TK Holdings Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 14, 2021

2020000049 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 14, 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.
15/073,023 03/17/2016 Len Steven CECH TKHDE-1117222 1020
27111 7590 04/14/2021
GORDON & REES LLP
101 WEST BROADWAY
SUITE 1600
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
EXAMINER
SAMS, MATTHEW C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/14/2021 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):
ipdocket@gordonrees.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LEN STEVEN CECH and JASON CARL LISSEMAN

Appeal 2020-000049
Application 15/073,023
Technology Center 2600

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 5–10, and 12–20, all of the claims
pending.2 Appeal Br. 4. Claims 4 and 11 are canceled. Claims App. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 We refer to the Specification filed Mar. 17, 2016 (“Spec.”); the Non-Final
Office Action, mailed Nov. 1, 2018 (“Non-Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief,
filed Apr. 1, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed July 30,
2019 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief, filed Sept. 30, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies Joyson Safety Systems Acquisition, LLC, as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-000049
Application 15/073,023

2
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to vehicle
security system (13) employing seat based occupancy detection and body
area network for controlling access of mobile device (1) to a vehicle
network. Spec. ¶ 17, Fig. 1.
Figure 1, reproduced and discussed below, is useful for
understanding the claimed subject matter:

Figure 1 above illustrates vehicle communication system (13) including
driver (3) holding mobile device (1) while sitting on seat (4) of vehicle (12).
Spec. ¶ 17.

Appeal 2020-000049
Application 15/073,023

3
In particular, upon detecting the presence of driver (3) on seat (4) of
vehicle (12), sensor pad (2) transmits signal (11) to mobile device (1)
through the body of driver (3) via an electric field coupling therebetween.
Spec. ¶¶ 19–24. Upon receiving signal (11), mobile device (1) initiates a
pairing process to automatically connect to a fixed communications network
in the vehicle, which provides a security token to mobile device (1) upon
verifying that (1) mobile device (1) is electronically coupled to the vehicle
network, and (2) that driver (3) is seated in vehicle (12) based on an amount
of electric field coupling between driver (3) and sensor pad (2). Id. ¶¶ 21, 25,
35.
Claims 1, 5, and 16 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with
disputed limitations emphasized, is illustrative:
1. A system for controlling access of a mobile electronic
device to vehicle network, comprising:
a body area network for carrying signals through an
occupant of a vehicle, wherein the network includes an
electrode located in the seat of the vehicle, and a signal
generator for providing a signal to the electrode;
wherein the mobile electronic device is configured to
detect the signal provided to the electrode and conducted
through the body area network;
wherein the mobile electronic device is configured to
electronically couple to the vehicle network upon detecting the
signal;
wherein the vehicle network is configured to provide a
security token to the mobile electronic device when (1) the
mobile electronic device is electronically coupled to the vehicle
network, and (2) the system determines that the occupant is
seated in the vehicle based on an amount of electric field
coupling between the occupant and the electrode; and
wherein the vehicle network is configured to restrict
remote access to the vehicle network to only mobile electronic
devices having the provided security token.
Appeal 2020-000049
Application 15/073,023

4
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.) (Emphasis added).
III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references.3
Name Reference Date
Doi US 6,771,161 B1 Aug. 3, 2004
Dharmarajan US 7,318,234 B1 Jan. 8, 2008
Nakasato US 8,044,768 B2 Oct. 25, 2011
Yang US 9,008,641 B2 Apr. 14, 2015
Cech US 2014/0162586 A1 June 12, 2014
Penilla US 2015/0210287 A1 July 30, 2015
IV. REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 5–10, and 12–20 as follows:
Claims 1, 2, and 16 are rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over the combination of Cech and Yang. Non-Final Act. 2–7.
Claims 3 and 17–20 are rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over the combination of Cech, Yang, and Dharmarajan. Id. at 7–8.
Claim 5 is rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the
combination of Cech, Yang, and Nakasato. Id. at 8–11.
Claims 6–9 and 12–15 are rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over the combination of Cech, Yang, Nakasato, and Penilla. Id. at 11–
12.
Claim 10 is rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the
combination of Cech, Yang, Nakasato, and Doi. Id. at 12–13.

