Ex Parte MacNeille et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 17, 2017

13951686 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 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.
13/951,686 07/26/2013 Perry Robinson MacNeille 83374614 5519
28395 7590 03/21/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER WANG, JACK K
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/21/2017 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):
docketing @brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN MATTHEW GINDER, PERRY ROBINSON
MACNEILLE, YIMIN LIU, OLEG YURIEVITCH GUSIKHIN, and
PAUL DUNCAN MCCARTHY
Appeal 2016-007124
Application 13/951,6861
Technology Center 2600
Before HUNG H. BUI, SHARON FENICK, and AARON W. MOORE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—20, which are all the claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. App. Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed December 10, 2015
(“App. Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed May 19, 2016 (“Ans.”); Final
Office Action mailed August 27, 2015 (“Final Act.”); and original
Specification filed July 26, 2013 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2016-007124
Application 13/951,686
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to “a method and apparatus for message
delivery via HD [high definition] radio [signal].” Spec. 11; Abstract.
According to Appellants, “[m]essages can be encoded with a header that
designates a specific vehicle ... for receipt of the message” and that
“message can then be broadcast over an HD radio frequency.” Spec. 134.
This way, “[t]argeted vehicles can decode an encoded message selected for
delivery to those vehicles and deliver the messages to the occupant.” Id.
Claims 1, 10, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of
Appellants’ invention, as reproduced below with disputed limitations in
italics'.
1. A system comprising:
a processor configured to:
receive a message included with a digital
radio signal;
examine a message header to determine if the
message is intended for receipt at a receiving vehicle;
discard the message if not intended for
receipt at the receiving vehicle;
process the message if intended for receipt at
the receiving vehicle; and
deliver the processed message to a vehicle
occupant.
App. Br. 9 (Claims App’x).
2
Appeal 2016-007124
Application 13/951,686
Examiner’s Rejections3 and References
(1) Claims 1, 8—10, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Marko et al. (US 6,834,156 Bl; issued
Dec. 21, 2004; “Marko”). Final Act. 2—3.
(2) Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 15, 17, and 18 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marko and Christensen et al.
(US 2012/0158905 Al; published June 21, 2012; “Christensen”). Final Act.
4 7.
(3) Claims 4, 5, 13, 14, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marko, Christensen, and Simon (US
2002/0151272 Al; published Oct. 17, 2002. Final Act. 7-10.
Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether Marko discloses a system comprising a processor configured to
“deliver the processed message to a vehicle occupant,” as recited in claim 1,
and similarly recited in claims 10 and 16. App. Br. 6—7; Reply Br. 2—3.
3 Claim 12 depends from claim 10 and intervening claim 11, and further
recites “to deliver the message only once the delivery conditions have been
met,” as implicitly required by independent claim 10. While claim 12 has
not been accounted for any prior art rejections, we treat such it as being
rejected as obvious over Marko and Christensen along with claims 2, 3, 6, 7,
11, 15, 17, and 18. Appellants do not separately argue claim 12.
3
Appeal 2016-007124
Application 13/951,686
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 1,10, and 16, the Examiner finds
Marko teaches radio receiver 14 of a vehicle, shown in Figures 1 and 5,
equipped with processor 60 configured to perform all the claimed steps,
including: (1) “receive a message included with a digital radio signal”; (2)
“examine a message header to determine if the message is intended for
receipt at a receiving vehicle”; (3) “discard the message if not intended for
receipt at the receiving vehicle”; (4) “process the message if intended for
receipt at the receiving vehicle”; and (5) “deliver the processed message to a
vehicle occupant.” Final Act. 2 (citing Marko 5:40—58, 6:34—61).
Appellants acknowledge Marko teaches reception of a message
included in a digital radio signal, i.e., a “composite data stream [that] can
comprise channels having messages that are addressed to a specific receiver
(i.e., a vehicle).” App. Br 6. Marko discloses that the composite data stream
may include a message addressed to a specific receiver, for example by
using “a header . . . with a unique identification code assigned to the receiver
to enable the receiver to analyze and store packets in the received data
stream that are intended for reception by the receiver and to discard packets
that are not addressed to the receiver.” Marko 6:41—48. However,
Appellants contend Marko does not disclose the claimed step of
“deliver[ing] the processed message to a vehicle occupant,” as recited in
claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 10 and 16. App. Br. 6—7; Reply Br.
2-3.
In particular, Appellants argue Marko’s “packets received with these
messages are used to select content and route the content to a decryption
unit” and, as such, “[t]here is no teaching or suggestion of delivering the
4
Appeal 2016-007124
Application 13/951,686
message itself to a user (or vehicle occupant).” Id. According to
Appellants, “[t]he messages of Marko delivered to the receiver are raw data
usable to do something else,” and “[tjhese messages are never ‘delivered to a
vehicle occupant.’” App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 2. In addition, Appellants argue
“there is no actual delivery of a processed message in Marko because there
is no message to be delivered in the first place.” Reply Br. 2.
We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive and not commensurate
with the scope of Appellants’ claims 1,10, and 16. At the outset, we note
Appellants’ claim 1 is broadly-worded and open-ended such it covers any
type of message (information) included in a digital radio signal that is
received, processed if its message header is identified, and then delivered
(directly or indirectly) to a vehicle occupant. As recognized by Appellants,
Marko’s “packets received with these messages are used [by the system
controller 60, shown in Figure 6] to select content and route the content to a
decryption unit.” App. Br. 6. Nevertheless, Marko’s “packets received with
these messages” can still be considered as being “processed” and “delivered
[indirectly] to a vehicle occupant” via receiver 14 to allow playback of
locally-stored content based on broadcast signaling.
Even in the context of anticipation, “it is proper to take into account
not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one
skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re
Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968). Prior art references must be
“considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the
pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Based
on the teachings of Marko, we find a skilled artisan would have understood
that Marko’s “packets received with these messages” could be any type of
5
Appeal 2016-007124
Application 13/951,686
message sent and delivered to the vehicle occupant and received via radio
receiver 14, as shown in Marko’s Figures 1, 5, and 6.
Moreover, as recognized by the Examiner, the digital radio signal
transmitted from distribution center 20, shown in Marko’s Figure 6, can also
include content such as “different types of music programs (e.g., jazz,
classical, rock, religious, country, and so on) and news programs (e.g.,
regional, national, politics financial and sports)” and “can also provide
emergency information, travel advisory information, educational programs,
and the like.” Ans. 3^4 (citing Marko 3:54—65). When Marko’s “packets”
including content such as “emergency information, travel advisory
information, education programs, and the like” are received in “messages
that are addressed to a specific receiver,” these packets are processed and are
delivered to a vehicle occupant in the manner recited in Appellants’ claims
1, 10, and 16.
For the reasons set forth above, Appellants have not demonstrated
Examiner error. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
independent claims 1,10, and 16 based on Marko, as well as the rejections
of their respective dependent claims 2—9, 11—15, and 17—20, which
Appellants do not argue separately. App. Br. 7.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(2) and § 103(a).
6
Appeal 2016-007124
Application 13/951,686
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—20.
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
7