Ex Parte Ng et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 18, 2013

11747808 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 18, 2013)

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. 11/747,808 05/11/2007 Brian Ng 11150/95A 5219 26646 7590 07/18/2013 KENYON & KENYON LLP ONE BROADWAY NEW YORK, NY 10004 EXAMINER ALGAHAIM, HELAL A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3665 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/18/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte BRIAN NG, DANIEL ROSARIO, THOMAS CHAN, and ARNE STOSCHEK ____________________ Appeal 2011-007352 Application 11/747,808 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and THOMAS F. SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-007352 Application 11/747,808 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-14.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The rejected claims are directed to a motor vehicle that includes a navigation system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim. 1. A motor vehicle, comprising: a wireless Internet interface configured to receive a position and a route of another motor vehicle; and a display device configured to represent the position and the route of the other motor vehicle in a map representation. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects the claims as follows: Claims 1-8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Haegebarth (US 2006/0161341 Al, pub. Jul. 20, 2006); and claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Haegebarth in view of Kamei (US 6,826,472 B1, iss. Nov. 30, 2004). 1 Our decision will refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed May 11, 2007), Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed September 28, 2010), and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed January 4, 2011), as well as the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed November 9, 2010). Appeal 2011-007352 Application 11/747,808 3 ANALYSIS With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants argue Haegebarth does not teach the limitations “a wireless Internet interface configured to receive a position and a route of another motor vehicle” and “a display device configured to represent the position and the route of the other motor vehicle in a map representation” (App. Br. 3-5, Reply Br. 1-4). Specifically, Appellants argue claim 1 requires actually receiving and displaying a route of another vehicle, and that Haegebarth does not teach these limitations. For the below reasons, we disagree with Appellants. Even assuming arguendo that Haegebarth does not teach actually receiving and displaying a route, however, Appellants still have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in the rejection of claim 1. The Examiner states that paragraphs [0008] and [0055] of Haegebarth, which describe a communication unit coupled to a navigation unit in each vehicle, teach a wireless interface receiving a position and a route of another vehicle (Ans. 3). We agree with the Examiner, as paragraph [0008] describes these units as determining geographical position data for the master and slave vehicles, communicating the position data to data processing units that compute a route of the master vehicle, and communicating the route of the master vehicle to the slave vehicles. Further, even if Haegebarth did not teach a wireless interface receiving a position and a route of another vehicle, Haegebarth need only teach that the coupled communication and navigation units may be configured to receive this information. Appellants have not provided any evidence or reasoning as to why the communication and navigation units of Haegebarth would be unable to receive a position and a route of another vehicle. Appeal 2011-007352 Application 11/747,808 4 The Examiner states that paragraph [0016] and claim 2 of Haegebarth, which describe displaying the positions of the master and slave vehicles on an electronic display, teach a display device displaying a position and a route of another vehicle (Ans. 3). We agree with this statement, as well as with the Examiner’s further statement that “[t]he display of the positions . . . of the master vehicle as it moves over[]time represents a route of the master vehicle” (Ans. 6). Further, even if Haegebarth did not teach a display displaying a position and a route of another vehicle, Haegebarth need only teach that the display may be configured to display this information. Appellants have not provided any evidence or reasoning as to why the display of Haegebarth would be unable to display a position and a route of another vehicle. In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1. Appellants do not submit separate arguments for claims 2-14, which depend from claim 1. Thus, we also sustain the rejections of the dependent claims. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-14 are AFFIRMED. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Klh