Ex Parte Eschke et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 24, 2012

10489447 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 24, 2012)

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.
10/489,447 09/30/2004 Bernd Eschke 10191/3552 9844
7590 02/24/2012
Richard L Mayer
Kenyon & Kenyon
One Broadway
New York, NY 10004
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, NAM V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/24/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BERND ESCHKE, JOERG FISCHER,
HANS-JOERG MATHONY, DOERTE EIMERS-KLOSE,
KLAUS-MICHAEL MAYER, DIRK HOHEISEL, ALFRED KIZLER,
RAINER LUST, ROLAND EHNISS, BERND FLICK, JAN EGELHAAF,
and HARTMUT BECKER
____________

Appeal 2009-010261
Application 10/489,447
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 13-24, which are all of the pending claims. Claims 1-12 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2009-010261
Application 10/489,447

2
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Appeal Brief (filed Mar. 11, 2008), the Answer
(mailed Aug. 13, 2008), and the Reply Brief (filed Oct. 17, 2008) for the
respective details. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have
been considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellants could have
made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived (see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).

Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a control device in a vehicle for
controlling a plurality of functions of the vehicle. An air interface permits
access to the vehicle control device from an input device. See generally
Spec. 1:19-2:4.

Claim 13 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
13. A control device in a vehicle for controlling at least one of (a)
vehicle function devices and (b) output units in the vehicle, the control
device being connected to an input device via an air interface, the control
device being connected to a plurality of vehicle bus systems, the control
device comprising:
a first arrangement for exchanging data between the vehicle bus
systems;
a second arrangement for controlling, via the input device, at least one
of (a) the vehicle function devices and (b) the output units in the vehicle; and
Appeal 2009-010261
Application 10/489,447

3
a third arrangement for performing a check to determine which of the
vehicle bus systems the input device is permitted to access as a function of
an identification transmitted by the input device.

The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Riggs US 6,956,952 B1 Oct. 18, 2005
(filed Nov. 17, 1999)
Dupre US 7,023,994 B1 Apr. 4, 2006
(filed Mar. 13, 2000)
Nuttall GB 2,351,588 A Jan. 03, 2001

Appellants’ admitted prior art (AAPA)

Claims 13, 14, 17-19, 22, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Nuttall.
Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nuttall in view of AAPA.
1

Claims 20 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nuttall in view of Dupre.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nuttall in view of Riggs.

1
As indicated by the Examiner (Ans. 4), the Examiner’s taking of Official
Notice that non-volatile memory is commonly known for storing
information necessary for operation of a system is considered to be admitted
prior art since Appellants did not challenge the Examiner’s Official Notice.
See MPEP 2144.03(c).
Appeal 2009-010261
Application 10/489,447

4
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) Rejection
Appellants contend, with respect to independent claim 13, that Nuttall
has no disclosure of a control unit that is connected to a plurality of vehicle
bus systems, nor any arrangement that performs a check to determine which
vehicle bus system an input device is permitted to access, as claimed.
According to Appellants (App. Br. 9-13; Reply Br. 2-5), the Examiner erred
in not interpreting the claimed vehicle bus system as equivalent to a vehicle
bus. In Appellants’ view, therefore, since Nuttall discloses only a single
vehicle bus 30 connected to the vehicle function control devices (engine,
AC, etc.), the claimed requirements are not be satisfied.
We do not agree with Appellants. We simply find no support in
Appellants’ disclosure for the interpretation of the claimed vehicle bus
systems urged by Appellants in the Briefs. At various instances in the
Specification, reference is indeed made to “vehicle bus systems” (page 2,
lines 9-12 and page 9, lines 13-15) illustrated as CAN bus connections 8, 9
(Fig. 1) and 43 (Fig. 2).
It is noteworthy, however, that in another instance in the
Specification, the connection line 20 between control device 2 and electronic
unit 16 is referred to a data bus, not a bus system (Spec. page 6, lines 24-25).
In our view, this would impliedly suggest that a vehicle bus system must
include other components and connections beside just a connection line,
leaving the claim language open to the Examiner’s interpretation as set forth
at pages 6-8 of the Answer.
Appeal 2009-010261
Application 10/489,447

5
Accordingly, we find that the Examiner has broadly, but reasonably,
interpreted the claimed vehicle bus systems as encompassing, not just the
communication connection line 30 of Nuttall, but also the systems that are
connected to the connection line 30. In other words, we find no error in the
Examiner’s determination that Nuttall’s controllers 60, such as the engine
management controller and the air conditioning controller, are each vehicle
bus systems, since they are systems connected to the vehicle bus 30 (Fig. 1).
We agree with the Examiner that it therefore follows that, since Nuttall
discloses that a determination is made as to which device controllers, i.e.,
vehicle bus systems, an input device is permitted to access (Nuttall, page 3,
lines 19-37), the claimed requirements are satisfied (Ans. 7-8).
We also find that a reasonable alternative interpretation of Nuttall
would be to consider that the connection lines that connect each of the
controller devices 60 to the shared vehicle bus 30, when taken in
combination with the shared vehicle bus 30, are vehicle bus systems (Fig. 1).
The Examiner suggests such an interpretation at pages 6 and 7 of the
Answer.
For all of the above reasons, since Appellants have not demonstrated
that the Examiner erred in finding that all of the claim limitations are present
in the disclosure of Nuttall, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of appealed independent claim 13, as well as dependent claims 14,
17-19, 22, and 24, not separately argued by Appellants.

Appeal 2009-010261
Application 10/489,447

6
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejections
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections (Ans. 28) of
claims 15, 16, 20, 21, and 23, in which the Nuttall reference is applied in
various separate combinations with AAPA, Dupre, and Riggs. Appellants
rely (App. Br. 14-16; Reply Br. 6-7) on those arguments made with respect
to the vehicle bus system feature asserted against the anticipation rejection
of independent claim 13, which arguments we found unpersuasive as
discussed supra. Further, contrary to Appellants’ generalized conclusory
contentions (App. Br. 15-18; Reply Br. 6-7), we find that the Examiner has
provided an articulated reason with a rational underpinning to support the
conclusion of obviousness for applying the teachings of the secondary
references to Nuttall. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007).

CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner did not
err in rejecting claims 13, 14, 17-19, 22, and 24 for anticipation under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e), and rejecting claims 15, 16, 20, 21, and 23 for obviousness
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 13-24 is affirmed.

Appeal 2009-010261
Application 10/489,447

7
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

kis