Ex Parte NG et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 14, 2019

14264779 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/264,779 04/29/2014 60601 7590 02/15/2019 Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C. 4000 Legato Road Suite 310 Fairfax, VA 22033 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Brian NG 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. 1000/0141PUS3 2424 EXAMINER EVANS, GARRETT F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3663 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/15/2019 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, ANNA KORINA LOUMIDI, FILIP CHUDZINSKI, and HENDRIK FRANK 1 Appeal 2018-004538 Application 14/264,779 Technology Center 3600 Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 of the final rejection of claims 1, 4--7, 9--11, 13-19, and 21 which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants identifies Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft and Audi AG, as the real party in interest (App. Br. 2). Appeal 2018-004538 Application 14/264, 779 THE INVENTION The Appellants' claimed invention is directed to vehicle onboard methods and systems for comparing vehicle trip data to saved vehicle trip data in real time (Spec., 003). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method comprising: connecting a mobile user device to an in-vehicle navigation system; transmitting and receiving data from the mobile user device to the in-vehicle system and from the in-vehicle system to the mobile user device, including transmitting from the in-vehicle navigation system to the mobile device a record of a previous conducted vehicle trip, the record comprising vehicle trip information for the previous conducted vehicle trip; recording vehicle information for a current vehicle trip and transmitting the vehicle information for the current vehicle trip from the in-vehicle system to the mobile user device; comparing, on the mobile user device, the vehicle information for the current vehicle trip to the vehicle trip information for the previous conducted vehicle trip; and displaying a result of said comparing on the user device and the in-vehicle navigation system, wherein said comparing is conducted on the mobile user device in real time during the current vehicle trip, wherein the vehicle trip information comprises duration, distance, and fuel consumption, and wherein a user is able to interact with the result using the in- vehicle navigation system and the mobile user device. THE REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 1, 4---6, 11, 14, 15, 17-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Forstall, (US 2009/0005070 Al, pub. 2 Appeal 2018-004538 Application 14/264, 779 Jan. 1, 2009), Miura (US 2012/0035843 Al, pub. Feb. 9, 2012), and Barrett et al. (US 2014/0118222 Al, pub. May 1, 2014). 2. Claims 7, 9, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Forstall, Miura, Barrett, and Graf (Graf et al., US 2005/0251307 Al, pub. Nov. 10, 2005). FINDINGS OF FACT We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence. 2 ANALYSIS Rejection under 35 USCÂ§ 103(a) The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because the cited prior art fails to disclose the claim limitations requiring: [ 1] comparing, on the mobile user device, the vehicle information for the current vehicle trip to the vehicle trip information for the previous conducted vehicle trip; [and] [2] wherein a user is able to interact with the result using the in- vehicle navigation system and the mobile user device. (App. Br. 7-9, Reply Br. 2--4). In contrast the Examiner has determined that the rejection is record is proper (Ans. 3, 4). The Examiner asserts that the above argued claim limitations are shown in the combination by Forstall at Figure 2; Miura at 2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ( explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). 3 Appeal 2018-004538 Application 14/264, 779 Figures 5 (SC12, SC13, SC14), 17, 18A and 18B, paragraphs 148-151; and Barrett at paragraphs 35-37 (Ans. 3, 4). We agree with the Examiner. Forstall has disclosed a method of synchronizing mobile and vehicle devices (Title). Forstall in Figure 9 discloses that information from the vehicle is compared to information stored in the mobile device. The Appellants at page 8 of the Appeal Brief argue that Forstall does not compare trip information but the rejection relies on Miura to disclose that. Here, Miura at paragraph 148 discloses for example storing identifying fuel consumption for past travel for a travel route. Miura at paragraph 149 discloses identifying the best previous fuel consumption for previous travel corresponding to the departing point and the current travel destination of the vehicle. Thus the cited prior art discloses the argued claim limitation [ 1]. Claim limitation [2] requires that a "user is able to interact with the result using the in-vehicle navigation system and the mobile user device". Miura in Fig. 7 A and 8 shows a user able to interact with fuel consumption display. Miura at paragraph 50 also discloses a touch panel display 40. Barrett at paragraph 35 discloses that a user can control the display of data on a display device associated with the remote device and is therefore able to "interact" with the system in the manner in the cited combination as claimed. Thus, the cited combination shows the user able to interact with both the in- vehicle navigation system and display in the cited combination. The Appellants argue in the Reply Brief at page 3 that Barrett fails to disclose interacting with the "in-vehicle" device but this has been disclosed in the cited combination by Miura as noted above. Appellants' arguments attack references individually, when the rejections are over a combination of 4 Appeal 2018-004538 Application 14/264, 779 references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,426 (CCPA 1981) ("one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references"). As the argued claim limitations have been shown in the prior art, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. The Appellants' have provided the same arguments for the remaining claims and the rejection of these claims is sustained as well. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 4---6, 11, 14, 15, 17-19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Forstall, Miura, and Barrett We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 7, 9, 10, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Forstall, Miura, Barrett, and Graf. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4--7, 9-11, 13-19, and 21 is sustained. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED 5