Ex Parte MacNeille et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 17, 201713951686 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 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. 13/951,686 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation