Drew Technologies, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 31, 2020

15353809 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 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.
15/353,809 11/17/2016 Thomas Fournier DRE01 P-318 3652
15671 7590 08/31/2020
Gardner, Linn, Burkhart & Ondersma LLP
2900 Charlevoix Dr., SE, Suite 300
Grand Rapids, MI 49546
EXAMINER
ARAQUE JR, GERARDO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2020 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):
Vredeveld@gardner-linn.com
clark@gardner-linn.com
patents@gardner-linn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte THOMAS FOURNIER,
LOTHAR GEILEN and BRIAN HERRON
___________

Appeal 2019-006196
Application 15/353,809
Technology Center 3600

____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ADAM J. PYONIN and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Appellant1 is appealing the final rejection of claims 1, 2 and 6–10
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 2. Claims 3–5 and 11–20 are

1 Rather than reiterate Appellant’s arguments and the Examiner’s
determinations, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed April 4, 2019) , the Reply
Brief (filed August 20, 2019), the Final Action (mailed December 14, 2018)
and the Answer (mailed June 20, 2019), for the respective details.
1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Drew Technologies, Inc., as the real party in
interest. Appeal Brief. 3.

Appeal 2019-006196
Application 15/353,809
2

canceled. See Final Action 2; see also Appeal Brief, Claims Appendix. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Introduction
According to Appellant, the claimed invention “generally relates to
devices and methods for determining compliance with motor vehicle recalls
and mandatory service updates related to vehicle safety or emissions.” See
Specification ¶ 2.
Representative Claim
1. A device to measure and ensure compliance with vehicle
recalls or mandatory service updates, the device
comprising:
a housing;
a processor disposed within the housing;
a communication device in communication with
the processor and at least partially disposed within the
housing, the communication device being configured to
connect to one or more electronic control modules of a
vehicle under inspection;
wherein the processor is in communication with a
database, the database containing (a) identifying data that
identifies specific makes and models or Vehicle
Identification Number (VIN) series that are subject to
recalls or updates and (b) recall data that identifies which
recall or updates should have been performed;
wherein the processor is configured to (1) retrieve
identifying data from one or more electronic control
modules of the vehicle that identifies specific make and
model or Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) of the
vehicle under inspection, (2) determine which recalls or
updates should be performed based on the vehicle
identifying data received from the vehicle and the
identifying data and recall data from the database, and (3)
determine that that recalls or updates have been
performed on the vehicle under inspection;
Appeal 2019-006196
Application 15/353,809
3

wherein the database further comprises a current
listing of calibration identifications (CALIDs) associated
with recalls or updates;
wherein the processor is configured to retrieve at
least one CALID from the vehicle under inspection;
wherein the processor is configured to compare the
at least one CALID retrieved from the vehicle under
inspection with the current listing of calibration
identifications (CALIDs) associated with recalls or
updates from the database;
wherein the processor is configured to determine
that that recalls or updates have been performed on the
vehicle based on the comparison of the at least one
CALID retrieved from the vehicle under inspection with
the current listing of calibration identifications (CALIDs)
associated with recalls or updates in the database,
wherein a match of the at least one CALID retrieved
from the vehicle under inspection with at least one of the
current listing of calibration identifications (CALIDs) of
the database indicates that the recall or update has been
performed; and
wherein the processor is configured to modify or
create an inspection log stored in a storage device of the
vehicle under inspection, wherein the inspection log
includes recall identification information including at
least one time, date, location, or identifying number or
name of completed recalls or updates programmed into
the vehicle.

References
Name2 Reference Date
Corn US 2008/0040268 A1 February 14, 2008
Jefferies US 2013/0317693 A1 November 28, 2013

2 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.

Appeal 2019-006196
Application 15/353,809
4

Rejections on Appeal3
Claims 1 and 6–10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Corn and Jefferies.4 Final Action 16–24.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Corn, Jefferies and Official Notice. Final Action 24–26.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Corn discloses “a housing; a processor disposed
within the housing; a communication device in communication with the
processor and at least partially disposed within the housing, the
communication device being configured to connect to one or more electronic
control modules of a vehicle under inspection.” Final Action 17 (citing
Corn, Figure 2, ¶¶ 32, 33). The Examiner cites the entirety of Corn’s
paragraphs 32 and 33 without specifying which elements of Corn teach the
dealer’s computer communicating with a vehicle’s electronic control units.
See Final Action 17. However, we find the claimed housing, processor and
communication device reads on the car dealer’s computer disclosed in
Corn’s paragraph 33 (“Dealer’s computer 24 then transmits the VIN to the
master database 34 at third party location 30, across a communication link

3 The Examiner has withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1, 2
and 6–10. See Answer 3. The Examiner is advised to consult the 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(January 7, 2019) to evaluate if the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
4 The Examiner addresses cancelled claim 11 in the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection; we view this as harmless error. See Final Action 17 (“(Claim 11)
a method to measure and ensure compliance with vehicle recalls or
mandatory service updates by a device, the method comprising the steps
of:).”
Appeal 2019-006196
Application 15/353,809
5

28 via network interfaces 26 and 36 at the dealer’s side and master
database’s side, respectively.”).
Appellant contends, “Corn discloses a vehicle that has an RFID tag on
the vehicle” and “[w]hen the vehicle pulls into a service shop, an RFID tag
reader located in the service shop reads the information from the RFID tag
on the vehicle.” Appeal Brief 14. Appellant argues, “However, the device
disclosed in Corn cannot communicate directly with one or more electronic
control units of the vehicle.” Appeal Brief 14 (emphasis added).
We do not find support for Appellant’s assertion that “Corn cannot
communicate directly with one or more electronic control units,” and
Appellant does not indicate where in Corn there is support for the assertion.
See Appeal Brief 14. Nor are we persuaded the Examiner errs in finding the
disputed limitations to be obvious in view if the cited art. Corn discloses a
“Vehicle 10 has associated with it an identification device 12, which in the
illustrative embodiment is a passive RFID transponder having read/write
capabilities.” Corn ¶ 32. Corn further discloses, “that any identification
device could be used, preferably one that allows a unique identification code
such as a VIN or serial number to be automatically read at a distance
whenever the vehicle enters or exits a defined area.” Corn ¶ 32 (emphasis
added). Corn does not specify the type of identification device that could be
used to identify the vehicle other than a passive RFID transponder.
However, Jefferies discloses another type of identification device to identify
the vehicle, “The ODB [on-board diagnostic] port may be used to query a
wide range of information from the vehicle, including, but not limited to,
vehicle information, such as a Vehicle Identification Number (VIN),
Calibration Identification, Calibration Verification Number, Electronic
Control Unit or Module (ECU and ECM) firmware version.” Jefferies ¶ 45
Appeal 2019-006196
Application 15/353,809
6

(emphasis added). We find Jefferies resolves Corn’s deficiency because in
addition to Jefferies communicating with a vehicle’s electronic control unit
and providing a vehicle’s calibration information, Jefferies also discloses “a
method of remotely gathering vehicle data and searching the national vehicle
recall database and displaying that specific vehicle’s recall information
(recall notice, repair status; repaired/not repaired).” Jefferies ¶ 10; see Final
Action 19–20.
Appellant contends, “combining Corn with Jefferies, the other cited
reference, would not disclose or suggest the claimed invention to one skilled
in the art” because “Jefferies does not disclose updating a vehicle and does
not disclose storing update information on the memory of the vehicle itself.”
Appeal Brief 15. Claim 1 recites, “wherein the processor is configured to
modify or create an inspection log stored in a storage device of the vehicle
under inspection.” Appellant’s Specification discloses, “By comparing the
CALID retrieved from the vehicle 120 to the approved recall/update CALID
stored in the database 122, the device 110 makes a positive determination as
to whether the recall/update has been complied with.” Specification ¶ 33;
see Appeal Brief 4. Appellant’s Figure 1 shows the database 122 is
connected to the vehicle via an OBD cable 118. See Specification ¶ 12.
The Specification discloses:
As such, the memory device 116 may be a magnetic storage
device, an optical storage device, a solid-state storage device, or
any suitable device capable of storing digital information. The
communication device 114 may be any device capable of
allowing for the processor [112] to communicate with other
electronic systems outside the device 110 itself. For example, the
communication device 114 may be an OBD type device capable
of connecting to an OBD cable 118.
Specification ¶ 12.
Appeal 2019-006196
Application 15/353,809
7

We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of Examiner error
because Jefferies also discloses connecting a database to a vehicle via an
OBD port. See Jefferies ¶ 45. Further, both Corn and Jefferies disclose
databases that are updated. See Corn ¶ 34 (“The database could include
notes regarding the customer’s history and recommendations for
accommodating the customer, such as giving the customer special care and
handling because the customer is perceived as being potentially litigious, or
is to be accorded VIP treatment”); Jefferies ¶ 10. We agree with the
Examiner that the combination of Corn and Jefferies teaches, or at least
suggests, a reasonable construction of the recited modifying or creating of an
inspection log stored in a storage device of the vehicle. See Answer 6. We
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1, as well as, claims 2
and 6–10 not argued separately. See Appeal Brief 15.

CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 6–10 103 Corn, Jefferies 1, 6–10
2 103 Corn, Jefferies 2
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 6–10

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)(v).

AFFIRMED