Ex Parte WEHRMAN et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2018

14264733 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/264,733 04/29/2014
28395 7590 11/26/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Edward WEHRMAN
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.
83419006 5836
EXAMINER
PITARO,RYANF
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2171
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/26/2018 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EDWARD WEHRMAN, ELIZABETH HALASH,
STEP AN BANKOWSKI, NICHOLAS THORNE, and KEVIN BURDETTE
Appeal2018-000817
Application 14/264,733
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, DENISE M. POTHIER,
and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-21. 1 We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Ford Global Technologies, LLC as the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 1.)
Appeal2018-000817
Application 14/264,733
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to registration of a mobile application with a
vehicle-based computing system using an application proxy configured to
manage nomadic device connection to the vehicle-based computing system.
(Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A system comprising:
a nomadic device configured to
register a mobile application with a vehicle-based
computing system (VCS) using an application
proxy configured to manage a nomadic device
connection to the VCS, and
utilize the application proxy, by the mobile application,
to present a mobile application user interface, via a
human-machine interface (HMI) of the VCS,
according to an application lifecycle HMI status
received from the VCS and indicative of a level of
mobile application HMI access.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected independent claims 1, 9, and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description
requirement. (Final Act. 2-3.)
The Examiner rejected claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as
being anticipated by Garrett et al. (US 2013/0244634 Al, pub. Sep. 19,
2013). (Final Act. 3-11.)
2
Appeal2018-000817
Application 14/264,733
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellants' Appeal Brief raises the following issues: 2
First Issue: Whether the independent claims fail to comply with the
written description requirement. (App. Br. 5-7.)
Second Issue: Whether Garrett anticipates the claims. (App. Br. 7-8.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. As to the anticipation rejection, we
disagree with Appellants' arguments, and adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken (Final Act. 3-11 ); and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 3-5), and
concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner.
First Issue
The Examiner finds that the claim limitation, "application lifecycle
HMI status," fails to satisfy the written description requirement because the
phrase appears nowhere in the original application and is not otherwise
described so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that
the inventors had possession of the claimed invention. (Final Act. 2-3, Ans.
2-3.)
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed May 8, 2017), Reply Brief (filed Nov. 6,
2017), Final Action (mailed Dec. 7, 2016), and the Answer (mailed Sep. 5,
2017) for the respective details.
3
Appeal2018-000817
Application 14/264,733
To satisfy the written description requirement, an applicant must
convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing
date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention, and that the
invention, in that context, is whatever is now claimed. Vas-Cath, Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563---64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). An applicant shows
possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention
with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures,
figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention.
Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
If a skilled artisan would have understood the inventor to be in possession of
the claimed invention at the time of filing, even if every nuance of the claims
is not explicitly described in the specification, then the adequate description
requirement is met. Martin v. Johnson, 454 F.2d 746, 751 (CCPA 1972)
(stating "the description need not be in ipsis verbis [i.e., "in the same
words"] to be sufficient").
The Examiner concedes that the term, "HMI status" (i.e., "human-
machine interface" status), is sufficiently disclosed in the specification -
that HMI status is described as being set to "None," "Full," "Limited,"
"Background," "Audible," "Not Audible," etc. (Ans. 3; Spec. ,r,r 36, 40.)
Moreover, these settings are encountered during a process described and
illustrated in the Specification as "automated lifecycle management." (Spec.
Fig. 3, i1 43, see also Title ("VEHICLE PROXY LIFECYCLE
MANAGEMENT") and ,r 1 ("This disclosure generally relates to connection
lifecycle management for networked applications").) In addition, the HMI
status is disclosed as "indicative of a level of mobile application HMI
access." (Spec. ,r 3 (emphasis added).) We therefore agree with Appellants
4
Appeal2018-000817
Application 14/264,733
that, when considered in its entirety, the Specification provides sufficient
support for the claim term, "application lifecycle HMI status." (App. Br. 5-
7 .)
Accordingly, we do not sustain the written description rejection of
independent claims 1, 9, and 1 7.
Second Issue
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Garrett discloses the
claim requirement, "utilize the application proxy ... according to an
application lifecycle HMI status received from the VCS and indicative of a
level of mobile application HMI access," and in particular argue Garrett
does not disclose use of an "application lifecycle HMI status." (App. Br. 8.)
However, the Examiner concludes that the broadest reasonable interpretation
of "application lifecycle HMI status" is "the status of the resource, for
instance of [the] head unit [ of Garrett], in connection with a particular
application access." (Ans. 3.) The Examiner finds that Garrett discloses this
limitation, as so construed, based, for example, on signals: (i) "to provide the
particular application 40 access to only those ones of the I/0 resources 1-4
of the identified set"; (ii) "to block access requests sent from the mobile
phone 20 in any manner such as by simply disabling I/0 resources on the
head unit 21 "; and (iii) "to determine whether the application 40 has priority
for any of the in-use resources of the identified subset." (Ans. 4; Garrett
Figs. 2A, 2B, ,r,r 44--47.)
We concur with the Examiner's analysis, particularly given that
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive, as merely quoting the claim
language and portions of the Garrett disclosure, followed by a conclusory
assertion that the former does not disclose the latter. Mere lawyer's
5
Appeal2018-000817
Application 14/264,733
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).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejections of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 as failing to comply with the
written description requirement.
Also as discussed above, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of the
claims as anticipated by Garrett.
Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner's decision is affirmed. See 37
C.F.R. § 4I.50(a)(l).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-21.
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).
AFFIRMED
6