Ex Parte PAL et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 4, 2018

14812305 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 4, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/812,305 07/29/2015
73811 7590 09/06/2018
Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd.
Two Prudential Plaza, Suite 4900
180 North Stetson Avenue
Chicago, IL 60601-6731
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
DIP ANKAR PAL
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.
P024673-0ST-ALS/714334 6513
EXAMINER
LOUIS-FILS, NICOLE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/06/2018 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):
Chgpatent@leydig.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DIP ANKAR PAL, DAVID GEORGE, and
SAIHEMA VENKATARAMANAN 1
Appeal2018-000457
Application 14/812,305 2
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JESSICA C. KAISER, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending
1 According to Appellants, General Motors LLC is the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
2 The application on appeal has an effective filing date of July 29, 2015.
Therefore, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) amendments to the
U.S. Code(§§ 102, 103) are applicable. See Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure (MPEP) § 2159.02 (The amended sections "apply to any patent
application that contains or contained at any time a claim to a claimed
invention that has an effective filing date that is on or after March 16,
2013.").
Appeal2018-000457
Application 14/812,305
in this application. Final Act. 1-2; Appeal Br. 1. 3 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Appellants 'Invention
The invention at issue on appeal generally concerns "telematics
systems and more particularly ... connectivity between telematics service
providers and telematics units" (Spec. ,r 1) and methods for transmitting
commands to a vehicular telematics unit (Spec. ,r 4). The method creates a
command data packet, including: (1) a payload that further includes an
attention (AT) command; and (2) control information that further includes
an identification of an AT command air interface (AIF) dedicated to
transmission of AT commands to a network access device (NAD) of the
vehicular telematics unit. The method transmits the command data packet
from a server to the NAD via the AT command AIF. The AT command AIF
tunnels through a wireless network utilized by the vehicular telematics unit.
See Spec. ,r,r 4---6; Abstract.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with key disputed limitations
emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A method, implemented at a server of an
operations control center of a telematics service provider
(TSP), for transmitting commands to a network access
3 We refer to Appellants' Specification ("Spec.") filed July 29, 2015;
Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.") filed May 30, 2017; and Reply Brief ("Reply
Br.") filed Oct. 13, 2017. We also refer to the Examiner's Final Office
Action ("Final Act.") mailed Oct. 25, 2016; and the Examiner's Answer
("Ans.") mailed Aug. 17, 2017.
2
Appeal2018-000457
Application 14/812,305
device (NAD) of a vehicular telematics unit, the method
compnsmg:
creating a command data packet, the command
data packet comprising:
a payload that includes an attention (AT)
command, and
a control information that includes an
identification of an AT command air interface (AIF)
dedicated to transmission of AT commands to the NAD
of the vehicular telematics unit; and
transmitting, by the server, the command data
packet to the NAD of the vehicular telematics unit via the
AT command AIF,
wherein the AT command AIF is a first tunnel
extending through a network of the vehicular telematics
unit.
App. Br. 11, Claims App. ( emphasis added).
Rejections on Appeal4
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18 and
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hering et al. (US
2013/0325249 Al; published Dec. 5, 2013) ("Hering") and Monroe et al.
(US 2004/0042450 Al; published Mar. 4, 2004) ("Monroe"). Final Act. 3-
11.
2. The Examiner rejects claims 3, 5, 9, 11, 14, 16, and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hering, Monroe, and Shabtay et al.
(US 2010/0234071 Al; published Sept. 16, 2010) ("Shabtay"). Final Act.
11-15.
4 The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being
indefinite (see Final Act. 3), and withdrew the rejection in the Examiner's
Answer (see Ans. 4 ). We do not address Appellants' contentions with
respect to the withdrawn rejection (see Appeal Br. 6).
3
Appeal2018-000457
Application 14/812,305
3. The Examiner rejects claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hering, Monroe, and Dunne et al. (US 7,894,795 Bl;
issued Feb. 22, 2011) ("Dunne"). Final Act. 15-16.
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record, Appellants' contentions, and the
Examiner's findings and conclusions, the issue before us follows:
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Hering and
Monroe would have collectively taught or suggested "transmitting, by the
server, the command data packet to the NAD of the vehicular telematics unit
via the AT command AIF, wherein the AT command AIF is a first tunnel
extending through a network of the vehicular telematics unit" within the
meaning of Appellants' claim 1 and the commensurate limitations of claims
13 and 20?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (and independent claims 13
and 20) as being obvious in view of Hering and Monroe. See Final Act. 3-5;
Ans. 2--4. The Examiner relies on Hering to teach the disputed feature of a
AT command AIF, which tunnels ("is a ... tunnel extending") through a
network of the vehicular telematics unit. See Final Act. 2, 4; Ans. 2-3
(citing Hering ,r 30). The Examiner proposes that Hering's CDMA voice
channel describes the tunnel extending through a network of the vehicular
telematics unit (see Final Act 4), and maintains that Appellants do not
"define the structure of the tunnel to be different than a normal voice
channel which is analogous to the CDMA[] voice channel of Hering" (Ans.
2).
4
Appeal2018-000457
Application 14/812,305
Appellants contend that neither Hering nor Monroe teach the disputed
features of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 6-9; Reply Br. 4--8. Specifically,
Appellants contend, inter alia, that the Examiner's interpretation of tunnel is
unreasonably broad and neither reference describes incorporating a tunnel to
transmit AT commands. See Appeal Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 4--8.
We agree with Appellants that Hering does not teach or suggest an
interface ( air interface ( AIF)) that tunnels through a telematics (wireless)
network. Hering's CDMA voice channel is just that, a wireless voice
channel utilizing the CDMA protocol. As explained by Appellants, a tunnel
is "a networking mechanism used to send unsupported protocols across
diverse networks." Reply Br. 5 (quotations omitted); see Appeal Br. 8-9;
Reply Br. 4--8; Spec. ,r,r 40-41. The Examiner's interpretation of Hering's
CDMA voice channel as reading on the recited tunnel feature is
unreasonably broad, and the Examiner has not adequately explained or
provided support for such an unreasonably broad construction.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Hering and
Monroe renders obvious Appellants' claim 1. Independent claims 13 and 20
include limitations of commensurate scope. Dependent claims 2, 4, 6-8, 10,
15, 1 7, and 18 depend from and stand with claims 1 and 13.
The Examiner rejects dependent claims 3, 5, 9, 11, 14, 16, and 19 as
being obvious in view of Hering, Monroe, and Shabtay. See Final Act. 11-
15. The Examiner also rejects dependent claim 12 as being obvious in view
of Hering, Monroe, and Dunne. See Final Act. 15-16. The Examiner relies
on the same reasoning as claim 1 (supra) for rejecting claims 3, 5, 9, 11, 12,
14, 16, and 19. See Final Act. 11-16. The Examiner does not suggest, and
5
Appeal2018-000457
Application 14/812,305
has not established on this record, that the additionally cited Shabtay or
Dunne references overcome the aforementioned deficiencies of Hering and
Monroe. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejections of claims 3, 5, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 19.
CONCLUSION
Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20.
REVERSED
6