Ex Parte Bauman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 23, 2012

11767036 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2012)

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.
11/767,036 06/22/2007 Jason G. Bauman LEAR 04985 PUS (04985) 1514
34007 7590 09/24/2012
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. / LEAR CORPORATION
1000 TOWN CENTER
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
SHAFI, MUHAMMAD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3667
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/24/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JASON G. BAUMAN, JODY K. HARWOOD,
KENAN R. RUDNICK, and CLAYTON MACKEY
____________________

Appeal 2010-005544
Application 11/767,036
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: LINDA E. HORNER, GAY ANN SPAHN, and
WILLIAM V. SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-005544
Application 11/767,036
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

The Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, reproduced below with added emphasis, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter.
1. A vehicle comprising:
a vehicle bus;
a plurality of sensors for monitoring the operational
status or condition of components of the vehicle, each sensor
generating a sensor signal indicative of the monitored vehicle
component and providing the sensor signal to the vehicle bus;
a diagnostics module connected to the vehicle bus to
receive the sensor signals, wherein the diagnostics module
generates diagnostic data of the vehicle based on the sensor
signals; and
a hands-free phone system having a communications
module connected to the vehicle bus and operable for wirelessly
communicating over a Bluetooth wireless path with a Bluetooth
enabled cell phone in the vehicle using Bluetooth
communications;
wherein the diagnostics module transfers the diagnostic
data to the communications module and the communications
module wirelessly transmits the diagnostic data over the
Bluetooth wireless path to the cell phone using Bluetooth
communications for the cell phone to communicate the
diagnostic data to an Internet server.

References
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Kolls
Banet
US 6,853,894 B1
US 7,113,127 B1
Feb. 8, 2005
Sep. 26, 2006
Shostak US 2005/0192727 A1 Sep. 1, 2005

Appeal 2010-005544
Application 11/767,036
3
Rejections
The Examiner makes the following obviousness rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a):
I. Claims 1-9, 11-17, and 19-20 over Shostak and Banet.
II. Claims 10 and 18 over Shostak, Banet, and Kolls.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE and enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).

OPINION
In relevant part, independent claims 1, 5, and 15 require data from a
vehicle sensor to be sent, via Bluetooth, to a cell phone and then, via the cell
phone, to an Internet server. In other words, the cell phone acts as a
communication bridge between the vehicle and, for example, a vehicle
service provider. See, e.g., Spec. 1:6-7.
The issue raised by Appellants is whether the Examiner properly
found Banet to describe sending the data via Bluetooth in the manner
required by the independent claims. See App. Br. 10. Initially, we note that
there is no apparent dispute that Banet transmits vehicle data to the Internet.
See also, e.g., Banet, col. 1, ll. 9-13; figs. 2-3; App. Br. 9. The passage in
Banet relied on by the Examiner to describe Bluetooth communication in
particular states:
In another embodiment, the wireless appliance
includes devices that transmit data over local wireless
networks, such as 802.11b or Bluetooth-based networks.
For example, the wireless appliance may communicate
using Bluetooth with a driver’s cellular telephone. In this
Appeal 2010-005544
Application 11/767,036
4
case, the wireless appliance may include hardware and
software so that the wireless appliance functions as a
hands-free kit that allows the driver to talk on the cellular
telephone without actually holding the telephone.

Banet, col. 10, ll. 23-31 (cited by the Examiner at Ans. 5).
This passage in Banet indicates that the Bluetooth protocol is used for
regular talking, not communication of the data from the sensors to the
Internet. In other words, what is lacking in Banet is the cell phone receiving
data via Bluetooth that is subsequently transmitted by the cell phone to the
Internet. In light of this deficiency, we are apprised of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 5, and 15. This error extends
to the Examiner’s rejection of the claims that depend therefrom (2-4, 6-9,
11-14, 16, 17, 19, and 20), and the Examiner makes no findings with respect
to Kolls (in separately rejecting dependent claims 10 and 18 in Rejection II)
that would serve to cure this underlying deficiency. As such, we do not
sustain Rejection I or II.
Notwithstanding the above, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a cell phone as a
device to act as a communications bridge between two systems, and
specifically, to use Bluetooth between the vehicle and the cell phone. For
example, Chenn1 describes using a cell phone to communicate vehicular
diagnostic information over a cell phone network. See, e.g., para. [0011].
Chenn describes local connectivity (i.e., from vehicle to phone) provided by
Bluetooth. Para. [0013]. Consistent with a cell phone’s known suitability
for use as a communications bridge as well as Banet’s description of the

1 US 2007/0005201 A1 (pub. Jan. 4, 2007, filed Jun. 30, 2005). See also
Smoyer, US 7,893,818 B2 (iss. Feb. 22, 2011, filed Jan. 23, 2007).
Appeal 2010-005544
Application 11/767,036
5
benefits of having multiple communications systems (see, e.g., col. 4, l. 66
to col. 5, l. 6), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of invention to utilize the Bluetooth and Internet features of a cell
phone to communicate vehicle data to the Internet. These findings would
remedy the deficiency identified by Appellants in the Examiner’s rejection.
Appellants do not allege any further deficiencies in the Examiner’s rejection
aside from the one remedied above. Accordingly, we enter a new ground of
rejection for claims 1, 5, and 15 by modifying the Examiner’s existing
rejection to include the reasons and rational underpinnings set forth above2.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board is a review body rather than a
place of initial examination. Accordingly, we have not reviewed the
remaining claims to the extent necessary to determine whether these claims
are unpatentable over Shostak, Banet, Kolls, Chenn, and/or other prior art.
We leave it to the Examiner to determine the appropriateness of any further
rejections based on these or other references. Our decision not to enter a
new ground of rejection for all claims shall not be considered any indication
of the patentability or unpatentability of the non-rejected claims.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision regarding claims 1-20.
We enter a new ground of rejection for claims 1, 5, and 15 pursuant to
our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).

2 In particular, we reject claims 1, 5, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shostak, Banet, and Chenn.
Appeal 2010-005544
Application 11/767,036
6
FINALITY OF DECISION
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that Appellants, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding
will be remanded to the examiner.…
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record.…
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).

REVERSED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

hh