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2020-000049
Application 15/073,023

5
V. ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 4–11 and the Reply Brief, pages 1–5.4 We are
unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions. Except as otherwise indicated
herein below, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
Non-Final Action, and the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s
Appeal Brief. Non-Final Act. 2–13; Ans. 3–10. However, we highlight and
address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
Appellant argues that the combination of Cech and Yang does not
teach or suggest
A vehicle network configured to provide a security token
to the mobile electronic device when (1) the mobile electronic
device is electronically coupled to the vehicle network, and (2)
the system determines that the occupant is seated in the vehicle
based on an amount of electric field coupling between the
occupant and the electrode; and wherein the vehicle network is
configured to restrict remote access to the vehicle network to
only mobile electronic devices having the provided security
token,

as recited in independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 5–6 (emphasis and
capitalization omitted). In particular, Appellant argues that Yang’s
disclosure of an authentication procedure to pair the IVI system with a
wireless device does not require that the mobile device is already coupled to
the vehicle network, and that the user thereof is sitting in a vehicle seat
before providing a security token thereto. Id. at 6–7 (citing Yang 4:27–39,

4 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant could have
made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017).
Appeal 2020-000049
Application 15/073,023

6
12:7–19). According to Appellant, because Yang’s pairing requires at most
that the mobile device is connected to the vehicle network, it does not teach
the requisite criteria for the vehicle network to provide a security token to
the mobile device, and thereby fails to cure the admitted deficiencies of
Cech. Id. Further, Appellant argues that because Yang’s pairing is also
provided to pairing mobile devices that are near or outside of a vehicle, it
does not restrict the use of the disclosed security token to devices located
inside the vehicle. Id. at 7 (citing Yang 11:58–13:42). Additionally,
Appellant argues that the ordinarily-skilled artisan would not have combined
Yang’s pairing with Cech’s teachings because Yang’s pairing does not meet
the requirements for providing the token, and Cech’s body detection signal
is not utilized during the disclosed pairing process. Id. (Cech ¶¶ 29–32).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible Examiner error
because they are tantamount to an individual attack against each of Cech and
Yang, as opposed to addressing the combined teachings of cited references,
as relied upon by the Examiner in the rejection of claim 1. One cannot show
non-obviousness by attacking the references or the embodiments thereof
individually where the rejections are based on the combined teachings of the
references and/or embodiments. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
As a preliminary matter, we note in applying the references, the
Examiner accounts for both the mobile device being connected to the vehicle
network and the system determining that the occupant is seated in the
vehicle based on the amount of electric field coupling the mobile device to
an electrode before the mobile device can be provided with a security token
during the pairing process, as required by the claim. Non-Final Act. 5–6;
Appeal 2020-000049
Application 15/073,023

7
Ans. 4–6. In particular, the Examiner relies upon Cech’s disclosure of a
pairing process wherein a user’s mobile device is connected with a vehicle
network upon detecting that the user is on the seat of the vehicle to form an
electric field between the user and the detection device. Non-Final Act. 5
(citing Cech ¶¶ 25–32). Further, the Examiner relies upon Yang to teach
providing a security token to the user device as part of the pairing process of
a user device within the vicinity of a vehicle network. Id. at 6 (citing Yang
4:27–39, 12:7–19).5 Yang also discloses a seat weight sensor for capturing
the presence of an occupant sitting on a seat in the vehicle. Yang 3:15–19.
As correctly noted by the Examiner, Yang was not relied upon to teach the
prerequisite conditions for the security system to provide the security token
as part of the pairing process. Ans. 4. Rather, as shown above, the Examiner
relies upon Cech for such teachings despite the fact that Yang also teaches a
weight sensor for determining whether the occupant is sitting in a particular
seat in the vehicle and the user device is connected to the vehicle network.
Id. Further, we do not agree with Appellant that Cech’s body detection
signal is not utilized in the pairing process. Cech does indicate that the
electronic device may initiate the pairing process with the communication
network upon detecting the signal transmitted through the vehicle occupant’s
body. Cech ¶¶ 29, 32. We find the Examiner’s proposed combination of the

5 “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425. “The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by [the]
formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or
by overemphasis on the importance of . . . the explicit content of issued
patents.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007).
Appeal 2020-000049
Application 15/073,023

