Ex Parte HoDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 3, 201713969154 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation