006540 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2021)

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.
14/513,751 10/14/2014 Jason G. Bauman LEAR 53933 PUS 1027
34007 7590 03/26/2021
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. / LEAR CORPORATION
1000 TOWN CENTER
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
ZHU, BO HUI ALVIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2021 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 G. BAUMAN and GERALD L. GRABOWSKI
____________________

Appeal 2019-006540
Application 14/513,751
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 7 through 10, 14 through 16, and 22 through 24. 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) (2018). According to Appellant, Lear Corporation is the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-006540
Application 14/513,751

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a vehicle gateway module that is
configured to communicate over vehicle networks connected to the gateway
module with vehicle devices connected to the vehicle networks. Abstract.
Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A system for a vehicle comprising:
a gateway module configured to communicate over
vehicle networks which use different communication protocols
from one another and which are connected to the gateway
module with vehicle devices connected to the vehicle networks
and to enable communication between the vehicle devices over
the vehicle networks via the gateway module, the gateway
module embedded with a cellular data link to provide the
gateway module with cellular data network connectivity,
wherein the cellular data link provides an always-on, direct
cellular connection between the gateway module and the
Internet whereby communication between (i) the vehicle
devices connected to the vehicle networks connected to the
gateway module and (ii) the Internet is enabled via the gateway
module and the cellular data link, wherein the gateway module
is further configured to receive, via the cellular data link,
communication from a plurality of remote entities connected to
the Internet during communication sessions initiated by the
remote entities with the gateway module over the always-on,
direct cellular connection between the gateway module and the
Internet;
wherein the gateway module is further configured to
receive re-flash software via the cellular data link from a first
remote entity during a first communication session initiated by
the first remote entity for receipt by one of the vehicle devices
connected to one of the vehicle networks connected to the
gateway module and to transfer the re-flash software to the one
of the vehicle devices over the one of the vehicle networks
connected to the one of the vehicle devices;
Appeal 2019-006540
Application 14/513,751

3
wherein the gateway module is further configured to
enable at least one of the vehicle devices to be controlled
remotely by a second remote entity via the cellular data link and
the gateway module during a second communication
session initiated by the second remote entity with the gateway
module over the always-on, direct cellular connection between
the gateway module and the Internet for the second remote
entity to control a vehicle operation including at least one of
vehicle remote start, vehicle unlock, and vehicle setting
temperature; and
wherein the vehicle networks include at least two of a
Controller Area Network (CAN), a Local Interconnect Network
(LIN), an Ethernet network, a FlexRay™ network, and a Media
Oriented Systems Transport (MOST) network.

EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS2
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 7 through 9, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Louch (US 7,869,906
B2, issued January 11, 2011), Dulzo (US 2011/0130892 A1, published June
2, 2011), Stefan (US 2005/0090941 A1, published April 28, 2005) and
Hiramatsu (US 2013/0106594 A1, published May 2, 2013). Final Act. 2–7.
The Examiner rejects claims 10, 14 through 16, 23, and 24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Louch, Dulzo,
Stefan, Hiramatsu and Eling (US 2015/0128123 A1, published May 7,
2015). Final Act. 7–11.

2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed May 13, 2019
(“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed September 3, 2019 (“Reply Br.”); Final
Office Action mailed March 27, 2019 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed August 29, 2019 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2019-006540
Application 14/513,751

4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, Reply
Brief, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of all of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding the skilled artisan
would combine the teachings of Louch, Dulzo, Stefan, and Hiramatsu such
that a gateway module is configured to communicate over vehicle networks
which use different communication protocols from one another wherein the
gateway is embedded with a cellular data link as recited in representative
claim 1. Appeal Br. 6–10, Reply Br. 2–4. Appellant argues that Louch does
not disclose a gateway module with an embedded cellular data link. Appeal
Br. 8. Further, Appellant asserts that the telematics device item 220 of
Stefan, which the Examiner found to be a gateway with an embedded
cellular data link, has a connection to a cellular network and the vehicle bus
but is not a conventional vehicle gateway module. Appeal Br. 8–10, Reply
Br. 2. Appellant reasons that it is not a conventional gateway module as it is
not configured to communicate over vehicle networks which use different
communication protocols from one another. Appeal Br. 8–10, Reply Br. 2.
Based upon this assertion, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rationale to
combine Louch and Stefan is insufficient as it applies equally to a gateway
of Louch being modified to include an embedded cellular link and to a
gateway of Louch being connected to a separate device such as the
telemetric device. Appeal Br. 10, Reply Br. 3.
We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Initially,
we are not persuaded of error by Appellant’s arguments that Stefan does not
Appeal 2019-006540
Application 14/513,751

5
teach a gateway as it does as it is not configured to communicate over
vehicle networks which use different communication protocols from one
another, as the Examiner relied upon Louch to teach this limitation. See
Final Act 2–3 (citing Louch Fig. 1, col. 10, l. 67– col. 11 1. 16). We
additionally note that Stephan does identify that the telematics device item
220 is configured to communicate over vehicle networks which use different
communication protocols from one another and thus the telematics device is
a gateway. See Stephan ¶ 18 (which discusses communicating over the
vehicle bus using various communication standards). Appellant’s arguments
that the Examiner’s rationale to combine the references is insufficient is not
persuasive as it is based upon the assumption that Stephan does not teach a
gateway, which we disagree with. The Examiner’s combination is to apply
Stephan’s teaching that the vehicle gateway, telemetric device 220, which
contains an embedded cellular link, to Louch’s gateway and not having a
separate device with a cellular link as asserted by the Appellant’s arguments.
Final Act 4. The Examiner has provided the rationale that the combination
would “efficiently perform reflash procedure for specific target modules in a
vehicle network via a telematics device of a vehicle.” Final 5, Ans. 5–6
(citing Stefan ¶¶ 3, 6). In KSR, the Supreme Court rejected the rigid
application of the teaching, suggestion, or motivation (TSM) test in favor of
a more expansive and flexible approach to the determination of obviousness.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415 (2007). The determination
of obviousness can be supported with an “articulated reasoning with [a]
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Id. at
418 (citation omitted). We consider the Examiner’s rationale to combine the
references, to be a reasoned rationale. Further, as both Louch and Stefan
Appeal 2019-006540
Application 14/513,751

6
teach vehicle gateways, we consider the combination of the features of the
two gateways to be nothing more than a combination of familiar elements
according to known methods and as such to be obvious as it yields
predictable results. Id at 417. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 1 and claims 7 through 9 and 22 similarly
rejected and grouped with claim 1.
With respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 10, 14
through 16, 23, and 24, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection is in
error for the same reasons discussed with respect to the claim 1. Appeal Br.
11. As Appellant’s arguments directed to claim 1 have not persuaded us of
error in the Examiner’s rejection, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 10, 14 through 16, 23, and 24 for the same reasons as
claim 1.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 7–9, 22

103 Louch, Dulzo,
Stefan,
Hiramatsu
1, 7–9, 22

10, 14–
16, 23, 24
103 Louch, Dulzo,
Stefan,
Hiramatsu,
Eling
10, 14–16,
23, 24

Overall
Outcome
1, 7–10, 14–
16, 22–24

Appeal 2019-006540
Application 14/513,751

7
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