Pietro Buttolo et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 20, 201915076978 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 15/076,978 03/22/2016 Pietro BUTTOLO 83625529 2791 28395 7590 11/20/2019 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL 1000 TOWN CENTER 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER SYED, NABIL H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2683 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/20/2019 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, JAMES STEWART RANKIN II, STEPHEN RONALD TOKISH, and STUART C. SALTER ____________________ Appeal 2019-000184 Application 15/076,978 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The claims are directed to a system and method “for wireless vehicular access device authentication” based on “an acknowledgement 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant(s)” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The real party in interest is Ford Global Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-000184 Application 15/076,978 2 following transmission of a proper recognition code [among a plurality of time-stamped recognition codes],” “a time-delay between transmission of the proper recognition code and [the] acknowledgement receipt,” a “key- code [compared] to a code exchanged with the device when the device was previously present within a vehicle,” and “verification of the key-code and [a] received signal strength of multiple wireless signals [successively received from the device] matching a predefined pattern of increasing signal strength, providing vehicle system access to the device.” (Spec. ¶ 1; Abstract.) Claim 12, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 12. A system comprising: a mobile-device processor configured to: wirelessly transmit an access request to a vehicle based on the mobile device being within a predetermined proximity to the vehicle, including authentication code request; wirelessly receive a series of authentication codes, including a proper code and a plurality of false, invalid codes, from the vehicle; and respond with an acknowledgment to the vehicle responsive to determining the proper code has been received. (Supp. App. Br. 3 (Claims Appendix).)2 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Khan et al. US 2014/0285319 A1 Sept. 25, 2014 2 The citation is to Appellant’s Supplemental Appeal Brief dated May 8, 2018, submitting a correct copy of the claims on appeal. Appeal 2019-000184 Application 15/076,978 3 (“Khan”) Povolny US 2015/0022314 A1 Jan. 22, 2015 Reiser US 2014/0266594 A1 Sept. 18, 2014 Puetz US 5,897,598 Apr. 27, 1999 Masudaya US 2003/0001723 A1 Jan. 2, 2003 Howarter et al. US 2010/0075656 A1 Mar. 25, 2010 (“Howarter”) Oesterling US 2013/0271273 A1 Oct. 17, 2013 Nagai et al. US 2004/0085189 A1 May 6, 2004 (“Nagai”) REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 12 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Khan in view of Povolny. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Khan in view of Povolny, and further in view of Reiser. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Khan in view of Povolny, and further in view of Puetz. Claims 1–3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Khan in view of Povolny, and further in view of Masudaya. Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Khan in view of Povolny, and further in view of Masudaya and Puetz. Appeal 2019-000184 Application 15/076,978 4 Claims 6–8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Khan in view of Povolny, and further in view of Masudaya and Howarter. Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Khan in view of Povolny, and further in view of Howarter. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Khan in view of Povolny, and further in view of Howarter and Puetz. Claims 9–11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Khan in view of Povolny, and further in view of Masudaya and Oesterling. Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Khan in view of Nagai, and further in view of Masudaya, Puetz, and Howarter. ANALYSIS With respect to independent claims 1, 12, and 19, Appellant argues the claims together. (App. Br. 6–7.) Based on Appellant’s arguments and our discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we select independent claim 12 as the representative claim for the group and will address Appellant’s arguments presented in both Appeal Brief and Reply Brief. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017). Dependent claims 2–11, 13–18, and 20 stand or fall with claim 12. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). With respect to representative independent claim 12, Appellant contends that “claim 12 recites th[e] determination [of ‘measured signal strengths of the multiple wireless signals matching a predefined pattern of Appeal 2019-000184 Application 15/076,978 5 increasing signal strength’] as occurring at the mobile device,” and none of the cited references teach or suggest such determination. (App. Br. 6–8.) In particular, Appellant argues although Howarter “may teach or suggest a determination using signal strength,” Howarter does not “remotely teach or suggest the claimed ‘measured signal strength . . . matching a predefined pattern of increasing signal strength’” and does not teach “this determination occurring at the mobile device.” (Id. at 7–8.) In the Reply Brief, Appellant additionally argues “the prior art fails to teach the claimed ‘condition vehicle system access on the time delay being below a predefined threshold.’” (Reply Br. 2.) Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because the arguments are not commensurate in scope with the express language of representative claim 12, which does not recite conditioning vehicle system access on the time delay being below a predefined threshold or measured signal strengths of multiple wireless signals matching a predefined pattern of increasing signal strength. As the Examiner explains, Appellant’s claim set on appeal is the September 29, 2017 claim set in which claim 12 does not recite a time delay or signal strengths matching a predefined pattern. (Ans. 4.)3 Thus, Appellant’s arguments fail because the arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim 12. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“[A]ppellant’s arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims.”); see also In re Hiniker 3 On March 16, 2018, Appellant attempted to amend claim 12 to include, inter alia, the feature of “measured signal strength matching a predefined pattern of increasing signal strengths.” (See Amendment dated March 16, 2018). However, the Examiner’s Advisory Action dated March 28, 2018, did not enter Appellant’s March 16 Amendment. (See Advisory Act. 1–2.) Appeal 2019-000184 Application 15/076,978 6 Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[The] proffered facts . . . are not commensurate with the claim scope and are therefore unpersuasive.”). As a result, Appellant’s arguments do not show error in the Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of obviousness of representative independent claim 12. We therefore sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of representative independent claim 12, grouped independent claims 1 and 19, and grouped dependent claims 2–11, 13–18, and 20. CONCLUSIONS The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–20 based upon obviousness. DECISION For the above reasons, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C.§ Basis Affirmed Reversed 12, 14 103 Khan, Povolny 12, 14 13 103 Khan, Povolny, Reiser 13 18 103 Khan, Povolny, Puetz 18 1–3 103 Khan, Povolny, Masudaya 1–3 Appeal 2019-000184 Application 15/076,978 7 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C.§ Basis Affirmed Reversed 4, 5 103 Khan, Povolny, Masudaya, Puetz 4, 5 6–8 103 Khan, Povolny, Masudaya, Howarter 6–8 15, 16 103 Khan, Povolny, Howarter 15, 16 17 103 Khan, Povolny, Howarter, Puetz 17 9–11 103 Khan, Povolny, Masudaya, Oesterling 9–11 19, 20 103 Khan, Nagai, Masudaya, Puetz, Howarter 19, 20 Overall Outcome 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)(1)(iv) (2016). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation