Ex Parte Daum et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 2, 2018

13972991 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/972,991 08/22/2013 Wolfgang Daum
91959 7590 08/06/2018
GE GPO- Transportation- The Small Patent Law Group
901 Main Avenue
3rd Floor
Norwalk, CT 06851
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
263373-2 (552-0186US) 1578
EXAMINER
CHEN,ZHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2194
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/06/2018 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):
gpo.mail@ge.com
marie.gerrie@ge.com
lori.E.rooney@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WOLFGANG DAUM, MARK BRADSHAW KRAELING,
VINA YKANTH V. MUDIAM, TODD WILLIAM GOODERMUTH,
MARC BALLARD, and PAUL CONNOLLY
Appeal2018-000484
Application 13/972,991
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 1-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as General Electric Company.
App. Br. 4.
Appeal2018-000484
Application 13/972,991
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention "generally relate[ s] to
systems and methods for software management of one or more mobile
and/or stationary assets," in particular, "manag[ing] software updates to
assets." Spec. ,r,r 2, 4. 2 The Specification explains that various
embodiments "relate to systems and methods for controllers, software,
software management, communications, and the like for mobile and/or
stationary equipment management." Id. ,r 20.
Exemplary Claims
Independent claims 1 and 20 exemplify the claims at issue and read as
follows (with formatting added for clarity):
1. A method comprising:
receiving, at a data hub onboard a vehicle, a new
configuration file, a service program, and a software update of a
software application for the vehicle from a remote location,
the data hub configured to manage updating of the
software application and including a current
configuration file that indicates a current configuration
state of the software application,
the new configuration file indicating an updated
configuration state of the software application with the
software update,
2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: "Spec." for the
Specification, filed August 22, 2013; "Final Act." for the Final Office
Action, mailed December 1, 2016; "App. Br." for the Appeal Brief, filed
April 28, 2017; "Ans." for the Examiner's Answer, mailed August 23, 2017;
and "Reply Br." for the Reply Brief, filed October 13, 2017.
2
Appeal2018-000484
Application 13/972,991
the service program including work instructions
for applying the updated configuration state to the
software application, wherein the work instructions
comprise at least one of
instructions including one or more steps to
update a software architecture to accommodate the
software update or
instructions including one or more steps to
modify hardware components associated with the
software application to accommodate the software
update;
displaying the current configuration file and the new
configuration file onboard the vehicle using the data hub;
querying an operational status of the vehicle; and
updating the software application with the updated
configuration state according to the work instructions of the
service program using the data hub when a predetermined
operational status of the vehicle is achieved, the operational
status corresponding to a functional state of the vehicle.
20. A system comprising:
a vehicle comprising a plurality of software applications
and a data hub located onboard the vehicle,
the data hub configured to manage updating of the
software application and including configuration files for each
software application that indicates a current configuration state
of the software application,
the data hub being communicatively connected to a
remote location, wherein the data hub is configured to:
receive from the remote location at least one
service program and first and second updated
configuration states of first and second software
applications of the plurality of software applications,
the at least one service program including
work instructions for applying the first and second
updated configuration states to the first and second
3
Appeal2018-000484
Application 13/972,991
software applications, respectively, wherein the
work instructions comprise at least one of
instructions including one or more
steps to update a software architecture to
accommodate the software update or
instructions including one or more
steps to modify hardware components
associated with the software application to
accommodate the software update;
query an operational status of the vehicle
corresponding to a functional state of the vehicle; and
when a predetermined operational status of the
vehicle is achieved, automatically at least one of
reorder application of the first and second
updated configuration states to the first and second
software applications, respectively, or
cancel application of one of the first or
second updated configuration states to the first and
second software applications, respectively.
App. Br. 26, 32-33 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following
prior art:
Moshir et al. ("Moshir") US 2004/0003266 Al Jan. 1, 2004
Te'eni et al. ("Te'eni") US 2004/0015946 Al Jan. 22, 2004
Hunt et al. ("Hunt") US 2004/0031028 Al Feb. 12,2004
Voskuil US 2005/0262076 Al Nov. 24, 2005
Duddles et al. ("Duddles") US 2007/0185624 Al Aug.9,2007
Genty et al. ("Genty") US 2008/0028389 Al Jan. 31, 2008
Oh US 2008/0216066 Al Sept. 4, 2008
4
Appeal2018-000484
Application 13/972,991
Krywaniuk
Durney
US 2009/0293051 Al
US 2011/0022545 Al
The Rejections on Appeal
Nov. 26, 2009
Jan. 27, 2011
Claims 1, 6, 7, 11, 19, and 21-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Oh, Hunt, Krywaniuk, Duddles, and Durney.
Final Act. 2-18; Ans. 2-18.
Claims 2, 8-10, 12-14, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Oh, Hunt, Krywaniuk, Duddles, Durney, and
Moshir. Final Act. 18-25; Ans. 18-25.
Claims 3 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Oh, Hunt, Krywaniuk, Duddles, Durney, and Genty.
Final Act. 26-28; Ans. 26-28.
Claims 4 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Oh, Hunt, Krywaniuk, Duddles, Durney, and Voskuil.
Final Act. 28-30; Ans. 28-30.
Claims 5 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Oh, Hunt, Krywaniuk, Duddles, Durney, and Te'eni.
Final Act. 30-32; Ans. 30-32.
Claims 20 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Oh, Hunt, Genty, Krywaniuk, Duddles, and Durney.
Final Act. 32-38; Ans. 32-38.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1-26 in light of
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained
below, we disagree with Appellants' assertions regarding Examiner error.
5
Appeal2018-000484
Application 13/972,991
We adopt the Examiner's findings and reasoning in the Final Office Action
(Final Act. 2-38) and Answer (Ans. 2--48). We add the following to address
and emphasize specific findings and arguments.
The§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1, 6, 7, 11, 19, and 21-25
ANALOGOUS OR NONANALOGOUS ART
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
Oh, Hunt, and Krywaniuk "do not relate to vehicles and are not analogous
art." App. Br. 14; see Reply Br. 6-7. More specifically, Appellants assert
that "non-vehicle disclosures are not reasonably pertinent to the updating of
a software application when a predetermined operational status of a vehicle
is achieved" because "such disclosures teach nothing with respect to
vehicles or operational status of vehicles, let alone updating software when a
predetermined operational status of a vehicle is achieved." App. Br. 16;
Reply Br. 7. In addition, Appellants contend that "[ n Jone of those references
teach[ es] anything with respect to vehicles." Reply Br. 7. According to
Appellants, "it would not be obvious to modify any method disclosed by Oh,
Hunt, and Krywaniuk to do anything based on a vehicle status" because
"none of Oh, Hunt, or Krywaniuk relate to a vehicle." App. Br. 18, 23.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
Oh, Hunt, and Krywaniuk constitute analogous art. The scope of analogous
art includes references "from the same field of endeavor" as the claimed
invention and references "reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with
which the inventor is involved." In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir.
2004); see In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979). Here, the field
of endeavor concerns updating software in a mobile or stationary asset. See,
e.g., Spec. ,r,r 2-9, 20, 23-26, 65, 70; Ans. 40--41.
6
Appeal2018-000484
Application 13/972,991
The Specification explains that: ( 1) "the methods and systems
described herein are not limited to ... vehicles in general"; and (2) "the
methods and systems described herein may each be any type of mobile or
stationary asset," such as "mobile electronic devices" and "stationary
electronic devices." Spec. ,r 23; see id. ,r,r 2-3, 20, 65, 72-73, 156. The
"mobile electronic devices" include "smart phones, personal digital
assistants (PDAs), tablet computers, e-readers, netbook computers, laptop
computers, mobile communication devices, and/ or the like." Id. ,r,r 3, 23.
The "stationary electronic devices" include "desktop computers, servers,
switchboards, switching devices, mainframes, and/or the like." Id. ,r,r 3, 23.
According to the Specification, a "remote location," e.g., as recited in
claim 20, may include a "remote server that is configured to distribute
software updates to ... an asset 602 that is a stationary or mobile electronic
device." Id. ,r 65.
The Specification additionally explains that: (3) "the software
applications of the methods and systems described herein are not limited to"
software applications in vehicles; and ( 4) "the methods and systems
described herein may each by [sic] any type of software application, such as,
but not limited to, an operating system, a vehicle control system, an
equipment control system, a business application, an entertainment
application, and/or the like." Spec. ,r,r 25, 70, 157.
Oh, Hunt, and Krywaniuk constitute analogous art because they are
from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, i.e., updating
software in a mobile or stationary asset. See Ans. 40-41; App. Br. 26-34
(Claims App.); Oh ,r,r 2-9, 33, 35, 37, 40-43, 83, Figs. 1, 6, 17 A; Hunt
,r,r 1-9, 18-21, 83, 91-93, Figs. 4---6; Krywaniuk ,r,r 3-18, 26-27, 31-32,
7
Appeal2018-000484
Application 13/972,991
38, 54, 74--75, Figs. 1, 4, 8. Oh concerns updating software in over-the-air
capable portable electronic devices. See, e.g., Oh ,r,r 2-9, 33, 35, 37, 40-43,
83, Figs. 1, 6, 17 A. Hunt concerns updating software to correct
programming errors or "bugs" by providing "patches" via a network, e.g.,
the Internet. See, e.g., Hunt ,r,r 1-9, 18-21, 83, 91-93, Figs. 4--6.
Krywaniuk concerns "tuning" a target system to improve its performance by
updating software, e.g., by "replac[ing] an application component of a
program being executed by the target system with a new application
component," "making a change to a configuration file and/ or a script file on
the target system," and "applying a hot patch to an image on the target
system." See, e.g., Krywaniuk ,r,r 3-18, 26-27, 31-32, 38, 54, 74--75,
Figs. 1, 4, 8.
That the claims recite updating when "a predetermined operational
status" corresponding to "a functional state of the vehicle" is achieved does
not alter the analysis. The ability to update "mobile electronic devices" and
"stationary electronic devices" also depends on their "operational status" and
"functional state," e.g., whether ON or OFF or whether connected to a
network. The claims do not specify an "operational status" or "functional
state" unique to a vehicle, e.g., a particular transmission or engine condition.
App. Br. 26-34 (Claims App.); see Spec. ,r 37. And the claims do not
specify a moving vehicle.
In addition, even if the field of the invention excluded "stationary
electronic devices" and concerned mobile assets generally, Oh, Hunt, and
Krywaniuk constitute analogous art because they relate to "mobile electronic
devices." See, e.g., Oh ,r,r 2-9, 33, 35, 37, 40-43, 83, Figs. 1, 6, 17 A; Hunt
,r,r 1-9, 18-21, 83, 91-93, Figs. 4--6; Krywaniuk ,r,r 3-18, 26-27, 31-32, 38,
8
Appeal2018-000484
Application 13/972,991
54, 74--75, Figs. 1, 4, 8. Appellants identify no basis for distinguishing
different types of mobile assets, e.g., "mobile electronic devices" and
vehicles. App. Br. 14--16; Reply Br. 6-7.
Further, even if the field of the invention concerned updating software
in vehicles only-rather than mobile assets generally----Oh, Hunt, and
Krywaniuk still constitute analogous art because they are reasonably
pertinent to problems confronting the inventors. See Ans. 40-41. The
Specification explains that those problems included excessive time needed
for updates, unavailability of an update at an asset's location, errors during
updating that may cause malfunctions or failures during subsequent
operation, and updating with inappropriate or incompatible data. Spec.
,r,r 4--6, 94. The same problems may arise when updating software in
"mobile electronic devices" and "stationary electronic devices." See id.;
Oh ,r,r 2-9, 33, 35, 37, 40-43; Hunt ,r,r 1-9, 18-21; Krywaniuk ,r,r 3-18.
"DAT A HUB" IN INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1
Appellants assert that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
"[ t ]he cited art ... does not teach or render obvious such a data hub as fully
set forth by Claim 1." App. Br. 13; see Reply Br. 5. In particular,
Appellants contend that Oh's "teaching of a first version that is an initial
version and is stored at some unspecified location on a 'recipient device'
does not teach a data hub that includes the current configuration file and is
configured to manage updating of software applications." App. Br. 14; see
Reply Br. 5-6. Appellants also contend that Oh "relates to updating 'a
program of a mobile terminal' and does not relate to vehicles" and,
therefore, "fail[s] to teach such a data hub onboard a vehicle." App. Br. 14;
see Reply Br. 6.
9
Appeal2018-000484
Application 13/972,991
In addition, Appellants urge that Durney ( 1) "merely stat[ es] that
modules can be updated 'using the Internet' or 'can be attached in a plug and
play fashion"'; (2) "is silent with respect to a data hub" as claimed; and
(3) "would not motivate one of skill in the art to use a data hub" as claimed.
App. Br. 19. Further, Appellants assert that: (1) Duddles' telematics unit
"does not manage updating of software and does not teach a data hub as set
forth by Claim 1 "; and (2) Duddles' vehicle state manager (a) "does not
manage a software update itself," (b) "does not include a current
configuration file that indicates a current configuration state of a software
application," and (c) "does not teach a data hub as recited by Claim 1."
App. Br. 16-17; see Reply Br. 7-8.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
they attack the references individually, while the Examiner relies on the
combination of disclosures in the references to reject claim 1. See Final
Act. 2-7; Ans. 2-7, 39--45. Where a rejection rests on a combination of
references, an appellant cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking the
references individually. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the combination of disclosures in Oh, Duddles, and
Durney teaches or suggests the disputed limitations in claim 1.
In particular, Oh teaches or suggests a "data hub" that (1) "includ[ es]
a current configuration file," (2) "recei v[ es] ... a new configuration file,"
and (3) "manage[s] updating of the software application" as required by
claim 1. See Final Act. 2--4, 6-7; Ans. 2--4, 6-7, 39--45. Oh's "recipient
device 30 includes a download[ er] 220, an installer 230, a translator 240,
a first memory 250 and a second memory 260." Oh ,r 83, Fig. 6; see id.
,r,r 18-19, 3 7-3 8, Figs. 1, 7. The first memory stores a "first version" of a
10
Appeal2018-000484
Application 13/972,991
computer program, i.e., a "current configuration file." Id. ,r,r 33-34, 83, 85.
For a computer program upgrade, an upgrade package contains install data
and upgrade data. Id. ,r,r 33-34, 39, 43, 83, 85, 135, Fig. 17 A. After the
recipient device receives an upgrade package, the first memory or the second
memory stores the upgrade package as the "second version" of the computer
program, i.e., as a "new configuration file." Id. ,r,r 34, 38, 83, 85, 96-97,
133-134, Fig. 9. Then, the installer and the translator manage updating of
the computer program by analyzing and processing the install data and
upgrade data. Id. ,r,r 82-86, 95-97, 136, Figs. 6, 9, 17 A. Thus, Oh's
installer, translator, first memory, and second memory correspond to a "data
hub" according to claim 1.
Appellants contend that: (1) "Oh does not teach the first memory as
part of anything, let alone a data hub"; and (2) "Figure 18 of Oh shows first
and second memories separate and distinct from other aspects of Oh, such as
the control unit and the communication interface unit." Reply Br. 5. But
those contentions disregard Oh's disclosure concerning how the installer,
translator, first memory, and second memory cooperate to update a computer
program. See, e.g., Oh ,r,r 18-19, 33-34, 37-39, 43, 82-86, 95-97, 133-136,
Figs. 1, 6-7, 9, 17A. And those contentions do not address Oh's installer
and translator.
