Ex Parte MUELLER et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2018

14684884 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/684,884 04/13/2015
23911 7590 09/27/2018
CROWELL & MORING LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP
P.O. BOX 14300
WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stephan MUELLER
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.
080437.67603US 5825
EXAMINER
WICKLUND, DANIEL PM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2833
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2018 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):
edocket@crowell.com
tche@crowell.com
apomeroy@crowell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHAN MUELLER and RONALD ECKER
Appeal2017-010451
Application 14/684,884 1
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellant seeks our review of the
Examiner's rejections of claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We reverse.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Bayerische Motoren W erke
Aktiengesellschaft, which is also identified as the real party in interest.
(App. Br. 2).
Appeal2017-010451
Application 14/684,884
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to the Specification, Appellant's invention relates to a
method and an apparatus for time-controlled activation of a vehicle function
in a vehicle with automatic adjustment of the time of a vehicle-internal clock
for example from standard time to daylight saving time. (Spec. ,r 2).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter, and is
reproduced below:
1. An apparatus for time-controlled activation of a vehicle function
in a vehicle, comprising:
a vehicle-internal clock configured for automatic adjustment due to a
time standard change;
an operator control element configured to enable manual user
selection of an activation instant;
an electronic control unit configured to:
receive the selected activation instant and a time of the vehicle-
internal clock, activate the vehicle function when the time of the
vehicle-internal clock corresponds to the activation instant,
determine that the received activation instant will first occur after an
expected automatic adjustment of the vehicle-internal clock due to
the time standard change, and
output a user perceptible indicator based on the determination.
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1-14 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over the combination of Andreas (DE 19756628 Al; July
01, 1999) in view of Takahashi (US 2015/0378315 Al; Dec. 31, 2015).
2
Appeal2017-010451
Application 14/684,884
The complete statement of the rejections appear in the Final Action.
(Final Act. 2-6).
We limit our discussion to independent claims 1, 6 and 11.
OPINION
The Examiner finds Andreas discloses all the features of claim 1
except an apparatus or method, wherein the electronic control unit outputs a
user perceptible indicator based on the determination ( of the time standard
change). (Final Act. 2-3). The Examiner finds Takahashi solves the
problem of providing automatic activation/ deactivation of a vehicle function
and activating/deactivating a vehicle function only when the user wants to.
(Final Act. 3). The Examiner concludes:
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was effectively filed to modify the device of
Andreas et al. to have a notification provided to the user when the user
activates the heater after switching from daylight savings time as
suggested by Takahashi because doing so prevents the user from
turning on the heater, when it would otherwise be beneficial to keep
the heater off ( e.g. during summer months).
(Final Act. 4).
Appellant argues Andreas fails to teach or disclose describe the act of
determining that the activation instant (i.e., the time its heater is scheduled to
go on) will first occur after an automatic change of the vehicle clock due to a
time standard change. Andreas is indeed unconcerned with determining
whether the heater, in the first instance of the schedule, will activate after a
"daylight" to "standard" change. (App. Br. 5). Appellant argues Andreas's
description of whether the heater is set to activate only in the winter months
3
Appeal2017-010451
Application 14/684,884
does not suggest actively determining that the first instance of the scheduled
heating will occur after an automatic change to the vehicle clock due to a
"daylight" to "standard" time change, or vice versa. (App. Br. 6). Appellant
argues Takahashi discloses a system in which a user can set a time period
(e.g., non-peak hours, or from 10:00 to 2:00, etc.) in which the vehicle will
permit a charging of its battery. (App. Br. 5). Appellant further argues if
Takahashi's charging window could qualify as an "activation instant," at no
time does the Takahashi actually determine that the first instance of its set
charging window will occur after an expected change to the vehicle's
internal clock due to a "daylight" to "standard" time change, or vice versa.
(App. Br. 6). Appellant further argues while Takahashi provides an
indication of setting the charge time, this indication is not based on a
determination that the charging window will first occur after the expected
time change. (App. Br. 6). For the above reasons, Appellant argues the
teachings of Andreas and Takahashi does not arrive at the subject matter of
determine that the first instance of its set charging window will occur after
an expected change to the vehicle's internal clock due to a "daylight" to
"standard" time change and provide notification to the user based upon this
determination as required by the independent claims 1, 6 and 11. (App. Br.
5---6).
In response to Appellant's argument, the Examiner states
[ t ]he broadest reasonable interpretation is not that the first occurrence
of the activation instant is after the expected automatic adjustment,
but rather it is the determination that the received activation instant
first occurs after the expected automatic adjustment. That is to say, the
limitations "first occur after" does not necessarily mean the vehicle
function cannot tum on prior to the expected automatic adjustment,
just that the first time the electronic control unit will determine this
4
Appeal2017-010451
Application 14/684,884
activation instant will occur after the expected automatic adjustment.
(Ans. 2).
We agree with Appellant that the combination of Andreas and
Takahashi fails to teach or suggest the claimed invention. Andreas teaches
the heater activates at the scheduled activation time and is not related to a
time-standard change clock adjustment. In other words, Andreas turns the
heater on according to a set schedule that is not dependent upon changing
from standard time to daylight saving time. Takahashi's user notification is
not based on a determination that the act of charging will first occur after a
time-standard change clock adjustment. Consequently, the combination of
Andreas and Takahashi fails to provide the act of determining that the
received activation instant will first occur after an expected automatic
adjustment of the vehicle-internal clock due to the time standard change and
output a perceptible indicator upon a determination by the control unit that
the activation instant first occurs after an expected automatic adjustment of
the vehicle-internal clock due to the time standard change as required by
independent claims 1, 6 and 11.
The Examiner's response (Ans. 3) that "[t]he claim does not
positively recite that the received activation instant will occur the day
immediately after the expected automatic adjustment, only that the
activation instant will occur after the expected automatic adjustment" does
not address the requirement for a user-perceptible indicator based on the
determination of the time standard change as specified by the independent
claims.
5
Appeal2017-010451
Application 14/684,884
For the foregoing reasons and those presented by Appellant we
reverse the appealed rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner's appealed rejection of claims 1-14 is reversed.
REVERSED
6