MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 27, 2020

15592397 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 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.
15/592,397 05/11/2017 LIN LIN PATCM19107-US-PRI 4587
22917 7590 08/27/2020
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.
IP Law Docketing
500 W. Monroe
43rd Floor
Chicago, IL 60661
EXAMINER
TRAN, THANG DUC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/27/2020 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):
USAdocketing@motorolasolutions.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LIN LIN
Appeal 2019-003044
Application 15/592,397
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, 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(a) (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Motorola
Solutions, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-003044
Application 15/592,397
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method for providing incident specific
information at a vehicle computer. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for providing incident specific information at a
vehicle computer, the method comprising:

receiving, at a network interface of the vehicle computer,
an incident assignment including information related to a current
incident from a dispatch computer;

receiving, at an input interface of the vehicle computer, a
query from an occupant of a vehicle associated with the vehicle
computer;

identifying, at an electronic processor of the vehicle
computer, a first context parameter by co-relating the query with
information related to the current incident and a second context
parameter by co-relating the query with information not related
to the current incident;

determining, at the electronic processor, in response to
receiving the query, whether a current incident status of the
vehicle identifies that the vehicle is responding to the current
incident or not responding to the current incident;

generating, at the electronic processor, a response to the
query based on the first context parameter when the current
incident status identifies that the vehicle is responding to the
current incident; and

generating, at the electronic processor, a response to the
query based on the second context parameter when the current
incident status identifies that the vehicle is not responding to the
current incident.

Appeal 2019-003044
Application 15/592,397
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Rubenstein US 2003/0062998 A1 Apr. 03, 2003
Bachelder et al. US 6,940,422 B1 Sept. 06, 2005
Spector US 2011/0071880 A1 Mar. 24, 2011
Kumhyr US 2013/0148751 A1 June 13, 2013
Friesen US 2015/0289122 A1 Oct. 08, 2015
Sergeev et al. US 2016/0227382 A1 Aug. 04, 2016

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8, 9, 11–13, 15–17, and 19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rubenstein in view of Kumhyr
and further in view of Spector.
Claims 3 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Rubenstein, Kumhyr, and Spector further in view of
Friesen.
Claims 7 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Rubenstein, Kumhyr, and Spector further in view of
Sergeev.
Claims 10 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Rubenstein, Kumhyr, and Spector and further in view of
Bachelder.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 103
Appellant argues that claim 1 describes two different context
parameters that are each identified in response to a query that is received at
the vehicle computer’s input interface by co-relating the query with
information related to the current incident and with information not related
Appeal 2019-003044
Application 15/592,397
4
to the current incident. Claim 1 further describes that a response is
generated based on one of the two identified context parameters depending
on whether the vehicle is responding to the current incident or not. Appeal
Br. 9.
Appellant also argues that the Examiner acknowledges that the
Rubenstein reference does not teach the determining step in response to
receiving a query, and the Examiner relies on the Kumhyr and Spector
references as disclosing this claimed feature. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant
argues that the steps of the claimed method are performed by the same
computer at the vehicle in response to the query from the occupant of the
vehicle rather than at the dispatch computer as taught by the Kumhyr
reference. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant additionally argues both “determining”
as well as “receiving a query” are performed at the vehicle computer,
whereas the Spector reference discloses a request signal is received from
Spector’s user vehicle, but the decision engine 130 that selects the
responders based on the status of other user vehicle’s is implemented at the
server 130, which is not the same as “vehicle computer.” Appeal Br. 13; see
generally Reply Br. 3–8.
The Examiner repeatedly relies on paragraphs 64 and 65 of the
Rubenstein reference where the officer in the vehicle decides whether to take
an emergency call or not take an emergency call, and where the officer does
not accept the call “is equivalent to the second context parameter which is
the officer vehicle will not depart to the current incident scene.” Ans. 9, 11;
Final Act. 41; see generally Ans. 9–16.
“‘On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection by
showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the
prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.’” In
Appeal 2019-003044
Application 15/592,397
5
re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985–86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149
F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior
art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability. If that burden is met, the burden of coming
forward with evidence or argument shifts to the applicant.
After evidence or argument is submitted by the applicant
in response, patentability is determined on the totality of the
record, by a preponderance of evidence with due consideration
to persuasiveness of argument.
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
“A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis.
. . .” In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). “The Patent Office
has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not
. . . resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction
to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.” Id.
“Obviousness may not be established using hindsight or in view of the
teachings or suggestions of the inventor.” Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS
Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d 1085, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing W.L. Gore &
Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1551, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
“The mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested
by the Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the prior art
suggested the desirability of the modification.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir.
1984)). “It is impermissible to use the claimed invention as an instruction
manual or ‘template’ to piece together the teachings of the prior art so that
the claimed invention is rendered obvious.” Fritch, 972 F.2 at 1266 (citing
In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 987 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
Appeal 2019-003044
Application 15/592,397
6
Additionally, Appellant argues that the Rubenstein reference does not
describe that the “query” mentioned in paragraph [0049] is in any manner
connected to the concepts described in paragraphs [0064] and [0065], that
describe the user’s decision of whether to take the dispatch call or not, and
paragraphs [0064] and [0065] do not mention that both first and second
context parameters are generated by respectively co-relating the query with
information related to the incident and with information not related to
the incident. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant also argues that paragraphs [0064] -
[0065] of Rubenstein do not disclose receiving any query from the user
which requires a response to be generated where, at best, may implicitly
suggest receiving an input from the user that may be indicative of whether
the user has accepted or declined the dispatch call. Appeal Br. 11.
Appellant contends that contrary to the Examiner’s conclusion that
one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that when the officer does not
accept the call, the officer vehicle will send a message to CAD indicating
that the user has not accepted the call and further such a message is
considered equivalent to generating a response to the query based on the
second context parameter, “the message even if it is sent from the vehicle
computer to the CAD, such a message is not in response to any query.”
Appeal Br. 11–12.
Here, we find the that the Examiner has not made specific findings or
provided a persuasive line of reasoning why any of the three prior art
references individually or in combination teach or suggest the claimed
“identifying” step where the query input (at the vehicle computer) and the
information related to the current incident (received at the network interface
of the vehicle computer) are both used in the identifying step. We find the
Examiner relies upon impermissible hindsight using the claimed invention as
Appeal 2019-003044
Application 15/592,397
7
an instruction manual or ‘template’ to piece together the teachings of the
prior art so that the claimed invention is rendered obvious, but the Examiner
does not persuasively address the facet of the claimed invention that the
computer at the vehicle performs the identifying step.
Therefore, we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of illustrative
independent claim 1 and independent claim 12 which includes similar
limitations and their respective dependent claims.
With respect to the dependent claims 3, 7, 10, 14, 18, and 20, the
Examiner has not identified how the additional prior art teachings remedy
the deficiency in the base combination. Therefore, we cannot sustain the
obviousness rejections of these dependent claims for the same reasons
addressed above.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections are reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–6, 8,
9, 11–13,
15–17, 19
103 Rubenstein,
Kumhyr, Spector
1, 2, 4–6, 8,
9, 11–13,
15–17, 19
3, 14 103 Rubenstein,
Kumhyr, Spector,
Friesen
3, 14
7, 18 103 Rubenstein,
Kumhyr, Spector,
Sergeev
7, 18
10, 20 103 Rubenstein,
Kumhyr, Spector,
Bachelder
10, 20
Appeal 2019-003044
Application 15/592,397
8
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED