FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 15, 2021

2020005708 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2021)

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.
15/869,320 01/12/2018 Oliver Lei 83913793 7648
28395 7590 11/15/2021
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
FLEMING-HALL, ERICA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/15/2021 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
Ex parte OLIVER LEI and ALLEN R. MURRAY
Appeal 2020-005708
Application 15/869,320
Technology Center 2600
BEFORE MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–9 and 20. Claims 10–19 were
withdrawn from consideration by the Examiner. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-005708
Application 15/869,320
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 7 are illustrative of the claimed subject matter
(emphasis, formatting, and bracketed material added):
1. A system comprising:
[A.] a processor configured to:
[B.] determine that a vehicle is in a predefined power-
preservation state;
[C.] responsive to the power-preservation state, determine a
lowest transmit-power available cellular band for
vehicle telematics services;
[D.] disable all bands other than the lowest-power available
hand, responsive to determining the lowest transmit-
power band; and
[E.] use the lowest-power available band for vehicle
communication as long as the power-preservation state
persists.

7. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
[F.] receive a transmit request over the lowest-power available
band, for a file transfer;
[G.] determine that the file transfer request is suited for
processing over a currently disabled band; and
[H.] disable the lowest-power band and enable the currently
disabled band, for the duration of the file transfer,
responsive to the determination.
Appeal Br. (Claims Appendix 1, 2).
Appeal 2020-005708
Application 15/869,320
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Flick US 2002/0163450 A1 November 7, 2002
Walker et al. US 2012/0077433 A1 March 29, 2012
Schoppmeier US 2014/0154973 A1 June 5, 2014
Clevorn et al. US 2014/0220902 A1 August 7, 2014
Sumitomo et al. US 2017/0013559 A1 January 12, 2017
Ozawa US 2017/0164287 A1 June 8, 2017

REJECTIONS
A.
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 5, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Sumitomo, Clevorn, and Ozawa. Ans. 3–6.
We select claims 1 and 20 as the representative claims for this
rejection. The contentions discussed herein as to claims 1 and 20 are
dispositive as to this rejection. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision,
we do not address the merits of the § 103 rejection of claims 2, 3 and 5
further herein.
B.
The Examiner rejects claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Sumitomo, Clevorn, Ozawa, and Flick. Ans. 6–7.
The contentions discussed herein as to claim 1 are dispositive as to
this rejection. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not address
the merits of the § 103 rejection of claim 4 further herein.
C.
The Examiner rejects claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Sumitomo, Clevorn, Ozawa, and Schoppmeier. Ans. 7–8.
Appeal 2020-005708
Application 15/869,320
4
The contentions discussed herein as to claim 1 are dispositive as to
this rejection. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not address
the merits of the § 103 rejection of claim 6 further herein.
D.
The Examiner rejects claims 7–9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Sumitomo, Clevorn, Ozawa, and Walker. Ans. 8–10.
We select claim 7 as the representative claim for this rejection. The
contentions discussed herein as to claim 7 are dispositive as to this rejection.
Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of
the § 103 rejection of claims 8 and 9 further herein.
OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
A.
The Examiner found the combination of Sumitomo, Clevorn, and
Ozawa teaches or suggests, inter alia, limitations [C] and [D] of claim 1, as
referenced above in the “Claimed Subject Matter” section. See Ans. 3–6.
More specifically, Sumitomo discloses a telematics system for a vehicle,
where the vehicle includes a telematics control unit (“TCU”). See
Sumitomo ¶¶ 15–16, 31–32, Figs. 1, 2. As found by the Examiner,
Sumitomo further discloses that a main control unit of the TCU includes a
power saving mode executing unit that makes an operation mode shift to a
power saving mode (i.e., “sleep state”) in which power consumption of the
TCU “becomes minimum to suppress consumption of [a] battery when a
power source . . . of the [vehicle] has stopped.” See Ans. 3–4 (citing
Sumitomo ¶ 40). As further found by the Examiner (and uncontested by
Appeal 2020-005708
Application 15/869,320
5
Appellant), Sumitomo’s disclosure of shifting an operation mode of the TCU
to a power saving mode teaches disabling all cellular bands responsive to a
power-preservation state as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 4; see also Appeal
Br. 4.
Further, Clevorn discloses a radio communication device including an
antenna configured to operate in a plurality of operator modes and a
processor configured to switch an operation mode of the antenna. See
Clevorn ¶¶ 383, 412. As found by the Examiner, Clevorn further discloses
that the radio communication device (via the processor) selects (or switches
to) an antenna mode according to a lowest transmit power. See Ans. 4
(citing Clevorn ¶ 211). As further found by the Examiner, Clevorn’s
disclosure of selecting or switching to a lowest transmit power antenna mode
teaches determining a lowest transmit-power available cellular band and
disabling all bands other than the lowest-power available band responsive to
determining the lowest transmit power as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 4.
Regarding a rationale to combine Sumitomo and Clevorn, the
Examiner further found it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify Sumitomo’s
telematics system to determine a lowest-power available band and disable all
bands other than the lowest-power available band responsive to power-
preservation state, as taught by Clevorn, in order to achieve the specific
benefits associated with using the lowest-power available band as disclosed
by Clevorn (i.e., less interference in an uplink; more headroom towards a
max transmit power limit for degrading conditions; more headroom toward a
max transit power limit for additional throughput; and/or less power used
from the battery). See Ans. 4–5; see also Clevorn ¶¶ 213–217). As further
found by the Examiner, such a modification would merely apply a known
Appeal 2020-005708
Application 15/869,320
6
technique to a known device ready for improvement yielding no more than
predictable results. See Ans. 12.
Appellant argues the Examiner’s modification of Sumitomo’s
telematics system to include the feature of selecting or switching to a lowest
transmit power antenna mode taught by Clevorn would defeat the express
goal taught by Sumitomo (i.e., minimum power usage upon preservation
state engagement). See Appeal Br. 4–5. This argument is not persuasive as
we do not agree with Appellant’s contention that Sumitomo expressly states
a goal of eliminating all power usage during a power saving mode. Further,
Appellant’s argument does not address the Examiner’s rationale for
combining the references as discussed above, and we agree with the
Examiner’s statement that:
the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be
expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather,
the test is what the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art
Ans. 12 (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981)).
Appellant also argues Clevorn’s radio communication device does not
select (or switch to) a lowest transmit power antenna mode responsive to a
power preservation state. See Appeal Br. 5. This argument is not persuasive
either because it addresses Clevorn individually rather than the combination
of Sumitomo and Clevorn, where the Examiner relied upon Sumitomo for
teaching the disabling of cellular bands responsive to a power-preservation
state. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
(one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually
when the rejection is based on a combination of references).
Appeal 2020-005708
Application 15/869,320
7
Appellant further argues Clevorn’s radio communication device
merely uses a constantly known lowest transmit power mode rather than
determining a cellular band based on the band having the lowest transmit
power. See Appeal Br. 5. This argument is not persuasive as well, as we
agree with the Examiner that Clevorn expressly teaches selecting an antenna
mode which yields the lowest transmit power. See Ans. 11 (citing Clevorn
¶ 211).
We have considered Appellant’s other arguments and we do not find
them persuasive either. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 1.
B.
Claim 20 recites, inter alia, “responsive to detecting a vehicle power-
preservation state, disabling all available cellular band connections except
for a currently available cellular band connection determined to require the
lowest power usage of the all available cellular band connections.” The
Examiner indicated that is findings regarding claim 1 apply equally to claim
20. See Ans. 3–6.
Appellant argues Clevorn discloses an antenna mode having the
lowest transmit power and further discloses that transmit power and receive
power is different; thus, according to Appellant, there is no assurance that an
antenna mode having the lowest transmit power corresponds to a cellular
band having the lowest power usage. See Appeal Br. 7. We are not
persuaded by this argument. Because Clevorn is silent to the amount of the
receive power, the lowest transmit power can also be the lowest total power.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Clevorn teaches or suggests “the
lowest power usage of the all available cellular band connections.”
Therefore, we also affirm the rejection of claim 20.
C.
Appeal 2020-005708
Application 15/869,320
8
The Examiner found the combination of Sumitomo, Clevorn, Ozawa,
and Walker teaches or suggests, inter alia, limitations [G] and [H] of claim
7, as referenced above in the “Claimed Subject Matter” section. See Ans. 8–
9. More specifically, the Examiner found Walker discloses a
communication system that includes a plurality of electronic devices
configured to wirelessly communicate via a near-field communication
(“NFC”) format and at least one other wireless communications format. See
Ans. 9; see also Walker at Abstract. As further found by the Examiner,
Walker additionally discloses that a first electronic device has an NFC
transfer parameter associated therewith, designates data to be transferred to
the second electronic device, and determines whether the designated data
complies with the NFC parameter based upon a size of the designated data.
See Ans. 9 (citing Walker ¶¶ 9–10). Walker further discloses that the first
electronic device is configured to transfer at least some of the designed data
to the second electronic device via the NFC link based on a determination
that the designated data complies with the NFC transfer parameter. See
Ans. 9 (citing Walker ¶ 9). Walker similarly discloses that the first
electronic device is configured to transfer at least some of the designated
data to the second electronic device over a separate wireless
communications link using at least one other wireless communications
format based on a determination that the designated data fails to comply
with the NFC transfer parameter. See Ans. 9 (citing Walker ¶ 9).
Appellant argues Walker fails to teach or suggest limitations [G] and
[H] of claim 7, as referenced above in the “Claimed Subject Matter” section.
See Appeal Br. 9. More specifically, as argued by Appellant, Walker’s
choice to send designated data over an NFC link or a separate wireless
communication link is not the same as determining “a currently disabled
Appeal 2020-005708
Application 15/869,320
9
band,” as recited in claim 7. See id. Further, as argued by Appellant,
Walker fails to teach or suggest disabling the NFC link for a duration of a
file transfer when the separate wireless communication link is selected, and
thus, Walker fails to teach or suggest “[disabling] the lowest-power band,”
as also recited in claim 7. See id. We find these arguments persuasive and
we note the Examiner does not address these arguments in the Examiner’s
Answer. See generally Ans.; see also Reply Br. 3. Thus, we reverse the
rejection of claim 7.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1–6 and 20 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 7–9 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–6 and 20 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 7–9 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Appeal 2020-005708
Application 15/869,320
10
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 20 103 Sumitomo,
Clevorn, Ozawa
1–3, 5, 20
4 103 Sumitomo,
Clevorn, Ozawa,
Flick
4
6 103 Sumitomo,
Clevorn, Ozawa,
Schoppmeier
6
7–9 103 Sumitomo,
Clevorn, Ozawa,
Walker
7–9
Overall
Outcome
1–6, 20 7–9

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART