Ex Parte KLEVE et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 24, 2019

14712367 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/712,367 05/14/2015 28395 7590 01/28/2019 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L 1000 TOWN CENTER 22NDFLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Robert Bruce KLEVE 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. 83546212 1359 EXAMINER DADA, BEEMNET W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2435 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/28/2019 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 ROBERT BRUCE KLEVE, BRIAN PETERSEN, RITESH PANDY A, EDWARD ANDREW PLEET, and JOHN ROBERT VAN WIEMEERSCH Appeal 2018-004683 Application 14/712,367 Technology Center 2400 Before: ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JASON J. CHUNG, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a rejection of claims 21--40. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. Appeal 2018-004683 Application 14/712,367 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to methods and systems for authenticating one or more users of a vehicle communications and information system. Claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 21. A system comprising: a mobile-device processor configured to: receive an authentication request from a user attempting to use a substitute-user device to access a vehicle for drive-away; receive confirmation of the request, through a mobile-device interface, approving the user to access the vehicle; and transmit authentication data, usable to start the vehicle for drive- away, to the vehicle in response to receipt of the confirmation. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Takizawa US 2010/0148923 Al June 17, 2010 REJECTIONS Claims 21--40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C Â§ 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as being software per se. Claims 21--40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C Â§I02(e) as being anticipated by Takizawa. OPINION Claims 21-40 rejected under 35 USCÂ§ 101 The Examiner rejected claims 21--40 as being directed to software per se due to the recitation of the term "processor," and thus, not being one of 2 Appeal 2018-004683 Application 14/712,367 the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Final Act. 3- 4; Ans. 3. The Examiner has not provided any authority MPEP or case law for supporting this assertion. Appellants argue that a processor is hardware and absent any MPEP requirement or case law, the Examiner's finding is erroneous. App. Br. 5. We agree with Appellants' argument. An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a "new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. In the instant case, the claim 21 term "processor" falls under the patent-eligible statutory category of machine. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 21 and for the same reason the rejection of claims 22--40 under 35 U.S.C Â§ 101. Claims 21-40 rejected under 35 USC Â§102(e) as being anticipated Appellants argue that the limitation of "receive an authentication request from a user attempting to use a substitute-user device to access a vehicle for drive-away" as recited in claim 21 is not anticipated by Takizawa. App. Br. 6. In particular, Appellants argue that Takizawa discloses receiving a portable terminal ID and vehicle ID at a data management center, and thus, the data is not received at the mobile device processor as recited in claim 21. Id. citing ,r,r 45--49. Appellants further argue that the Examiner's contention that "receiving vehicle ID and biometric information on the portable phone 40" constitutes the claimed "receiving an authentication request from a user attempting to use a substitute-user device to access a vehicle for drive-away" is erroneous. App. Br. 6. According to Appellants, if the portable phone is the "mobile device processor" of the claims, this explanation includes 3 Appeal 2018-004683 Application 14/712,367 nothing about where the claimed "from a user attempting to use a substitute- user device to access a vehicle for drive-away" is allegedly taught. Id. Appellants content that the vehicle's transfer ID and biometric information to the phone, is not remotely related to "from a user attempting to use a substitute-user device to access a vehicle for drive-away" and the Examiner has not explained what is the "substitute-user device" in Takizawa. App. Br. 6-7. Appellants further argue that the biometric authentication occurs onboard the vehicle, not on the portable phone (see i.e., the components of the vehicle 20 in Fig. 2). App. Br. 7. Further, according to Appellants, this biometric authentication, even if it did occur on the phone, is not "confirmation" of the request [ from a user using a substitute-user device]" nor is it "confirmation" "received through a user device inteiface." Id. Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Takizawa discloses a mobile-device processor (i.e., vehicle biometric authentication ECU, Fig 2. Unit 21) configured to: receive an authentication request from a user (i.e., user A, Fig 1) attempting to use a substitute-user device (i.e., a device 40, Fig 1) to access a vehicle for drive- away (Fig. 2) user A with device 40. Ans. 3. Thus, the Examiner identifies the mobile device processor as the vehicle biometric authentication ECU because it is in essence mobile since it is part of a mobile vehicle. The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that the identity of the user needs to be identified (i.e., authenticated), the authentication information of the user is transmitted from device 40 to ECU 21 for verification, and if verified drive away of the vehicle is permitted. Ans. 3--4 (citing ,r,r 27, 35-37, and 40). 4 Appeal 2018-004683 Application 14/712,367 Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner's findings that Takizawa discloses receiving confirmation of the request through a mobile-device interface (i.e., vehicle control unit 28, Fig 2), approving the user to access the vehicle (i.e., when the user is verified to access the vehicle by verification portion 27 and subsequently vehicle control unit 28 (Fig 2), and receives the confirmation (steps 7-8 of Fig. 3 and ,r 49)). Ans. 4. We further agree with the Examiner's findings that the features Appellants argue (i.e., "a system whereby a vehicle owner can user their own mobile device to approve a request from a different person using a substitute mobile device to start a vehicle" (emphasis added)) are not recited in claim 21. Although claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 21, and for the same reasons the rejections of claims 22--40. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 21--40 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5