Ex Parte Ho

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 3, 2017

13969154 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 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.
13/969,154 08/16/2013 Jin-Meng Ho TI-72799 4288
23494 7590 03/07/2017
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, M/S 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
EXAMINER
LIN, AMIE CHIN YU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2436
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/07/2017 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIN-MENG HO
Appeal 2016-005123
Application 13/969,154
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 18. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2016-005123
Application 13/969,154
INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to a device which pairs key fobs with a
vehicle. See Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and
reproduced below:
1. A key fob-vehicle control unit pairing device, comprising:
a transceiver configured to transmit signals to a vehicle
control unit and to receive signals from the vehicle control unit
and a key fob;
a memory configured to store a key fob identification and
a vehicle control unit identification; and
a processor coupled to said transceiver and memory, the
processor configured to:
authenticate the vehicle control unit using a
password authenticated key agreement protocol with the
password taken or derived from the vehicle control unit
identification; and
transmit an encrypted key fob public key to the
vehicle control unit.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 12—14 and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ho (US 2010/0199095 Al; Aug. 5, 2010), and
Petel (WO 2012/041885 Al; Apr. 5, 2012) (Petel ’885). Final Act. 3-5.1
The Examiner has rejected claims 1—5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Monica et al. (US 2013/0182845 Al; July 18, 2013), Ho
and Petel (US 2013/0259232 Al; Oct. 3, 2013) (Petel ’232). Final Act. 5-9.
1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief filed Aug. 24, 2015,
Reply Brief filed Apr. 12, 2016, Final Action mailed Jan. 14, 2015, and the
Examiner’s Answer mailed on Feb. 12, 2016.
2
Appeal 2016-005123
Application 13/969,154
The Examiner has rejected claims 6, 7, and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Monica, Ho, Petel ’885, and Eckleder et al.
(US 2008/0256365 Al; Oct. 16, 2008). Final Act. 9-13.
The Examiner has rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Monica, Ho, Petel ’885, Eckleder and Gotthardt (US
2013/0179176 Al; July 11,2013). Final Act. 13-14.
The Examiner has rejected claims 9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Monica, Ho, Petel ’885, Eckleder and Moroney (US
2010/0014671 Al; Jan. 21, 2010). Final Act. 1^U16.
The Examiner has rejected claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Ho, Petel, and Eckleder. Final Act. 16—17.
The Examiner has rejected claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ho, Petel ’885, Eckleder and Moroney. Final Act. 18.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues, on page 23 of the Appeal Brief and pages 1 and 2 of
the Reply Brief, that claims 1 and 5 are directed to a key fob-vehicle control
unit pairing device and claims 12 through 18 to a method of pairing a key
fob with a vehicle control unit. Appellant asserts that the power
consumption of the devices in the prior art which the Examiner equates to
the claimed control unit and claimed key fob are different. Further, the
Appellant states the key in Petel is passive and cannot read information and
the mobile telephone in Petel provides active signaling and is not in the
vehicle or a key fob. App. Br. 25—26.
The Examiner provides a comprehensive response to Appellant’s
arguments stating that Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope
with the claims and explaining how the teachings of the references are
3
Appeal 2016-005123
Application 13/969,154
applied. Ans. 2—7. We have reviewed the Examiner’s response to
Appellant’s arguments, claim interpretation, and findings. We concur with
the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. As stated by the Examiner
Appellant’s arguments are directed to limitations not presented in the claims.
We additionally note that Petel teaches the mobile telephone can be used to
lock/unlock and start the motor vehicle, interactions with the vehicle which
are typically associated with a key or remote key fob. See Petel ’885,
Abstract; Petel ’232 Abstract. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1—18.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 18 is
affirmed.
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
4