Ex Parte Esselink et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 27, 2018

13189722 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/189,722 07/25/2011 28395 7590 03/29/2018 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L 1000 TOWN CENTER 22NDFLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Chad Evert Esselink 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. 83176801 1795 EXAMINER EDWARDS, LINGLAN E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2491 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2018 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 CHAD EVERT ESSELINK, MICHAEL RAYMOND WESTRA, MARK SCHUNDER, and DAVID CHASE MITCHELL Appeal2017-009478 Application 13/189, 722 1 Technology Center 2400 Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellants identify Ford Global Technologies, LLC, as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal2017-009478 Application 13/189,722 Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 6-11. Claims 1-5 and 12-20 are canceled. Claims App. 1-2. This appeal is related to a previous appeal in the prosecution of this application. Ex parte Esselink, App. No. 2014-005273, available at https://e- foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrievePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2014005273-03- 31- 2016-1 (PTAB Apr. 4, 2016). 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. Invention Appellants disclose a computer-implemented authentication method that "includes compiling a list of applications currently approved for use in conjunction with a vehicle computing system and transmitting the list to a remote server for processing." Spec. i-f 12. Illustrative Claim (key limitations emphasized) 6. A computer-implemented authentication method comprising: compiling, at a vehicle, a list of applications having current vehicle- stored approval for use on a vehicle computing system (VCS); transmitting the list from the vehicle to a remote server; receiving a response from the remote server indicating authorization status of applications on the list; 2 Although the related appeal was discussed elsewhere (see, e.g., App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 2-3), Appellants failed to identify the related appeal under an appropriate heading as required (see 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(ii) (2016)). 2 Appeal2017-009478 Application 13/189,722 determining an application on the list not authorized for use with the VCS based on the response; and preventing resource access by the determined application. Rejections The Examiner rejects claims 6-8, 10, and 11under35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moinzadeh et al. (US 8,050,817 B2; issued Nov. 1, 2011) and Ganapathy et al. (US 2012/0284702 Al; published Nov. 8, 2012). Final Act. 10-12. The Examiner rejects claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moinzadeh, Ganapathy, and Derasmo et al. (US 2005/ 0021597 Al; published Jan. 27, 2005). Final Act. 13. ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 6, the Examiner finds Moinzadeh's request to server control software 32 for a particular application 40 on phone 20 to utilize the interface of head unit 21----combined with Moinzadeh's download directory 239 of applications 240 and Ganapathy's list of applications-renders obvious compiling, at a vehicle, a list of applications having current vehicle- stored approval for use on a vehicle computing system and transmitting the listfrom the vehicle to a remote server. Final Act. 10-11 (citing, e.g., Moinzadeh Figs. 1, 2A, 4, 5, col. 3, 11. 37--46, and claim l; Ganapathy Fig. 3, i-f 50). In particular, the Examiner interprets the claimed list of applications having current vehicle-stored approval for use as encompassing "any application currently installed (i.e.[,] stored in the system)" because "permission for installation implies permission for use." Ans. 4--5. Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Moinzadeh's request to control software 32 "relates directly to a current application currently 3 Appeal2017-009478 Application 13/189,722 attempting to use a current resource." App. Br. 13 (citing Moinzadeh col. 3, 11. 36-40). Appellants argue the Examiner has not shown it would have been obvious to modify this check "to gather and compile a list of all applications currently on the vehicle and send that list to the server for verification." App. Br. 13. Appellants note this would "increase the load on the server by an order of magnitude, and [would] serve[] no actual purpose, because even if the permissions are received by Moinzadeh and stored, the instant a different application attempts to access a different resource, the whole process [would] repeat." Id. In response, the Examiner finds "Moinzadeh also teaches transmission of a list of applications ... [that] may be use used and downloaded." Ans. 20 (citing Moinzadeh Figs. 4--6, col. 7, 1. 40-col. 8, 1. 10). That is, rather than presenting findings showing error in Appellants' characterization of Moinzadeh's request to control software 32 and what it teaches or suggests, the Examiner finds that a different aspect of Moinzadeh's disclosure (i.e., the download directory teachings) alternatively teaches or suggests the disputed recitations. Appellants contend Moinzadeh's applications download directory also does not teach or suggest the disputed recitations obvious because the "applications are not even yet present on the vehicle." App. Br. 8. "Moinzadeh states that the applications stored in the download directory are 'applications to be downloaded to the vehicle."' Id. (citing Moinzadeh col. 6, 11. 40-44). The Examiner finds Moinzadeh's discloses "how a controlled list is generated and the process clearly involves transmission of a list." Ans. 9 (citing Moinzadeh col. 7, 11. 53-57). However, Appellants correctly point 4 Appeal2017-009478 Application 13/189,722 out that the list of applications "is an OEM-compiled list ... stored on a remote server [and] never transmitted to a vehicle [or] compiled by a vehicle." App. Br. 10; see also Moinzadeh col. 7, 11. 44--52, Fig. 6 (illustrating communications from a computing terminal operated by a provider "to select applications from the controlled list to be included in [the] download directory"). Appellants also correctly note that "a user can select applications from [an OEM] list via a mobile device or desktop computer." App. Br. 9 (citing Moinzadeh col. 7, 1. 66-col. 8, 1. 4). The Examiner's findings do not show that any of these lists (an OEM-compiled list of applications to add to a download directory, an OEM-supplied list of applications that can be selected for installation, or a user selection of applications) are compiled "at a vehicle" or transmitted "from the vehicle to a remote server" in the manner recited in claim 6. Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner's findings do not show that Moinzadeh teaches or suggests "compiling, at a vehicle, a list of applications having current vehicle-stored approval for use on a vehicle computing system" and "transmitting the list from the vehicle to a remote server," as recited in claim 6. The Examiner does not show that Ganapathy or Derasmo cures the noted deficiencies of Moinzadeh. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection of claim 6, or the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejections of claims 7-11, which contain the disputed recitations. 5 Appeal2017-009478 Application 13/189,722 DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 6-11. REVERSED 6