8
cited teachings in Cech and Yang is no more than a simple arrangement of
old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to
perform, yielding no more than what one would expect from such an
arrangement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. Therefore, the ordinarily skilled
artisan, being “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” would
have been able to fit the teachings of the cited references together like pieces
of a puzzle to predictably result in a vehicle security system wherein a user’s
device detected within a vehicle is provided with a security token upon
determining that the user is seated in the vehicle and the device is connected
to the vehicle network. Id. at 420–21. That is, the ordinarily-skilled artisan
would have readily appreciated that the use of the security token in the
proposed combination of Cech and Yang would serve the purpose of
restricting remote access to the vehicle network only to occupants of the
vehicle (due to the seat sensor) whose mobile devices have been
authenticated and connected to the network. See Final Act. 4.
Because Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner’s
proffered combination would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult
for one of ordinary skill in the art,” we agree with the Examiner that the
proposed modification would have been within the purview of the ordinarily
skilled artisan. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d
1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Consequently, we
are satisfied that, on this record, the Examiner has established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Cech and Yang
teaches or suggests the disputed claim limitations. Because we are not
persuaded of Examiner error, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
as unpatentable over the combination of Cech and Yang.
Appeal 2020-000049
Application 15/073,023

9
Claim 5
As per claim 5, Appellant argues that the combination of Cech, Yang,
and Nakasato does not teach or suggest restricting the operation of a vehicle
until the mobile device provides an approved security token to the vehicle
network and is coupled to the vehicle network. Appeal Br. 9. According to
Appellant, Nakasato’s vehicle controller is directed to a person getting
off/out of a vehicle as opposed to restricting the operation of the vehicle
until the mobile device provides the approved security token to the vehicle
and is coupled to the vehicle. Id. (citing Nakasato 1:18–47, 56–2:10).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error. Nakasato is
directed to a keyless entry system whereupon detecting an electric field
induced in the body of a user carrying a portable device (including an
electrode), a vehicle side controller (including a sensor) authenticates the
signal thereby authorizing the user to perform certain functions (e.g.,
opening/closing the vehicle door). Nakasato 1:60–2:10, 3:63–4:12.
However, upon failing to detect such a signal, the controller declines to
authenticate the user. Id. We find the proposed combination of Cech, Yang,
and Nakasato would predictably result in a vehicle communication system
whereupon a user’s device is not detected within a vehicle, a controller
declines to authenticate the user thereby restricting the user’s operation of
the vehicle (e.g., open/close door). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 5.
Claim 17
As per claim 17, Appellant argues that the combination of Cech,
Yang, and Dharmarajan does not teach or suggest discontinuing the
connection between the mobile device and the vehicle network if a
Appeal 2020-000049
Application 15/073,023

10
proximity sensor fails to detect the presence of an occupant in the vehicle for
a specified time period. Appeal Br. 10. According to Appellant, claim 17
requires both a sensing electrode and a proximity sensor, which cannot both
be taught by Cech’s sensing electrode. Id. (citing Cech ¶ 25). Further,
Appellant argues that Yang’s disclosure of different types of sensors does
not detect that an occupant has been detected for a specific amount of time
to thereby discontinue the connection. Id. (citing Yang 10:34–38).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error. As noted
above, Cech discloses a proximity sensor within the vehicle and Yang
discloses a sensing electrode within a security token. We find the proposed
combination of Cech, Yang, and Dharmarajan would predictably result in
the combination in a vehicle communication system whereupon the
proximity sensor fails to detect the occupant on the vehicle seat, the security
token is disabled thereby discontinuing the pairing of the user device with
the vehicle communication system. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 17.
Regarding the rejections of claims 2, 3, 6–10, 12–16, and 18–20,
Appellant does not present separate patentability arguments or reiterates
substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for the
patentability of claims 1, 5, and 17 above. As such, claims 2, 3, 6–10, and
12–20 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

VI. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims
1–3, 5–10, and 12–20.
Appeal 2020-000049
Application 15/073,023

11
VII. DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 16 103 Cech, Yang 1, 2, 16
3, 17–20 Cech, Yang,
Dharmarajan
3, 17–20
5 103 Cech, Yang,
Nakasato
5
6–9, 12–15 103 Cech, Yang,
Nakasato, Penilla
6–9, 12–15
10 103 Cech, Yang,
Nakasato, Doi
10
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 5–10,
12–20

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED