Ex Parte Leconte

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2017

13993120 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2017)

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.
13/993,120 11/27/2013 Eric Leconte 17089/102001 9733
22511 7590 12/21/2017
O SH ATT ANfi T I P
EXAMINER
TWO HOUSTON CENTER WONG, KIN C
909 FANNIN, SUITE 3500
HOUSTON, TX 77010 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2688
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2017 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@oshaliang.com
hathaway@oshaliang.com
escobedo @ oshaliang. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC LECONTE
Appeal 2017-007311
Application 13/993,1201
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—14, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellant is Valeo Securite
Habitacle. App. Br. 4.
Appeal 2017-007311
Application 13/993,120
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention relates generally to “an
electronic communication module for locking/unlocking at least one
movable panel of a motor vehicle.” Spec. 1:5—12.2
Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows (with the disputed
limitation emphasized)'.
1. An electronic communication module for
locking/unlocking at least one movable panel of a motor vehicle,
comprising:
a resonant circuit tuned to a tuning frequency and
including a transmission coil in series with a tuning capacitor,
said resonant circuit being configured to transmit a low-
frequency interrogation signal at said tuning frequency to a
badge or portable identifier; and
a manually actuated triggering device actuation of which
is employed to trigger the transmission of said interrogation
signal, wherein the triggering device is a pushbutton switch
connected in series at least with a resistor to form an electrical
dipole and said electrical dipole is electrically connected in
parallel with all or part of the resonant circuit,
wherein only two connecting wires of the electronic
communication module are needed to command transmission of
the interrogation signal following manual actuation of the
pushbutton switch.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.).
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action (mailed March 23, 2016,
“Final Act.”), Appellant’s Appeal Brief (filed Nov. 22, 2016, “App. Br.”)
and Reply Brief (filed Apr. 7, 2017, (“Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer
(mailed Feb. 9, 2017, “Ans.”), and the original Specification (filed June 11,
2013, “Spec.”).
2
Appeal 2017-007311
Application 13/993,120
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1—14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Waraksa et al. (US 4,942,393; issued July 17, 1990)
(“Waraksa”) and Orth et al. (US 7,716,013 B2; issued May 11, 2010)
(“Orth”).
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the combination of cited references fails to teach or
suggest “wherein the triggering device is a pushbutton switch connected in
series at least with a resistor to form an electrical dipole and said electrical
dipole is electrically connected in parallel with all or part of the resonant
circuit,” as recited in independent claim l.3 See App. Br. 7, 9; see also
Reply Br. 5, 7. As argued by Appellant, Waraksa discloses a
beacon/transmitter 24 that includes two switches 30 and 32, but further
discloses that the two switches 30 and 32 are connected in series between a
custom integrated circuit (“IC”) 40 and ground, rather than connected in
series with a resistor to form an electric dipole as required in the disputed
limitation of claim 1. See App. Br. 7—9; see also Reply Br. 5—7. As further
argued by Appellant, Waraksa discloses that the beacon/transmitter 24
includes a first capacitor Cl, second capacitor C2, and inductor LI
connected to an antenna drive 66 that has an internal ground, where the
internal configuration of the antenna drive is not known. See App. Br. 9—10;
see also Reply Br. 7—8. Thus, according to Appellant, Waraksa fails to
disclose or suggest that the switches 30 and 32 are connected in parallel
3 Appellant’s arguments raise additional issues, but we do not reach them
because the identified issues are dispositive of the appeal.
3
Appeal 2017-007311
Application 13/993,120
with the first capacitor Cl, second capacitor C2, and inductor LI because the
antenna drive 66 is between the aforementioned circuit elements. See App.
Br. 9-10; see also Reply Br. 7—8.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s findings (see Final Act. 4; see also
Ans. 2-4) in light of Appellant’s arguments and are persuaded the Examiner
erred. Regarding the claimed “pushbutton switch connected in series at least
with a resistor to form an electric dipole,” although the Examiner has shown
Waraksa teaches push button switches, the Examiner has not identified any
portion of Waraksa that teaches the push button switches are connected in
series with a resistor. Similarly, regarding the claimed “electrical dipole
[that] is electrically connected in parallel with all or part of [a] resonant
circuit,” although the Examiner has shown Waraksa teaches a resonant
circuit including a transmission coil in series with a tuning capacitor, the
Examiner has not shown Waraksa teaches an electrical dipole (i.e., push
button switch and resistor) electrically connected in parallel with all or part
of the resonant circuit (i.e., transmission coil and capacitor). Further, the
Examiner has not made any findings that Orth cures these deficiencies of
Waraksa. Thus, we conclude the Examiner has failed to show, on this
record, that the combination of cited references teaches or suggests “wherein
the triggering device is a pushbutton switch connected in series at least with
a resistor to form an electrical dipole and said electrical dipole is electrically
connected in parallel with all or part of the resonant circuit,” as recited in
claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 for
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2—14, which depend from claim 1.
4
Appeal 2017-007311
Application 13/993,120
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
5