Ex Parte Berry et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 30, 2017

11769346 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2017)

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.
11/769,346 06/27/2007 Joseph J. Berry 81161574 4634
28395 7590 06/01/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER KING, CURTIS J
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2684
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2017 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):
docketing @brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH J. BERRY, MARK J. SCALF,
DOUGLAS R. VANDAGENS, FRANCIS LUK,
and TIMOTHY ROBERT NIXON
Appeal 2017-000673
Application 11/769,3461
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. EVANS, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 1—6, 8—12, and 15—18, all the claims
in the application. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Ford Global Technologies, LLC, as the real
party in interest. App. Br. 2.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Jan. 20, 2016, “App. Br.”), the Reply Brief
(filed October 11, 2016, “Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed
August 11, 2016, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed August 21, 2015, “Final
Act.”), and the Specification (filed June 27, 2007, “Spec.”) for their
respective details.
Appeal 2017-000673
Application 11/769,346
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a method and apparatus for notifying an
emergency responder. See Abstract.
Claims 1 and 10 are independent. An understanding of the invention
can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced
below with some formatting added:
1. A method for notifying an emergency responder of a
vehicle emergency, the method comprising:
establishing a first wireless communication link between
a vehicle computing system and a first cellular telephone;
monitoring a wireless connection status between the
vehicle computing system and the first cellular telephone for
loss of the first wireless communication link between the
vehicle computing system and the first cellular telephone and
generating an indication to a vehicle occupant if the wireless
connection is lost, wherein if the connection is lost, a second
wireless communication link is automatically established
between the vehicle computing system and a second cellular
telephone within the vehicle;
monitoring for receipt of a vehicle-generated emergency
signal indicating an emergency condition associated with the
vehicle; and
if an emergency signal is received:
(a) retrieving a location for the vehicle from a global
positioning system;
(b) indicating to the occupant of the vehicle that a
cellular telephone call to an emergency responder is going to be
made to report the emergency and vehicle location;
2
Appeal 2017-000673
Application 11/769,346
(c) monitoring an input device to determine whether the
occupant has cancelled the emergency call;
(d) if the occupant has not canceled the emergency call,
activating the cellular telephone to dial a telephone number of
an emergency responder;
(e) processing data representing the emergency and
location of the vehicle into speech signals; and
(f) communicating the speech signals to the emergency
responder over the first wireless communication link.
References and Rejection
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Tendler
Griffin
Van Bosch
Batot et al.
(“Batot”)
US 5,555,286
US 5,754,962
US 6,493,629 B1
US 2008/0252444 Al
Sept. 10, 1996
May 19, 1998
Dec. 10, 2002
Oct. 16, 2008
Claims 1—6, 8—12, and 15—18 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Batot, Tendler, Griffin, and Van Bosch.
Final Act. 2—10.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejection of Claims 1—6, 8—12, and 15—18 in
light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. We consider
Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief,
3
Appeal 2017-000673
Application 11/769,346
pages 6—7. Appellants argue all claims as a group in view of the limitations
of Claim 1. App. Br. 7.
Monitoring a wireless connection status between
the vehicle computing system and the first cellular telephone.
Appellants contend Griffin fails to teach monitoring a connection,
instead teaching informing a user whether an initial connection is operable.
App. Br. 6.
The Examiner finds “Griffin discloses monitoring the connection
between the telephone 12 and the vehicle kit 14 before the telephone is
utilized in a phone call communication.” Ans. 3 (citing Griffin, col. 2,11.
56-60).
Appellants read the cited portions of Griffin differently than does the
Examiner (“by providing both an operational alert and a non-operational
alert, a user is able to assuredly determine whether the portable radio has
made an operational connection with the vehicle kit and is ready for
operation”). Reply Br. 3 (citing Griffin, col. 2,11. 56—60). Appellants argue
these alerts are provided at the time of phone connection, but do not result
from “monitoring” a connection because checking an initial connection and
monitoring the connection are different concepts. Id. (citing Griffin, col. 2,
11. 15—18). We agree with Appellants.
Griffin discloses “connection of [the portable radio and the vehicle kit] is
indicated to the user by an operable connection alert which can include an
audio alarm and a displayed message indicating that an operable-connection
has been made.” The operable-connection alert provides assurance to a user
that a portable radio and vehicle kit are operably connected.” Griffin, col. 2,
4
Appeal 2017-000673
Application 11/769,346
11. 12—18. Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “monitoring a wireless connection
status between the vehicle computing system and the first cellular telephone
for loss of the first wireless communication link.” Independent Claim 10
recites a commensurate limitation. Griffin teaches a one-time alert of an
operability status issued at time of connection. See Griffin, col. 2,11. 12—18.
The claimed “monitoring” relates to continuous observation. “Monitor,
monitoring. To watch, keep track of.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate
Dictionary, 11th ed. 801 (2005); Monitoring. The process of observing a
system to verify that its parameters are within prescribed limits. IEEE, IEEE
100 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th Edition,
M.707 (2000).
We do not agree that a one-time alert teaches a continuous
observation. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1,
independent claim 10, or dependent claims 2-6, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 15-18.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1—6, 8—12, and 15—18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is reversed.
REVERSED
5