Ex Parte Samolinski et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 11, 201411967347 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 2014) 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. 11/967,347 12/31/2007 Steven J. Samolinski P001171-OST-ALS 6809 60770 7590 06/11/2014 General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. P.O. BOX 4390 TROY, MI 48099-4390 EXAMINER ARAQUE JR, GERARDO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3689 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/11/2014 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 1 ___________ 2 3 BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD 4 ___________ 5 6 Ex parte STEVEN J. SAMOLINSKI, MICHAEL MATEN, 7 JOHN J. CORREIA, and KELLEY J. KETTENBEIL 8 ___________ 9 10 Appeal 2012-001793 11 Application 11/967,347 12 Technology Center 3600 13 ___________ 14 15 16 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and 17 MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges. 18 FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 19 DECISION ON APPEAL 20 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 21 Steven J. Samolinski, Michael Maten, John J. Correia, and Kelley J. 22 Kettenbeil (Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final 23 rejection of claims 1-17, the only claims pending in the application on 24 appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 25 The Appellants invented systems and methods for providing subscribers 26 of vehicle telematics services with diagnostic and maintenance information 27 for their vehicle (Spec., para. [0001]). 28 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed June 20, 2011) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed October 31, 2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed August 29, 2011), and Final Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed January 18, 2011). Appeal 2012-001793 Application 11/967,347 2 An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 1 exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some 2 paragraphing added]. 3 1. A method of providing enhanced diagnostic and 4 maintenance reporting for a vehicle over a wireless 5 communications system, wherein the vehicle includes a 6 telematics unit installed on the vehicle that communicates 7 electronically with various vehicle system modules to receive 8 vehicle data from the vehicle system modules, the method 9 comprising the steps of: 10 [a] receiving a telephone call from a caller requesting 11 vehicle operational condition assistance, wherein the telephone 12 call includes at least a portion of the call in which the caller 13 speaks with an advisor at a call center; 14 [b] retrieving operational condition data that includes 15 diagnostic data associated with the caller's request, wherein the 16 retrieval of operational condition data includes sending the 17 diagnostic data from the vehicle to a central facility via the 18 telematics unit; 19 [c] retrieving additional data relating to vehicle 20 maintenance by sending the additional data from the vehicle to 21 the central facility via the telematics unit; 22 [d] providing a verbal response to the caller over the 23 telephone call based on the retrieved diagnostic data; and 24 [e] providing additional maintenance information to the 25 caller based on the retrieved additional data. 26 The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 27 McCutchen US 2007/0173992 A1 Jul. 26, 2007 28 Claims 1-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 29 over McCutchen. 30 Appeal 2012-001793 Application 11/967,347 3 ISSUES 1 The question of the obviousness of claim 1 turns on whether it would be 2 within the common experience of one skilled in the art to receive a verbal 3 response during a telephone call requesting assistance. 4 The question of the obviousness of claim 13 turns on whether it would 5 be within the common experience of one skilled in the art to have a 6 telephone call for assistance involve being connected to an advisor in 7 addition to the advisor who first receives the call. 8 The question of the obviousness of claim 14 turns on whether it would 9 be within the understanding of the skilled artisan to employ voice/data 10 multiplexing in order to switch communication back and forth between 11 voice and data modes on a telephone call capable of transmitting both voice 12 and data. 13 FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 14 The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 15 supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 16 Facts Related to the Prior Art 17 McCutchen 18 01. McCutchen is directed to techniques for wirelessly collecting 19 vehicle information and providing that information to the vehicle 20 owner or other authorized person. (McCutchen, para. [0002]). 21 02. McCutchen discloses in background: 22 [N]avigation and emergency assistance services can be obtained 23 by voice communication with an advisor at the call center. 24 Monitoring of vehicle operating conditions by the call center is 25 also possible via the telematics device. For example, an air bag 26 deployment event can be automatically reported to the call 27 Appeal 2012-001793 Application 11/967,347 4 center where it triggers a return call to the vehicle from a live 1 advisor to determine if emergency services are needed. Other 2 vehicle data such as diagnostic trouble codes (DTCs) can 3 similarly be reported to the call center. 4 (McCutchen, para. [0003]). 5 03. McCutchen discloses “a graphical indicator such as a green, 6 yellow, or red graphic that indicates whether some action is 7 required to address one or more of the vehicle conditions and 8 possibly the importance or severity of the vehicle condition.” 9 (McCutchen, para. [0028]). 10 04. McCutchen discloses two categories of data in the vehicle: 11 diagnostic and maintenance. (McCutchen, para. [0029]). 12 05. McCutchen discloses a vehicle communicating data with a central 13 facility. (McCutchen, para. [0031]). 14 06. McCutchen discloses storing data from a vehicle in a central 15 database for later retrieval by an advisor. (McCutchen, para. 16 [0037]). 