Ex Parte MacNeille et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2017

12972981 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 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.
12/972,981 12/20/2010 Perry Robinson MacNeille 83154722 1009
28395 7590 08/31/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER MUSTAFA, IMRAN K
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2017 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 PERRY ROBINSON MACNEILLE,
STEVEN JOSEPH SZWABOWSKI,
DIMITAR PETROV FILEV, and MARK SCHUNDER
Appeal 2016-000934
Application 12/972,981
Technology Center 3600
Before: JAMES P. CALVE, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1—18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2016-000934
Application 12/972,981
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ claimed subject matter relates to a system for adjusting a
vehicle parameter based on ambient weather conditions. Spec. 1:29—2:23.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is
reproduced below with a portion argued by Appellants emphasized.
1. A system for gathering and providing ambient weather
conditions, comprising:
a server, in communication with at least one weather data
provision service, and including one or more middleware
applications operable to receive and process weather data
requests;
a gps module, operable to determine vehicle GPS
coordinates;
a power-train control module (PTCM), operable to adjust
at least one power-train parameter; and
a vehicle computing system, in communication with the
GPS module, the PTCM, and the server, wherein
in response to a request for data from the PTCM, the
vehicle computing system passes GPS data to the server, along
with the request for data, and responsively receives the requested
data from the server, the server having gathered the data from
the at least one weather data provision service based at least in
part on the GPS data passed from the vehicle computing system,
wherein
the vehicle computing system relays the received data to
the PTCM that requested the data for use by the PTCM in
responsively adjusting the at least one power-train parameter.
Appeal Br. (Claims App. 1).
2
Appeal 2016-000934
Application 12/972,981
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Umebayashi
Ampunan
Eibye
Rechis
US 2004/0194479 A1
US 2006/0064232 A1
US 2008/0167078 A1
US 2008/0172357 A1
Oct. 7, 2004
Mar. 23, 2006
July 10, 2008
July 17, 2008
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 7, 10, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Umebayashi and Ampunan.
II. Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Umebayashi, Rechis, and Ampunan.
III. Claims 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Umebayashi, Rechis, Ampunan, and Eibye
IV. Claims 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Umebayashi, Ampunan, and Eibye.
OPINION
Rejection I: Umebayashi and Ampunan
Claims 7 and 10
Independent Claim 7 recites, in part, “determining vehicle GPS
coordinates; requesting, originating from a power-train control module
(PTCM), weather data corresponding to current and projected GPS
coordinates from a vehicle computing system (VCS).” Appeal Br. (Claims
App. 2) (emphases added).
3
Appeal 2016-000934
Application 12/972,981
The Examiner finds that Umebayashi discloses many of the features
recited in claim 7 including a request “originating [from] a control module[,]
weather data corresponding to current and projected GPS coordinates from
vehicle computing system(VCS).” Final Act. 2—3 (citing Umebayashi 149)
(emphasis added). However, the Examiner finds “Umebayashi does not
explicitly disclose [,] responsive to the weather data, adjusting at least one
parameter of power-train control controlled by the PTCM,” and the
Examiner relies on Ampunan to remedy this deficiency. Final Act. 3—5.
Appellants contend that Umebayashi does not disclose requesting
weather data for projected coordinates, and, in this regard, Appellants assert
that Umebayashi is directed to operation with a parked (stationary) vehicle.
Appeal Br. 6—7 (citing Umebayashi, Abstract).
In response, the Examiner finds that Ampunan1 discloses bi­
directional communication, and, because Ampunan receives weather data for
a range of longitudes and latitudes, Ampunan teaches requesting weather
data for projected GPS coordinates. Ans. 2—6 (citing Ampunan || 44, 60,
Figs. 4A, 4B).
In reply, Appellants contend that Ampunan receives data for a range
of locations, but not for projected coordinates. Reply Br. 2. In other words,
Appellants contend that obtaining weather data for a general area is not the
same as obtaining weather data for projected coordinates. Additionally,
Appellants contend that the mere act of receiving data does satisfy the
requirement for requesting such data as required by claim 7. Id. at 2—3. In
this regard, Appellants assert “the portion [of Ampunan 144] cited as
1 The Answer does not discuss Umebayashi in relation to Appellants’
arguments addressing this reference on pages 6—7 of the Appeal Brief.
4
Appeal 2016-000934
Application 12/972,981
teaching the [limitation at issue] not only fails to teach requesting data
corresponding to projected coordinate[s], it actually fails to even teach
requesting data.” Id. at 2.
We agree with Appellants’ arguments. In light of the Specification,
the broadest reasonable interpretation of “projected GPS coordinates” as
recited in claim 7 means coordinates associated with “a route-to-be-traveled
by a vehicle.” See Spec. 10:28—11:9. In other words, the projected
coordinates are associated with the anticipated or projected position of a
vehicle. Paragraph 49 of Umebayashi, the original citation for the
Examiner’s finding that Umebayashi discloses requesting weather data for
projected GPS coordinates (Final Act. 2), does not discuss any projected
position of a vehicle. The Examiner’s reliance on Ampunan, in the Answer,
to teach this limitation is also unavailing. Although paragraphs 44 and 60
discuss providing data for a range of locations, we do not understand these
paragraphs to disclose making a request for data or that the data received is
associated with a route-to-be-traveled by a vehicle. Indeed, the range of
locations appears to be taught because a projected route-to-be-traveled is not
known. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7,
and claim 10 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Umebayashi and
Ampunan.
Claims 13 and 16
Independent claim 13 recites, in part, “determining if requested data is
available in response to a request for weather data from a powertrain control
module (PTCM); conditional on the availability of the data, sending a
request to a remote server for the requested data, the request including the
GPS position of the vehicle.” Appeal Br. (Claims App. 2).
5
Appeal 2016-000934
Application 12/972,981
The Examiner cites paragraph 49 of Umebayashi in support of the
finding that Umebayashi teaches this feature. Final Act. 5—6. The Examiner
relies on Ampunan to teach relaying a response, to a weather data request, to
the PTCM. Id. at 6.
Appellants contend that paragraph 49 of Umebayashi is silent
regarding the determining step as well as basing the sending of the request
based on the results of the determining step. Appeal Br. 9-10.
In response, the Examiner reiterates that paragraph 49 discloses the
step of determining whether requested data is available, stating, “Clearly
weather data is not available locally on the system of Umebayashi then an
appropriate request would be made to obtain the weather data using the GPS
current location of the vehicle and sending that request over the internet to
obtain the weather data.” Ans. 6 (citing Umebayashi 149).
In reply, Appellants state that “[claim 13] recites checking to see if
weather data can be obtained in response to a request, and then, if the data
can be obtained, sending the request. Umebayashi simply sends the request,
with no prior checking whatsoever as claimed.” Reply Br. 3 (emphasis
omitted).
Appellants’ arguments on this point are persuasive because the
“determining” and “sending” steps recited in claim 13 cannot reasonably be
construed as being the same step. In this regard, we note that the sending
step is conditional upon the determining step. Nothing in paragraph 49 of
Umebayashi indicates that a determination is made separately from the
process of sending the request for the weather data. See Umebayashi 149.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13, and 16
depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Umebayashi and Ampunan.
6
Appeal 2016-000934
Application 12/972,981
Rejection II: Umebayashi, Rechis, and Ampunan
Claims 1, 2, and 4
Independent claim 1 recites, in part:
in response to a request for data from the PTCM, the
vehicle computing system passes GPS data to the server, along
with the request for data, and responsively receives the requested
data from the server, the server having gathered the data from the
at least one weather data provision service based at least in part
on the GPS data passed from the vehicle computing system.
Appeal Br. (Claims App. 1)
Addressing the “in response to a request” recitation in claim 1, the
Examiner finds that Umebayashi teaches:
in response to a request for data from the component
control system, the vehicle computing system passes GPS data
to the server, along with the request for data, and responsively
receives the requested data from the server, the server having
gathered the data from the at least one weather data provision
service based at least in part on the GPS data passed from the
vehicle computing system.
Final Act. 8 (citing Umebayashi 149). Thus, the Examiner finds that
Umebayashi discloses making a request for data. As for the power train
control module (PTCM), the Examiner states, “Ampunan teaches a power
train control module (ECM) operable to adjust at least one powertrain
parameter (Paragraph 60) and relaying the received data to the ECM that
requested the data for use by the ECM in responsively adjusting the at least
one powertrain parameter.” Final Act. 12.
Appellants contend that “the Examiner merely points to ‘getting’
accurate weather information of the local subject area. No mention is made
of where the request comes from, and, more importantly, no evidence is
provided that the request comes from a power-train control module.'1'’
7
Appeal 2016-000934
Application 12/972,981
Appeal Br. 10. In this regard, Appellants contend that data may be pushed
to (rather than requested by) the PTCM. Id. 10—12.
In response, the Examiner finds that the ECM of Ampunan uses bi­
directional communication, and therefore, makes a request for data (weather
information). Ans. 7—9. In this regard, the Examiner states:
One of ordinary skill in the art clearly would realize that the
controller [of Ampunan] is requesting the data since the
controller needs the information to perform control of the vehicle
parameter. It makes no sense for the controller to receive
weather data that it does not need. Thus there is a clear request
that is made by the controller to obtain the necessary weather
data to perform the vehicle control function.
Ans. 8.
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s Answer relies on a finding of
inherent disclosure in Ampunan, the Examiner does not point to any portion
of Ampunan that discloses the recited request from the ECM of Ampunan,
and there are other ways for the weather data to reach the ECM than by
request from the ECM. Reply Br. 3^4.
The Examiner’s finding that the ECM of Ampunan makes a request
for weather data is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Although we appreciate the Examiner’s finding that the ECM of Ampunan
conducts bi-directional communication, this alone is insufficient to support a
conclusion that Ampunan discloses the specific request made by the ECM
required by claim 1. In this regard, we agree with Appellants’ contention
that Figure 3 of Ampunan describes communication in Ampunan’s system
without any indication of such a request. Rather, the step after “Begin” in
Figure 3 of Ampunan is “Receiving Weather Data.” Accordingly, we
8
Appeal 2016-000934
Application 12/972,981
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 2 and 4 depending
therefrom, as unpatentable over Umebayashi, Rechis, and Ampunan.
Claims 8 and 14
Claims 8 and 14 depend from claims 7 and 13, respectively. Appeal
Br. (Claims App. 2). The Examiner does not rely on Rechis in any way that
would remedy the deficiency in the rejection of claims 7 and 13 as
unpatentable over Umebayashi and Ampunan. See Final Act. 11.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 14
over Umebayashi, Rechis, and Ampunan.
Rejections III and IV: Umebayashi, Rechis, Ampunan, and Eibye
Claims 3, 5, and 6 depend from claim 1. Appeal Br. (Claims App. 1).
Claims 9, 11, and 12 depend from claim 7; and claims 15, 17, and 18 depend
from claim 13. Appeal Br. (Claims App. 2—3). The Examiner’s use of
Eibye in Rejections III and IV does not remedy the deficiencies in the
rejections of claims 1, 7, and 13 discussed above. See Final Act. 11—12.
Accordingly, we do not sustain Examiner rejections of claims 3, 5, 6, 9, 11,
12, 15, 17, and 18.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—18 is reversed.
REVERSED
9