Bayerische Motoren Werke AktiengesellschaftDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 14, 20212020006422 (P.T.A.B. May. 14, 2021) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation