Ex Parte Basir et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2016

12508789 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2016)

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.
12/508,789 07/24/2009 Otman A. Basir 67182-023PUSl 8682
26096 7590 12/02/2016
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
HOLWERDA, STEPHEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3664
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2016 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):
ptodocket @ cgolaw. com
cgolaw@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OTMAN A. BASIR, WILLIAM BEN MINERS, and
VLADIMIR FILIPPOV
Appeal 2015-001072
Application 12/508,789
Technology Center 3600
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Otman A. Basir et al. (“Appellants”) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—15 and 21—29.1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants submit the real party in interest is Intelligent Mechatronic
Systems Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-001072
Application 12/508,789
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A vehicle communication system comprising:
a mobile communication device; and
a control unit in a vehicle, the control unit having an OFF state, an ON
state, and a LOW POWER state, the control unit comprising:
a wireless communication module communicating wirelessly with the
mobile communication device; and
a power management module commanding the control unit to enter
the ON state in response to each of a vehicle ignition event, a vehicle
running condition, an incoming wireless command signal, and
environmental stimuli.
REJECTIONS
1) Claims 1—5, 7, 10, and 21—28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Gillespie (US 6,367,022 Bl, iss. Apr. 2,
2002) and Park (US 6,148,212, iss. Nov. 14, 2000).
2) Claims 6, 11, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gillespie, Park, and Basir (US 2007/0042812
Al, pub. Feb. 22, 2007).
3) Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Gillespie, Park, Basir, Ghoneim (US 2007/0032913 Al, pub. Feb.
8, 2007), and Kirkhart (US 6,282,495 Bl, iss. Aug. 28, 2001).
4) Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Gillespie, Park, Basir, and Ghoneim.
5) Claims 12—15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gillespie, Park, and Hung (US 2003/0227390
Al, pub. Dec. 11, 2003).
2
Appeal 2015-001072
Application 12/508,789
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
The Examiner finds that Gillespie discloses all the limitations of claim
1 except “the wireless communication module communicating wirelessly
with the mobile communication device; or the power management module
commanding the control unit to enter the ON state in response to a wireless
command signal.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that Park discloses “[a]
receiver (220, 230) coupled to the electrical system (202) [that] is configured
to link the mobile phone (210) and electrical system (202) such that the
electrical system (202) selectively actuates the vehicle car alarm . . . and the
like in response to signals from the mobile phone.” Id., citing Park, Fig. 2,
col. 3,11. 23—50. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
“to apply the control system linking vehicle system operation and mobile
phone commands as per Park to the system of Gillespie since doing so
would enhance the system by providing interactivity between a mobile
phone and an automobile.” Id. at 5.
Appellants contend that Gillespie does not disclose the recited mobile
communication device. Appeal Br. 2. Appellants argue that the Examiner’s
finding that the recited wireless communication module reads on Gillespie’s
chip set 14 is erroneous because Gillespie’s “chip set 14 provides interfaces
between the processor and memory, hard drives and CD-Rom.” Id., citing
Gillespie, col. 3,11. 8—16.
The Examiner responds that “Gillespie discloses ‘a mobile
communication device’ ... in that the transceiver powered by the circuitry
(10,12) is necessarily configured to wirelessly transmit and/or receive data
from signal transmission systems and such signal transmission systems are
3
Appeal 2015-001072
Application 12/508,789
not meaningfully distinguishable from the claimed ‘mobile communication
device.’” Ans. 4. The Examiner also finds that the recited wireless
communication module reads on Gillespie’s transceiver because the
“transceiver is configured to wirelessly transmit and/or receive data from
wireless communications devices using power from the circuitry.” Id. at 5,
citing Gillespie, col. 3,11. 62—68. Appellants reply that Gillespie’s
transceiver is not a mobile communication device because it “is installed in
the vehicle.” Reply Br. 1. For the following reasons, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 1.
We first construe the phrase “mobile communication device” as
recited in claim 1. We give claim terms their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification as it would be interpreted by
one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255,
1259-60 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054—55 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
Appellants’ invention relates to “a power management aspect of a
system for managing and communicating information while in a vehicle.”
Spec. 12. The Specification describes a control unit 11 “communicat[ing]
wirelessly with a cell phone, PDA, or other mobile communication device
12 (hereinafter ‘mobile device’).” Spec. 112; see also Fig. 1. Appellants’
Figure 1 illustrates that mobile communication device 12 is not physically
connected to, and communicates wirelessly with, control unit 11 in vehicle
8. Id. Wireless communication between control unit 11 and the mobile
communication device is effected by “Bluetooth (or other wireless
communication) modules 40.” Id. 124. Based on the foregoing, we
conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand
4
Appeal 2015-001072
Application 12/508,789
the phrase “mobile communication device,” as used in claim 1, to be a
communication device, capable of wireless communication, such as a
cellular phone or PDA that is mobile and not installed in the vehicle.
Gillespie discloses a power management strategy for a vehicle
multimedia system. Gillespie, Abstract. In order to implement the power
management strategy, Gillespie discloses an apparatus with various
electronic components mounted to, or otherwise functionally connected to,
motherboard 10. See, e.g., id. at col. 2,1. 66-col. 3,1. 16, Fig. 1.
The Examiner finds that the recited “mobile communication device”
and “wireless communication module” both read on Gillespie’s wireless
transceiver. Ans. 3—5. The Examiner, however, does not direct us to any
disclosure in Gillespie that the wireless transceiver, or any other element of
the apparatus disclosed in Gillespie, constitutes a “mobile communication
device” as we have construed that phrase. Further, claim 1 recites “a
wireless communication module communicating wirelessly with the mobile
communication device.” The Examiner’s findings that Gillespie’s wireless
transceiver is both a mobile communication device and a wireless
communication module results in Gillespie’s wireless transceiver
communicating wirelessly with itself, thus, rendering the italicized limitation
nugatory. The Examiner’s finding that the recited mobile communication
device reads on Gillespie’s wireless transceiver is not supported by the
disclosure in Gillespie. As the rejection of claim 1 is based on erroneous
factual findings, the conclusion of obviousness cannot stand. See In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (holding that “[t]he legal
conclusion of obviousness must be supported by facts. Where the legal
conclusion is not supported by facts it cannot stand”). Therefore, we do not
5
Appeal 2015-001072
Application 12/508,789
sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2—5, 7, 10,
21, and 22 all depend from claim 1. Appeal Br. 8—10 (Claims App.). We do
not sustain the rejection of claims 2—5, 7, 10, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for the same reasons as for claim 1.
Independent claim 23 recites, inter alia, “a mobile communication
device movable by a user in and out of a vehicle” and “a wireless
communication module communicating wirelessly with the mobile
communication device.” Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.). As with claim 1, the
Examiner finds that Gillespie discloses the recited mobile communication
device, but fails to disclose the additional limitation in claim 23 that the
mobile communication device is “movable by a user in and out of a
vehicle.” Final Act. 10. The Examiner finds that Park discloses a mobile
communication device moveable by a user in and out of a vehicle. Id.', Ans.
14. Appellants contend that Gillespie does not disclose a “mobile
communication device movable by a user in and out of a vehicle.” Appeal
Br. 6. The Examiner responds that there is no assertion in the rejection that
Gillespie makes such a disclosure. Ans. 14. We determined above, in
connection with claim 1, that the Examiner’s findings that the recited mobile
communication device reads on Gillespie’s wireless transceiver is not
supported by the disclosure in Gillespie. We do not sustain the rejection of
claim 23 for the same reason as claim 1 because the Examiner relies on
Gillespie for disclosing a mobile communication device, apart from the
further limitation “movable by a user in and out of the vehicle.” We also do
not sustain the rejection of claims 24—28 which all ultimately depend from
claim 23.
6
Appeal 2015-001072
Application 12/508,789
Rejections 2—5
The Examiner rejects claims 6, 11, and 29 as unpatentable over
Gillespie, Park, and Basir. Final Act. 13. Claims 6 and 11 depend from
claim 1 and claim 29 depends from claim 23. Appeal Br. 9, 11 (Claims
App.). The Examiner does not rely on Basir to cure the deficiencies in the
combination of Gillespie and Park discussed above for claims 1 and 23.
Final Act. 14—16. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 6, 11,
and 29 for the same reasons stated above for claims 1 and 23.
The Examiner rejects claim 8 as unpatentable over Gillespie, Park,
Basir, Ghoneim, and Kirkhart. Final Act. 16. Claim 8 is dependent on claim
1. Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.). The Examiner does not rely on Basir,
Ghoneim, or Kirkhart to cure the deficiencies in the combination of
Gillespie and Park discussed above for claim 1. Final Act. 17. Therefore,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 8 for the same reasons stated above
for claim 1.
The Examiner rejects claim 9 as unpatentable over Gillespie, Park,
Basir, and Ghoneim. Final Act. 18. Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1.
Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.). The Examiner does not rely on Basir and
Ghoneim to cure the deficiencies in the combination of Gillespie and Park
discussed above for claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 9 for the same reasons stated above for claim 1.
The Examiner rejects claims 12—15 as unpatentable over Gillespie,
Park, and Hung. Final Act. 19. Claims 12—15 are dependent on claim 1.
Appeal Br. 9—10 (Claims App.). The Examiner does not rely on Hung to
cure the deficiencies in the combination of Gillespie and Park discussed
7
Appeal 2015-001072
Application 12/508,789
above for claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 12—
15 for the same reasons stated above for claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—15 and 21—29 is reversed.
REVERSED
8