Ex Parte ELZEIN et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2018

15157767 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/157,767 05/18/2016
28395 7590 10/01/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
HadiELZEIN
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.
83645053 6202
EXAMINER
BEHNAMIAN, SHAHRIAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2641
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2018 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HADI ELZEIN, and
JEFFREY RAYMOND OSTROWSKI
Appeal2018-004142
Application No 15/157,767 1
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MARC S. HOFF, and CATHERINE
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appellants' invention is a method and apparatus for vehicle and
mobile phone coordination. A processor is configured to receive a request to
start a vehicle. The processor is also configured to determine if a connected
phone is present within the vehicle, and to start the vehicle upon
1 The real party in interest is Ford Global Technologies, LLC.
Appeal2018-004142
Application 15/157,767
determination that said connected phone is present within the vehicle. Spec.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A system comprising:
a vehicle processor configured to:
receive a message that an authorized phone is proximate
to a vehicle; connect to the authorized phone;
receive a request to start the vehicle;
determine if the authorized phone is present within the
vehicle; and
start the vehicle upon determination that the authorized
phone is present within the vehicle.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Kumazaki
Hassan
Howarter
US 2004/0119628 Al
US 2008/0117079 Al
US 2010/0075656 Al
June 24, 2004
May 22, 2008
Mar. 25, 2010
Claims 11-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(1)/(a)(2) as
being anticipated by Howarter.
Claims 1, 2, 8-10, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Howarter and Kumazaki.
Claims 3-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Howarter, Kumazaki, and Hassan.
Claims 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Howarter and Hassan.
Throughout this Decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
("App. Br.," filed Aug. 15, 2017), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed March
9, 2018), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Jan. 22, 2018) for
their respective details.
2
Appeal2018-004142
Application 15/157,767
ISSUES
1. Does Howarter disclose starting a vehicle, responsive to a start
request, following a determination that a phone, wirelessly connected to the
vehicle, is present within the vehicle?
2. Does the combination of Howarter and Kumazaki disclose or
suggest determining if an authorized phone is present within a vehicle, and
starting the vehicle upon said determination?
ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 11-15
The Examiner finds that Howarter teaches determining a phone,
wirelessly connected to the vehicle, is present within the vehicle. Final Act.
6. The Examiner relies on Howarter's teaching that, in one embodiment,
scanner 210 is a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag scanner imbedded
or integrated within the driver's side door. Howarter ,r 37.
We agree with Appellants' argument that Howarter fails to teach
determining that the phone is present within the vehicle. App. Br. 5. First,
the RFID tag scanner disclosed in Howarter does not exclude the possibility
that the tag scanner could read a tag embedded in the phone when the phone
is held proximate to the scanner, but outside the vehicle. Second, Howarter
does not explicitly teach that the phone is determined to be present within
the vehicle and instead, teaches that, "in response to detecting a first cell
phone associated with a first user is within fifty feet of the vehicle, ... the
engine may be started." Howarter ,r 22; see Fig. 7.
We find that Howarter fails to teach all the limitations of independent
claim 11. We do not sustain the Examiner's§ 102(a)(l)/102(a)(2) rejection
of claims 11-15.
3
Appeal2018-004142
Application 15/157,767
CLAIMS 1, 2, 8-10, AND 16
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in combining Howarter and
Kumazaki. According to Appellants, neither Howarter nor Kumazaki teach
that a mobile phone is determined as being inside the vehicle. App. Br. 6.
Appellants allege that the Examiner cannot interchange Kumazaki' s
teaching of determining that a mobile unit is within a vehicle compartment
with Howarter's teachings concerning determining the proximity of a mobile
phone, because "[ d]etection of a phone in a cabin is not the same as
detection of a fob inside the cabin." App. Br. 6.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner erred.
We agree with the Examiner that Kumazaki supplies the teaching, conceded
to be missing from Howarter, of determining that a mobile device is present
within a vehicle, and starting the vehicle upon such determination. Final
Act. 8, citing Kumazaki ,r 5. We further agree with the Examiner that it
would have been obvious to modify Howarter in view of the teachings of
Kumazaki such that the presence of Howarter's mobile phone inside the
vehicle would be detected, and the vehicle started upon such detection, in
order to avoid requiring the user to hold the mobile unit in the user's hand,
and avoid having the user drive away without the mobile unit. Ans. 8.
Appellants' arguments against the proximity detection taught by
Howarter are not persuasive to show Examiner error. App. Br. 7. The
Examiner relies on Kumazaki, rather than Howarter, for a teaching of
determining that the mobile unit is present within the vehicle. Final Act. 8.
We conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 8-
10, and 16 as being unpatentable over Howarter and Kumazaki. We sustain
the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection.
4
Appeal2018-004142
Application 15/157,767
CLAIMS 3-7
Appellants' sole argument concerning these claims is that Hassan
does not cure the deficiencies of Howarter and Kumazaki with regard to the
limitations of claim 1. App. Br. 7. Because we do not agree that such
deficiencies exist, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claims 3-
7 over Howarter, Kumazaki, and Hassan.
CLAIMS 17-20
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in combining Hassan with
Howarter because Hassan teaches an override for not starting a vehicle,
rather than the override for starting a vehicle required by claim 17. App. Br.
8.
We agree with the Examiner that Hassan teaches the concept of
overriding a remote starter control command under certain conditions. Ans.
7. We also agree with the Examiner's conclusion that it would have been
obvious to modify Howarter in view of Hassan's teaching to include such an
override feature, and start the vehicle although the message that the phone is
present in the vehicle and previously authorized to start the vehicle has not
been received, as claim 17 recites. Ans. 7-8.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Howarter does not disclose starting a vehicle, responsive to a start
request, following a determination that a phone, wirelessly connected to the
vehicle, is present within the vehicle.
2. The combination of Howarter and Kumazaki suggests determining
if an authorized phone is present within a vehicle, and starting the vehicle
upon said determination.
5
Appeal2018-004142
Application 15/157,767
ORDER
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-10 and 16-20 is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 11-15 is reversed.
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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6