Len Cech

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 27, 2020

14099260 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2020)

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. 14/099,260 12/06/2013 Len CECH TKHDE-1109606 1039 27111 7590 03/27/2020 GORDON & REES LLP 101 WEST BROADWAY SUITE 1600 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 EXAMINER LU, ZHIYU ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2669 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/27/2020 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): ipdocket@gordonrees.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LEN CECH Appeal 2018-008914 Application 14/099,260 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BETH Z. SHAW, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 8–13, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 21–27. See Non-Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as TK Holdings Inc. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2018-008914 Application 14/099,260 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a system and method for automated network pairing using electric field coupling. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, with disputed limitations in italics: 1. A system to electronically couple an electronic device, located in proximity to an occupant of a vehicle, to a vehicle communications network located in the vehicle, the system comprising: a sensing electrode located in the vehicle proximate to the occupant; and support electronics located in the vehicle and including a sensor circuit configured to provide a signal having a particular frequency and power to the sensing electrode to thereby create an electric field proximate to the person, wherein the signal contains particular information; wherein the electronic device is configured to detect the presence of the signal provided to the sensing electrode and conducted through the occupant; wherein the electronic device is configured to electronically couple to the vehicle communications network upon detecting the signal; and wherein the electronic device is configured to electrically couple to the vehicle communications network via a wireless signal and after completion of a security process required by the vehicle communications network that includes using the particular information contained within the signal to satisfy an identification process that ensures that the electronic device is authorized to be connected to the vehicle communications network. Appeal 2018-008914 Application 14/099,260 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Arndt US 2010/0069001 A1 Mar. 18, 2010 Cavalcanti US 2010/0272076 A1 Oct. 28, 2010 Tibbitts US 2011/0021234 A1 Jan. 27, 2011 Lim US 2011/0153118 A1 June 23, 2011 Fyke US 2012/0088446 A1 Apr. 12, 2012 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4, 10–13, 15, and 22–24 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tibbitts and Arndt. Non-Final Act. 3. Claim 9 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tibbitts, Arndt, and Lim. Non-Final Act. 7. Claims 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tibbitts, Arndt, and Fyke. Non-Final Act. 7. Claims 25–27 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tibbitts, Arndt, and Cavalcanti. Non-Final Act. 9. OPINION Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. In particular, Appellant argues the Examiner erred because neither Tibbitts nor Arndt, individually or in combination, teaches or suggests: an electronic device that is “configured to detect the presence of the signal provided to the sensing electrode and conducted through the occupant . . . [and] . . . the electronic device is configured to electronically couple to the vehicle Appeal 2018-008914 Application 14/099,260 4 communications network upon detecting the signal.” Appeal Br. 6 (alteration in original). Similarly, claims 10 and 15 require an electronic device that is configured to detect a presence of a signal (and predetermined information) provided to the electrode “and conducted through the occupant” and wherein the electronic device is configured to automatically initiate a pairing process or electronically couple with the vehicle communications network upon detecting the signal. Id. We find Appellant’s arguments persuasive for the following reasons. In the Non-Final Rejection, the Examiner relies on Tibbitts and Arndt to teach the limitations of claim 1. In the Non-Final Rejection, the Examiner states: Tibbitts do[es] not expressly disclose the sensing a sensing electrode located in the vehicle proximate to the occupant; support electronics located in the vehicle and including a sensor circuit configured to provide a signal having a particular frequency and power to the sensing electrode to thereby create an electric field proximate to the person, wherein the signal contains particular information; wherein the electronic device is configured to detect the presence of the signal provided to the sensing electrode and conducted through the occupant; wherein the electronic device is configured to electronically couple to the vehicle communications network upon detecting the signal; and the security process required by the vehicle communications network that includes using the particular information contained within the signal to satisfy an identification process that ensures that the electronic device is authorized to be connected to the vehicle communications network. Non-Final Act. 3–4 (emphasis added). The Examiner relies on Arndt to teach the above noted limitations in the Non-Final Rejection. Id. In the Answer, however, the Examiner states: Appeal 2018-008914 Application 14/099,260 5 Yet, argued “support electronics or signal generator” is obviously taught by Tibbit[t]s. Tibbit[t]s does teach applicable features/techniques, such as using in-vehicle device to generate a command signal and transmit to a mobile device in proximity (paragraphs 0051, 0059, obviously an electrode/radiator/ antenna and a signal generator/support electronics are embedded in vehicle for sending said command signal to the mobile device) and using human body conduction for presence detection of both occupant and mobile device (paragraph 0125). Ans. 11. On this record, we are unable to understand the Examiner’s mapping of Tibbitts’ teachings to the disputed limitations. For example, as Appellant argues (Reply Br. 2), the Examiner refers to paragraph 125 of Tibbitts (Ans. 11) as teaching human body conduction for detecting the presence of the mobile device proximate to the driver of the vehicle. However, on this record, the Examiner does not sufficiently explain how paragraph 125 or the other cited paragraphs of Tibbitts teach or suggest “particular information contained within the signal [conducted through the occupant] to satisfy an identification process that ensures that the electronic device is authorized to be connected to the vehicle communications network,” as recited in claim 1. Claim 1 requires that “support electronics” provide a signal “having a particular frequency and power” and containing “particular information” to the “sensing electrode” to thereby create an electric field, and that: the electronic device is configured to electrically couple to the vehicle communications network via a wireless signal and after completion of a security process required by the vehicle communications network that includes using the particular information contained within the signal to satisfy an identification process that ensures that the electronic device is authorized to be connected to the vehicle communications network. Appeal 2018-008914 Application 14/099,260 6 Claims App’x (emphasis added). Even assuming without deciding that Tibbitts teaches support electronics providing a signal to a sensing electrode, the record does not sufficiently explain how Tibbitts’ creation of an electrostatic connection teaches the claimed “signal” containing the “particular information” recited in the claim. Nor does the Examiner sufficiently explain how Arndt might teach this limitation. The Examiner rejects independent claims 10 and 15, though of different scope from claim 1, for essentially the same reasons as claim 1, with a similarly insufficient analysis and mapping of the references to the disputed claim limitations. See Non-Final Act. 4–5. Accordingly, for at least the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 10 and 15, or their respective dependent claims. We also do not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 9, 16, 18, 19, and 25–27, because the Examiner does not assert the other cited references cure the deficiencies discussed above. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–2, 4, 10– 13, 15, 22– 24 103(a) Tibbitts, Arndt 1–2, 4, 10– 13, 15, 22– 24 9 103(a) Tibbitts, Arndt, Lim 9 16, 18, 19 103(a) Tibbitts, Arndt, Fyke 16, 18, 19 Appeal 2018-008914 Application 14/099,260 7 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 25–27 103(a) Tibbitts, Arndt, Cavalcanti 25–27 Overall Outcome: 1, 2, 4, 8– 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21– 27 REVERSED