In addition, Duddles teaches or suggests a "data hub" that
( 1) "includ[ es] a current configuration file," (2) "recei v[ es] ... a new
configuration file," and (3) "manage[ s] updating of the software application"
as required by claim 1. See Final Act. 6; Ans. 6, 43. Duddles "relates to
onboard vehicle electronic control units (ECUs) and techniques for [the]
reprogramming of flash memories contained in the ECU s." Duddles ,r,r 1-2.
11
Appeal2018-000484
Application 13/972,991
In Duddles, a vehicle includes telematics unit 22, vehicle state manager 40,
and several ECU s 3 6. Id. ,r,r 31, 3 6, Fig. 1. Each ECU includes initial
programming, i.e., a "current configuration file." Id. ,r 2. The telematics
unit receives via wireless transmission new programming for an ECU, i.e.,
a "new configuration file." Id. ,r,r 9--10, 14--15, 31, Fig. 1. After the
telematics unit receives new programming for an ECU, the telematics unit
and the vehicle state manager work together to control the reprogramming of
the ECU, and thus manage updating of the ECU's flash memory. Id.
,r,r 36-38, Fig. 2. For example, Duddles explains that the telematics unit
performs some steps in Duddles' reprogramming process and the vehicle
state manager performs other steps. Id. ,r,r 37-38, Fig. 2. Thus, Duddles'
telematics unit, vehicle state manager, and ECUs correspond to a "data hub
onboard a vehicle" according to claim 1.
Durney also discloses a "data hub onboard a vehicle." See Final
Act. 7; Ans. 7, 40, 43--45. In Durney, the "car operating system (hardware
and software)" is the car's "nervous system" and "brain" and includes "high-
end hardware and sophisticated software" together with "data buses."
Durney ,r 191. The car operating system handles all data demands and
corresponds to "Microsoft Windows ... for cars." Id. ,r,r 194,481.
Further, the Examiner finds that Durney discloses updating software
in a car, e.g., to include "[n]ew or upgraded features." See Final Act. 7
(citing Durney ,r 377); Ans. 7, 40, 43--45 (citing Durney ,r,r 377, 509);
Durney ,r,r 3 77, 509. The Examiner also finds that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have combined Durney with the other references "to utilize
[a] data hub to manage updating of software in order to keep [the]
application up to date." Final Act. 7; Ans. 7, 45. Thus, the Examiner
12
Appeal2018-000484
Application 13/972,991
provides articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning for why a person
of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references. See KSR
Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,415,418 (2007); In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Appellants "submit[] that one skilled in the art would not find it
obvious to piece together the five different references from different fields of
art used in the rejection of Claim 1, let alone to arrive at the presently
claimed subject matter." App. Br. 13. But reliance on a "large number of
references" does not alone negate the obviousness of a claimed invention.
In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986-87 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
SUMMARY FOR INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants' arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under§ 103(a)
based on Oh, Hunt, Krywaniuk, Duddles, and Durney. Hence, we sustain
the rejection of claim 1.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 24
Claim 24 depends from claim 1 and specifies that "the data hub
includes an operating system and one or more software programs of the
software application." App. Br. 34 (Claims App.). Appellants assert that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 24 because "the various aspects of the
cited art (including Oh and Duddles) relied upon by the Final Office Action
in connection with the claimed data hub are silent with respect to either an
operating system or software programs of the software application being
included in a data hub." App. Br. 20; see Reply Br. 8. In addition,
Appellants contend that Durney "merely states that a car has an operating
13
Appeal2018-000484
Application 13/972,991
system, and does not teach a data hub that includes an operating system and
is used as fully set forth in Claim 1." App. Br. 20.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
they attack the references individually, while the Examiner relies on the
combination of disclosures in the references to reject claim 24. See Final
Act. 2-7, 17; Ans. 2-7, 17, 39-45. As explained above for claim 1, the
combination of disclosures in Oh, Duddles, and Durney teaches or suggests
a "data hub" as fully set forth in claim 1. Durney additionally discloses a
"car operating system" like "Microsoft Windows ... for cars" and
"[ m ]odules with a lot of software," and thus teaches or suggests claim 24' s
features. See Final Act. 17; Ans. 17, 46; Durney ,r,r 191,377,481, 509.
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 11 AND
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 6, 7, 19, 21-23, AND 25
Appellants do not argue patentability separately for independent
claim 11 or dependent claims 6, 7, 19, 21-23, and 25. App. Br. 12-21;
Reply Br. 3-9. Thus, we sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of these claims for
the same reasons as claims 1 and 24. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The§ 103(a) Rejections of Claims 2-5, 8-10, and 12-18
Claims 2-5 and 8-10 depend from claim 1, while claims 12-18
depend from claim 11. For these dependent claims, Appellants assert that
the additionally cited references do not "remedy the shortcomings of the
cited art with respect to" the independent claims. App. Br. 21-23; Reply
Br. 9-11. Those assertions do not constitute separate patentability
arguments. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
( explaining that the applicable rules "require more substantive arguments in
an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
14
Appeal2018-000484
Application 13/972,991
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art").
Because Appellants do not argue the claims separately, we sustain the
§ 103(a) rejections of dependent claims 2-5, 8-10, and 12-18 for the same
reasons as the independent claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 20 and 26
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 20
because Genty' s disclosure of "priority levels" and "removal from" a list of
install items "does not teach or describe any relation to a predetermined
operational status of a vehicle." App. Br. 24. Appellants also argue that
Oh's disclosure of "updating 'software' or 'firmware' does teach first and
second software applications as set forth by Claim 20." Reply Br. 11-12.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
they attack the references individually, while the Examiner relies on the
combination of disclosures in the references to reject claim 20. See Final
Act. 32-38; Ans. 32-38, 47--48. For example, the Examiner finds that Hunt
discloses first and second software applications according to claim 20, i.e.,
different "games that are currently installed" on a computer. Final Act. 33
(citing Hunt ,r 91); Ans. 33, 48 (citing Hunt ,r 91). The Examiner also finds
that Duddles discloses checking a vehicle's operational status for a proper
configuration when reprogramming an ECU. Final Act. 36-37 (citing
Duddles ,r 38); Ans. 36-37 (citing Duddles ,r 38). Duddles' reprogramming
process "can be repeated sequentially for each ECU to be programmed."
Duddles ,r 38. Thus, Duddles teaches or suggests first and second software
applications according to claim 20. Appellants' arguments regarding
claim 20 do not address Hunt or Duddles. See App. Br. 23-24; Reply
Br. 11-12.
15
Appeal2018-000484
Application 13/972,991
In addition, the Examiner finds that Genty discloses an install update
controller that may "apply a 'criticality' or priority level in reordering the
selected list of install items from most critical to least or in labeling the
listing of each install item in the filtered install selection list." Final Act. 34
( quoting Genty ,r 41 ); Ans. 34 ( quoting Genty ,r 41 ); see Genty ,r 41.
Accordingly, we discern no error in the Examiner's determination that the
combination of disclosures in the references teaches or suggests claim 20 's
subject matter. See Final Act. 32-38; Ans. 32-38, 47--48.
Because Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 20 based on Oh, Hunt, Genty, Krywaniuk,
Duddles, and Durney, we sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of claim 20.
Claim 26 depends from claim 20. App. Br. 34 (Claims App.).
Because Appellants do not argue patentability separately for claim 26, we
sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of claim 26 for the same reasons as claim 20.
See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-26.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
16