17 07. McCutchen discloses a vehicle-based “unit provides 18 communication and interactivity with the driver and with various 19 remote locations including the VDU 160, WAS center 170, and 20 the dealer service center 180.” (McCutchen, para. [0038]). 21 08. McCutchen discloses vehicle-based communications module 122 22 provides both voice and data communications with a central 23 facility that “allows data communication with at least the VDU 24 160, as well as voice and, if desired, data communications with 25 the WAS center 170 and dealer 180.” (McCutchen, para. [0041]). 26 Appeal 2012-001793 Application 11/967,347 5 09. McCutchen discloses centrally-located live advisors who handle 1 calls from vehicles, providing “remote live assistance in 2 connection with in-vehicle safety and security systems.” 3 (McCutchen, para. [0047]). 4 10. McCutchen discloses voice messages from the central facility to 5 the vehicle driver. (McCutchen, para. [0084]). 6 ANALYSIS 7 Claims 1-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 8 McCutchen 9 We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that McCutchen fails to 10 disclose “on-demand verbal responses from a call center involving 11 diagnostic and/or maintenance data” because McCutchen discloses a phone 12 call to enroll. (App. Br. 8-9, Reply Br. 3-4). McCutchen discloses in 13 background that services which provide a verbal response to a caller over the 14 telephone call based on received vehicle diagnostic data are commonplace. 15 (FF 022). McCutchen discloses communicating data in vehicles to central 16 facilities which receive and store the data (FF 045-0808), and provide “live 17 advisors” and “voice messages” to vehicle drivers (FF 09, 10). One of 18 ordinary skill would recognize that calling a live advisor would lead to some 19 sort of verbal response from that advisor. “In many fields it may be that 20 there is little discussion of obvious techniques or combinations, and it often 21 may be the case that market demand, rather than scientific literature, will 22 drive design trends.” KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 23 (2007). “Granting patent protection to advances that would occur in the 24 ordinary course without real innovation retards progress and may, in the case 25 Appeal 2012-001793 Application 11/967,347 6 of patents combining previously known elements, deprive prior inventions 1 of their value or utility.” Id. at 419. 2 For these reasons, we affirm the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of 3 claim 1, and dependent claims 2-12 that are not separately argued. (App. Br. 4 15). 5 Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 6 McCutchen 7 We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that McCutchen fails to 8 disclose retrieving “operational condition data associated with a caller’s 9 request during the telephone call.” (App. Br. 10-11). McCutchen discloses 10 reporting vehicle data to a central facility (FF 025, 058), storing the vehicle 11 data centrally (FF 066), and voice-and-data calls (FF08) with “live advisors” 12 to provide assistance “in connection with in-vehicle safety and security 13 systems.” (FF09). One of ordinary skill would understand the small leap 14 from what is disclosed in McCutchen to the claimed invention. In making 15 the obviousness determination one “can take account of the inferences and 16 creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 17 550 U.S. at 418. 18 We also are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that McCutchen 19 fails to disclose communicating data via a verbal call for assistance (App. 20 Br. 11), because McCutchen discloses voice and data communicated during 21 a single call. (FF08). 22 In addition, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that 23 McCutchen fails to disclose connecting a caller to a second, different 24 advisor. (App. Br. 12-13). McCutchen discloses “communication with 25 WAS center 170 and dealer 180.” (FF08). It is the common experience of 26 Appeal 2012-001793 Application 11/967,347 7 nearly everyone that has ever called for assistance, that occasionally an 1 additional person must be brought onto the call where the person receiving 2 the call has insufficient knowledge or capacity to resolve the issue presented. 3 This is not speculation; it is shared experience in such call-for-assistance 4 situations. Therefore, the feature of “connecting the caller to a second, 5 different advisor” represents an aspect “that would occur in the ordinary 6 course without real innovation . . .” and is an obvious improvement. KSR, 7 550 U.S. at 419. 8 For these reasons, we affirm the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of 9 claim 13. 10 Claims 14-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 11 McCutchen 12 We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that McCutchen fails to 13 disclose “high/low processing capabilities and their relationship to voice and 14 data modes.” (App. Br. 14). McCutchen discloses both voice and data 15 communications over a wireless call (FF08). One of ordinary skill in the art 16 at the time of the invention would recognize that sharing voice and data 17 services over a single communications link is often implemented with 18 voice/data multiplexing techniques, which meet the claim language of “the 19 telephone call is switched from a voice mode to a data mode, the at least one 20 computer obtains the operational condition data, the telephone call is 21 switched back to the voice mode.” 22 For these reasons, we affirm the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of 23 claim 14, and dependent claims 15-17 that are not separately argued. (App. 24 Br. 15). 25 Appeal 2012-001793 Application 11/967,347 8 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 The rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 2 over McCutchen is proper. 3 DECISION 4 The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-17 is affirmed. 5 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this 6 appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. 7 § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011). 8 9 AFFIRMED 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 mls 17 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation