Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 14, 2021

2020006422 (P.T.A.B. May. 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.
14/188,409 02/24/2014 Jonathan CONRAD 080437.66332US 1268
23911 7590 05/14/2021
CROWELL & MORING LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP
P.O. BOX 14300
WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300
EXAMINER
PATEL, PARMANAND D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2143
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/14/2021 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):
edocket@crowell.com
mloren@crowell.com
tche@crowell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JONATHAN CONRAD, WOLFGANG LENDERS, and
THOMAS BENEDEK
________________

Appeal 2020-006422
Application 14/188,409
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JASON J. CHUNG, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1‒7, which are all the claims pending in this application.1
An oral hearing was held on May 4, 2021. A transcript of the oral hearing
will be made of record in due course. 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. Appellant identifies Bayerische Motoren Werke
Aktiengesellshaft as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-006422
Application 14/188,409

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s application relates to vehicular information systems, and
in particular to interfaces between mobile communication devices, such as
mobile phones, and vehicular information systems that allow applications
from the mobile device to be integrated with the vehicular information
system. Spec. ¶¶ 2‒6. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter
and reads as follows:
1. A method of operating a vehicle information system
having a user interface, a computer unit, and a communications
interface operatively configured to communicate with an
external computer unit, the method comprising the acts of:
making available to a user of the vehicle information
system, via the user interface, an external application program
allocated to the external computer unit;
transferring from the external computer unit to the
computer unit an operator control instruction allocated to the
external application program, the operator control instruction
being in a form of a container with a discrete file system
containing at least entry data associated with the external
application program allocated to the external computer unit, the
entry data including information associated with operation of
the external application program;
upon user selection, via the user interface, of the operator
control instruction allocated to the external application
program, signaling to the user, via the user interface, entry data
contained in the container transferred from the external
computer unit; and
upon user selection of link relating to a section of the
operator control instruction of a specific external application
program from the entry data signaled to the user, searching, via
the user interface, only data within the container transferred
from the external computer unit that belongs to the link and,
Appeal 2020-006422
Application 14/188,409

3

once said data is found, signaling said data via the user interface
without involvement of the external computer unit.

The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 6, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Blake (US 2011/0263293 A1; Oct. 27, 2011), Schubert
(US 2011/0265003 A1; Oct. 27, 2011), and Kirsch (US 2012/0197523 A1;
Aug. 2, 2012). See Final Act. 4‒22.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Blake, Schubert, Kirsch, and Cazier (US 2003/0200229 A1; Oct. 23, 2003).
See Final Act. 22‒24.
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Blake, Schubert, Kirsch, and Brewer (US 2009/0158165 A1; June 18,
2009). See Final Act. 24‒27.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Blake, Schubert, Kirsch, and Miller (US 2006/0242163 A1; Oct. 26, 2006).
See Ans. 4.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons regarding the rejections set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons regarding the rejections
set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight the following additional points.
Appeal 2020-006422
Application 14/188,409

4

Appellant argues the Examiner errs because none of the cited
references teach or suggest
transferring from the external computer unit to the
computer unit an operator control instruction allocated to the
external application program, the operator control instruction
being in a form of a container with a discrete file system
containing at least entry data associated with the external
application program allocated to the external computer unit, the
entry data including information associated with operation of the
external application program
as recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 11‒14; Reply Br. 2‒3. In particular,
Appellant argues Blake teaches a system that mimics a smartphones display
without transferring any information, such as operator control instructions.
Appeal Br. 11. Appellant argues Schubert teaches transferring a smartphone
icon from a smartphone to a vehicular infotainment system, and these icons
are merely pass-through items that mimic versions of the smartphone’s icon.
Id. at 12. Appellant argues Kirsch teaches transferring calendar and contact
databases from a remote network to a vehicle with a smartphone acting as a
communications conduit and nothing more. Id. at 14. Appellant argues
Kirsch’s calendar and contact data cannot be operator control instructions
because this data is used by the vehicle’s apps, not the external computer’s
apps. Reply Br. 3.
Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Blake teaches a vehicular information system that
allows a user to dock a mobile phone on a docking station to interact with
applications such as contacts, calendar, and email using the vehicular
information system’s display. Ans. 4 (citing Blake ¶¶ 43, 47, Fig. 5). The
Examiner further finds, and we agree, Schubert teaches transferring icons
representing applications from a mobile phone to a vehicular information
Appeal 2020-006422
Application 14/188,409

5

system display without simply mirroring the displays, such as in Blake. Id.
at 4‒5 (citing Schubert ¶¶ 159, 161). The Examiner further finds, and we
agree, Kirsch teaches transferring data containers, in particular databases
containing contacts and calendar data, from a mobile phone to a vehicular
information system. Id. at 5 (citing Kirsch ¶¶ 64, 82, Figs. 3, 9). The
Examiner finds and ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified Blake’s
docking system to use Schubert’s icon transfer along with Kirsch’s data
container transfer to teach or suggest the claimed system. See Final Act. 6‒
10.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of error because they focus
on the individual teachings of the references without considering the
teachings of the combination as a whole. The relevant inquiry is whether the
claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in
the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). For example, Appellant’s argument that
Kirsch does not teach the claimed operator control instructions because
Kirsch’s data transfer includes data that is used by the vehicular information
system’s apps instead of the mobile phone apps is unpersuasive because it
does not consider the combination of Kirsch’s teachings with the teachings
of the other references. That is, Blake teaches a vehicular information
system allowing a user to interact with mobile phone apps, such as calendar
and contact apps. Ans. 4 (citing Blake ¶¶ 43, 47, Fig. 5). Schubert teaches
transferring icons representing mobile phone applications from a mobile
phone to a vehicular information system. Id. at 4‒5 (citing Schubert ¶¶ 159,
161). These teachings, in combination with Kirsch, at least suggest a
smartphone that transfers more than the data that is operated upon by the
Appeal 2020-006422
Application 14/188,409

6

vehicular information system’s apps. Appellant has not identified error
persuasively in these findings or persuasively argued that this combination is
improper for any reason. Nor has Appellant identified persuasive evidence in
the record before us that the Examiner’s combination would have been
“uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.”
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir.
2007).
To the extent Appellant argues that the disputed limitations should be
construed more narrowly, we disagree. Claim 1 recites “the operator control
instruction being in a form of a container with a discrete file system
containing at least entry data associated with the external application
program allocated to the external computer unit.” Thus, an “operator control
instruction” is a “container” that contains “at least entry data associated with
the external application program allocated to the external computer unit.”
Claim 1 recites “the entry data including information associated with
operation of the external application program.” Thus, the plain language of
claim 1 supports the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Schubert’s
icon that allows a user to execute a mobile phone application and Kirsch’s
database (i.e., data container) that contains contact and calendar data (i.e.,
entry data) teaches or suggests these limitations. Appellant does not argue
that the Specification defines these terms more narrowly, and the examples
disclosed by the Specification are consistent with this interpretation. See,
e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 34‒38.
For these reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1. We
also sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claims 6 and 7, which
Appellant argues is patentable for the same reasons. See Appeal Br. 8‒14.
Appeal 2020-006422
Application 14/188,409

7

We also sustain the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 2‒5, for
which Appellant relies on the same arguments. See id.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 6, 7 103 Blake, Schubert,
Kirsch
1, 6, 7
2 103 Blake, Schubert,
Kirsch, Cazier
2
3, 4 103 Blake, Schubert,
Kirsch, Brewer
3, 4
5 103 Blake, Schubert,
Kirsch, Miller
5
Overall
Outcome
1‒7

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

AFFIRMED