Ex Parte SPAHL et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 11, 2019

14302195 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/302,195 06/11/2014
28395 7590 03/13/2019
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert SPAHL
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.
83438742 5298
EXAMINER
SUBEDI, DEEPROSE D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/13/2019 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
Exparte ROBERT SPAHL and GARETH CHENNELLS
Appeal2018-000667
Application 14/302, 195 1
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, STACEY G. WHITE, and SCOTT B. HOW ARD,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 12, 15, 19--21, and 23-25, which constitute all of the claims
pending in this application. Claims 1-11, 13, 14, 16-18, and 22 have been
cancelled. App. Br. A-l-A-2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Ford Global Technologies, LLC as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-000667
Application 14/302, 195
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed "to an in-vehicle
multimedia unit for a motor vehicle having an interface for a portable
multimedia appliance." Spec. ,r 2.
Claim 12, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
12. A multimedia unit for a motor vehicle comprising:
a magnetic induction interface;
a radio-frequency interface;
a wired interface connectable with a vehicle loudspeaker;
a first user control interface arranged remotely from the
other interfaces and connected with a manually actuable button
inside the vehicle; and
an interface hub interconnecting the interfaces to initiate
connection with a portable multimedia appliance via the
magnetic induction interface, enable control of functions and
content of the appliance using a touch display of the appliance,
play audio output of the appliance on the vehicle loudspeaker
via the radio-frequency interface, and enable control of the
appliance using the button.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Griffin
BenAyed
Varela
Gueorguiev
Fullam
US 2011/0070829 Al Mar. 24, 2011
US 2011/0215921 Al Sept. 8, 2011
US 2012/0172087 Al July 5, 2012
US 2014/0028565 Al Jan. 30, 2014
US 2014/0347565 Al Nov. 27, 2014
REJECTIONS
Claims 12, 15, 19--21, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Varela in view of Griffin. Final Act. 4--11.
2
Appeal2018-000667
Application 14/302, 195
Claim 242 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Varela in view of Griffin and Ben Ayed. Final Act. 11-
12.
Claim 25 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Varela in view of Griffin, Ben Ayed, Fullam, and
Gueorguiev. Final Act 12-13.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments regarding claims 12, 15,
19-21, and 23-25.
The Examiner finds Varela teaches all of the limitations recited in
claim 12 except for "the magnetic induction interface" and that the interface
hub interconnects the interfaces "to initiate connection with a portable
multimedia appliance via the magnetic induction interface." Final Act. 4--5.
The Examiner further finds Griffin teaches those limitations. Id. at 5 ( citing
Griffin Figs. 1-8). Specifically, the Examiner finds Griffin teaches making
a connection between two devices using a near field communication
2 Although the heading states that claims 24 and 25 are rejected over this
combination of prior art, the body of the rejection only addresses claims 24.
See Final Act. 11-12. We treat the identification of the claims in the
heading as a typographical error.
3 Although the heading states that claims 24 and 25 are rejected over this
combination of prior art, the body of the rejection only addresses claims 25.
See Final Act. 12-13. We treat the identification of the claims in the
heading as a typographical error.
3
Appeal2018-000667
Application 14/302, 195
("NFC") subsystem, which is a magnetic induction interface. Id. ( citing
Griffin Figs. 1-8); see also Ans. 3 ("Communications protocol data for a
wireless connection, such as the Bluetooth connection can be obtained based
on data received using the NFC connection.") ( emphasis omitted).
The Examiner further finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have replaced the wired coupling used in Varela with the NFC
technology used in Griffin. Final Act. 6. Specifically, the Examiner finds
that a a person of ordinary skill in the art would have "substituted" the NFC
technology taught by Griffin for the wires used by Varela in order "to do
away with the classic USE/wired/cables based connection[s]". Ans. 4
(citing Griffin ,r 30).
The Examiner also finds that Varela does not teach or suggest that an
NFC interface cannot be used. See Ans. 5-7. Specifically, the Examiner
finds that although an object of Varela is to provide a robust audio link for a
motor vehicle, "nowhere in Varela [is it] inherently or expressly suggested
that an NFC interface (magnetic/loop coil based) connection cannot/should
not be established in (Varela's) architecture, such as FIG.2." Id. at 5
( emphasis omitted). The Examiner further finds that "Varela neither
disparages nor limits the combination of NFC technology in the architecture
of FIG. 2." Id. at 6. The Examiner further notes that Appellants do not
provide any evidence in support of its argument that the references cannot be
combined. Id. ("Similarly, appellant also does not provide any evidence in
the record that NFC interface cannot be used in Varela's architecture of
FIG. 2.") (emphasis omitted); see also id. at 7 (noting that Appellants'
arguments are "mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements, which
are unsupported by factual evidence").
4
Appeal2018-000667
Application 14/302, 195
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Varela teaches or
suggests using Griffin's NFC and/or Bluetooth technology as a substitute for
Varela's wired coupling link. See App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 1-3.
Specifically, Appellants argue that the object of Varela "is to provide an
audio link particularly robust to external disturbances, of which it is well
known that it is particularly difficult to protect from in the environment of a
motor vehicle." App. Br. 8 (quoting Varela ,r 14); see also id. at 8-9
("Varela further states in paragraph 65 that the proposed wired link solution
is 'particularly robust to the external disturbances of the audio signals, even
with reduced diameter cable."'). Therefore, according to Appellants,
"Varela lacks support for the alleged modification of a wired link of Varela
with a Hall Effect sensor-enabled NFC of Griffin. Indeed, such a
modification would run contrary to the self-stated objective of Varela by
introducing another connection path and making the system more, not less,
complex." Id. at 9 (citing Varela ,r,r 6-12, 10, 12, 30-32).
In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the
Supreme Court held that "if a technique has been used to improve one
device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill." 550 U.S. at 417.
The two prior art references relied on by the Examiner each use a different
way of transmitting data from one device to another-a wire in Varela and
NFC technology in Griffin. See Varella Fig. 2, ,r 44; Griffin ,r,r 4, 30. We
do not find that the evidence shows that replacing the wires of Varela with
the NFC of Griffin would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for
one of ordinary skill in the art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
5
Appeal2018-000667
Application 14/302, 195
485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner's erred in finding a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references.
Instead, we agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have modified Varela to use NFC technology in order to get the
advantages of wireless connections.
Nor do we agree with Appellants that Varela discourages using a
wireless connection, such as NFC technology. Although Varela states that
"[a]nother object of the invention is to provide an audio link particularly
robust to external disturbances, of which it is well known that it is
particularly difficult to protect from in the environment of a motor vehicle,"
(Varela ,r 14), Appellants have not directed us to any evidence that a
wireless link, such as that taught in Griffin, would be subject to external
disturbances. It is well settled that mere attorney arguments and conclusory
statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little
probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see
also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (attorney argument is
not evidence).
Moreover, contrary to Appellants' arguments, Varela explicitly
teaches using Bluetooth wireless technology to link portable phone 28 with
microcontroller 18. See Varela ,r 37, Fig. 2. In light ofVarela's explicit use
of wireless technology, we are not persuaded that NFC technology cannot be
used to achieve the purpose of Varela.
Additionally, Appellants argue in the Reply Brief that Griffin
paragraph 30--relied on by the Examiner for the reason to combine the
references-"fail[ s] to even mention alleged 'benefits' let alone call for
6
Appeal2018-000667
Application 14/302, 195
doing away with wired connections, as the Office suggests." Reply Br. 2.
However, because Appellants did not raise that argument in the opening
brief and good cause has not been shown why it should be considered, we
will not consider this argument. 37 C.F.R. §41.41(b)(2); Ex parte Borden,
93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI2010) (Informative) ("[T]hereplybrief[is
not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the
principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner's rejections, but were not.").
But even if we did consider the argument, it is not persuasive.
Contrary to Appellants' argument, Griffin paragraph 30 discusses the
advantages of NFC technology. Specifically, Griffin teaches that NFC
technology allows for wireless data transmission over short distances. See
Griffin ,r 30. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
incorporated Griffin's NFC technology to replace the wire used with Varela.
See Ans. 4; Varela ,r 13 ("The object of the invention is to .... limit[] the
number and size of visible cables emerging from the dashboard.").
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 12, along
with the rejections of claims 19 and 20, for which Appellant relies on the
same arguments as discussed above for claim 12 (App. Br. 9), and dependent
claims 15, 21, and 23, which are not argued separately (id. at 9--10).
With respect to dependent claims 24 and 25, Appellants merely
contend that the claims "are in condition for allowance at least because they
depend from ... independent claim[] 12 ... and are, thus, patentable for at
least similar reasons." Id. at 10. Because we determine that the rejection of
claim 12 is not erroneous for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the
rejections of these claims.
7
Appeal2018-000667
Application 14/302, 195
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's decisions rejecting
claims 12, 15, 19--21, and23-25.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
8