Ex Parte LEI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 15, 2018

15047709 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/047,709 02/19/2016
28395 7590 11/19/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Oliver LEI
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.
83607829 4927
EXAMINER
BEAMER, TEMICA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/19/2018 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 OLIVER LEI and ALLEN R. MURRAY
Appeal2018-004844
Application 15/047 ,709 1
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOV AN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1-17, 19, and 20, which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part. 2
1 Appellants identify Ford Global Technologies, LLC as the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 1.)
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification ("Spec.") filed February 19, 2016,
the Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed May 4, 2017, the Appeal Brief
("Br.") filed October 3, 2017, the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed
February 9, 2018, and the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed April 6, 2018.
Appeal2018-004844
Application 15/047,709
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to systems for "geo-fencing using wireless
point sources" such as dedicated short range communication transceivers,
the systems "configured to associate a plurality of existing dedicated short
range communication (DSRC) transceivers with [a] boundary and send [a]
vehicle identifier to each of the associated DSRC transceivers." (Spec. ,r 1;
Abstract.)
Claims 1, 7, and 15 are independent. Claims 1 and 7, reproduced
below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system comprising:
a transceiver; and
a processor in communication with the transceiver
configured to:
send an alert message when a wirelessly received vehicle
identification, received by the transceiver from a proximate
vehicle, matches a vehicle identification previously provided for
tracking.
7. A system comprising:
a processor configured to:
receive both a boundary defining a geo-fence and a vehicle
identifier;
associate a plurality of existing dedicated short range
communication (DSRC) transceivers with the boundary;
send the vehicle identifier to each of the associated DSRC
transceivers; and
instruct each of the DSRC transceivers to report
communication with a vehicle having the vehicle identifier.
(App. Br. 1--4 (Claims App'x.).) 3
3 The page numbering in Appellants' Claims Appendix starts at 1.
2
Appeal2018-004844
Application 15/047,709
REJECTION & REFERENCE
Claims 1-17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(2)
based on Sauerbrey et al. (US 2015/0095156 Al, published Apr. 2, 2015,
"Sauerbrey"). (Final Act. 3---6.)
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-6
The Examiner finds Sauerbrey teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
(Final Act. 2--4.) Particularly, the Examiner finds Sauerbrey discloses a
transceiver enabling wireless communication with a proximate vehicle, as
claimed. (Final Act. 2, 4 (citing Sauerbrey ,r,r 3, 11, 14, Figs. 1-2); Ans. 7
( citing Sauerbrey ,r,r 15, 37).) The Examiner also finds Sauerbrey discloses
a processor/server affiliated with a telematics service provider/call center
and with a car dealership, the processor sending an alert message when a
wirelessly received vehicle identification matches a vehicle identification
previously provided for tracking, as claimed. (Ans. 7 (citing Sauerbrey
,r,r 29, 31, 3 8--41 ); Final Act. 3--4.)
Appellants argue Sauerbrey does not teach a processor in
communication with a transceiver, the processor configured to "send an alert
message when a wirelessly received vehicle identification, received by the
transceiver from a proximate vehicle, matches a vehicle identification
previously provided for tracking." (App. Br. 4--5; Reply Br. 2-3.)
Particularly, Appellants argue Sauerbrey's call center server does not teach
the claimed processor because "the server location bears absolutely no
relation to the vehicle location," thus "the server ... ha[ s] no defined
proximate relationship to the vehicle"; in contrast, claim 1 requires the
3
Appeal2018-004844
Application 15/047,709
"processor wirelessly being informed of the vehicle identity (the vehicle
being within proximity to the processor)." (App. Br. 4--5 (emphasis added).)
Appellants' arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim 1,
which does not require the processor to be proximate to the vehicle. (Ans.
6.) Claim 1 recites a wirelessly received vehicle identification is "received
by the transceiver from a proximate vehicle," which merely requires the
transceiver to be proximate to the vehicle. (Ans. 6.)
We therefore agree with the Examiner that Sauerbrey' s call center
server (38) teaches a processor sending an alert message when a wirelessly
received vehicle identification matches a vehicle identification previously
provided for tracking. (Ans. 7.) Particularly, Sauerbrey's server 38 sends an
alert message (message 86 targeted to a vehicle subscribed to the call
center's services) when a wirelessly received vehicle identification
(vehicle's identification number (VIN) 84) signals the vehicle's crossing of a
geo-fence. (Ans. 7-8 (citing Sauerbrey ,r,r 7, 38--41).)
Appellants contend Sauerbrey's call center server (38) "does not
'report' based on receiving an ID provided for tracking, the server reports
based on a vehicle location matching a geo-fence location" in contrast to
Appellants' "claimed processor and transceiver ... [that] can report based
on receiving the ID from the proximate vehicle, without any need to
reference vehicle GPS coordinates." (App. Br. 5.) Appellants' argument is
not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, which does not preclude the
processor from using vehicle GPS coordinates to determine when to send the
alert. (Ans. 6-7.)
Additionally, Sauerbrey's dealership has a wireless access point
(W AP) establishing a short-range wireless connection with the approaching
4
Appeal2018-004844
Application 15/047,709
vehicle, and "[t]he dealership 42 may also generate messages that it wants
transmitted to the vehicle 12 upon its arrival." (See Sauerbrey ,r,r 15, 25, 29,
3 7, 4 7.) The dealership's computing equipment, which generates messages
tailored to the vehicle's user, also teaches a processor as recited in claim 1.
(See ,r,r 25, 28-29, 47.)
Appellants next argue Sauerbrey's messages are not an alert message
based on a transceiver receiving a vehicle identification from a proximate
vehicle, as claim 1 requires. (Reply Br. 3.)
We disagree. Message 86 is sent by server 3 8 when the server
receives the wirelessly transmitted VIN from the vehicle, over the "wireless
carrier/communication system 14" that "may be GSM (global system for
mobile telecommunications)." (See Sauerbrey ,r,r 11-14, 3 8--40, 57, Fig. 1;
Final Act. 2.) As in claim 1, the VIN sent by Sauerbrey's vehicle is
wirelessly received by a transceiver proximate to the vehicle-the GSM
network's transceiver located closest to the vehicle.
With respect to the dealership's "messages that it wants transmitted to
the vehicle 12 upon its arrival," those messages are based on the arrival of
the vehicle that is also connected to the proximate WAP (a transceiver).
(See Sauerbrey ,r,r 25, 29, 37, 47.) The arriving vehicle provides the WAP
with a "vehicle identification" ( an identification code, security code, or pre-
shared wireless connection key identifying the vehicle to the W AP and to
the dealership), as claimed. (See Sauerbrey ,r 19.)
Appellants further argue "[t]here is no indication that the VIN
[received by Sauerbrey's server 38 from the vehicle] was 'previously
provided for tracking'" or that a match between VINs prompts an alert
message, as claim 1 requires. (Reply Br. 5.) Appellants' argument is not
5
Appeal2018-004844
Application 15/047,709
persuasive. Appellants' Specification broadly describes vehicle
identifications previously provided for tracking as "a list of vehicles to 'look
for"' or "a list ofVINs for which to look." (See Spec. ,r,r 48, 51.) The VIN
of a subscriber vehicle in Sauerbrey subscriber database 68 is commensurate
with the broad description of a vehicle identification previously provided for
tracking in Appellants' Specification. (Ans. 7; see Spec. ,r,r 48, 51;
Sauerbrey ,r,r 33, 39, 54.) Appellants' Specification further explains a match
between vehicle identifications is found by "check[ing] to see if a received
VIN is on the list of tracked VINs" and determining "[i]f the VIN or other
ID is on the list." (See Spec. ,r 51.) Sauerbrey's "interrogat[ing]
the database 68 ... for any records associated with the VIN" and
"identify[ing] the in-vehicle infotainment capabilities" based on the VIN, is
commensurate with the broad description of matching a vehicle
identification to an identification previously provided for tracking in
Appellants' Specification. (Ans. 7; see Spec. ,r 51; Sauerbrey ,r,r 39-40.)
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments directed to the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1 have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's
findings. We therefore sustain the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by
Sauerbrey.
No separate arguments are presented for dependent claims 2---6. (App.
Br. 5.) Accordingly, for the reasons stated with respect to independent claim
1, we sustain the rejection of claims 2-6. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 7-17, 19, and 20
The Examiner, among other things, finds Sauerbrey teaches a
processor configured to "receive ... a boundary defining a geo-fence ...
[ and] associate a plurality of existing dedicated short range communication
6
Appeal2018-004844
Application 15/047,709
(DSRC) transceivers with the boundary" as recited in independent claim 7.
(Final Act. 4--5 (citing Sauerbrey ,r 35, Figs. 1 and 2).) The Examiner also
finds Sauerbrey teaches a processor configured to instruct reporting
"detection of communication between a vehicle and one of a plurality of
predesignated dedicated short range communication (DSRC) transceivers,
the plurality of DSRC transceivers corresponding to a predefined geo-fence"
as recited in independent claim 15. (Final Act. 6.) Particularly, the
Examiner finds Sauerbrey's "electronic device (item 40) and a wireless
access point (W AP) ... both operate using dedicated short range
communication (DSRC) transceivers" that "are associated with the geo-
fence (boundary 82) surrounding the dealership." (Ans. 8, 10 (citing
Sauerbrey ,r,r 35, 38).) We do not agree.
We agree with Appellants that Sauerbrey does not associate a plurality
of existing dedicated short range communication (DSRC) transceivers with a
boundary defining a geo-fence, as required by claims 7 and 15. (App. Br. 5-
6.) As Appellants explain, Sauerbrey defines its geo-fence 82 "in terms of
geographic coordinates without any use of [DSRC] transceivers associated
with the fence." (App. Br. 6.) Particularly, geo-fence 82 "may include a
boundary defined by GPS [(Global Position System)] coordinates" and "may
also be defined using a radius and the dealership 42 as a center point, where
the center point is a latitude and longitude coordinate." (See Sauerbrey
,r 35.) Thus, Sauerbrey defines its geo-fence 82 using a GPS receiver, which
is not a short range communication transceiver as required by the claims.
(App. Br. 6.) Sauerbrey also does not associate the geo-fence with the
dealership's short range transceiver (W AP).
7
Appeal2018-004844
Application 15/047,709
As the Examiner has not shown, nor have we found, that Sauerbrey
associates dedicated short range communication (DSRC) transceivers with a
predefined geo-fence as required by claims 7 and 15, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 7 and 15 as anticipated by Sauerbrey. We
also do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 8-14, 16,
17, 19, and 20 dependent from one of claims 7 and 15. 4
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1---6 is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 7-17, 19, and 20 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
4 Claim 15 recites two instances of "a vehicle," and it is unclear if there is
any relationship between them. Particularly, claim 15 is unclear as to any
relationship between the claimed "a vehicle" instructed "to wirelessly
report," and the claimed "a vehicle" whose communication with "one of a
plurality of predesignated dedicated short range communication (DSRC)
transceivers" is to be reported. Appellants are advised to correct this error
by providing proper antecedent basis for the second claimed instance of "a
vehicle."
8