Ex Parte McGarry et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 17, 2012

10849668 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 17, 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.
10/849,668 05/20/2004 Daniel C. McGarry GP-304808 (2760/172) 7541
60770 7590 06/18/2012
General Motors Corporation
c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C.
P.O. BOX 4390
TROY, MI 48099-4390
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, CUONG H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/18/2012 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 DANIEL C. McGARRY, CHESTER A. HUBER,
DWAYNE A. CROCKER, CHRISTOPHER L. OESTERLING, and
JEFFREY M. STEFHAN
____________________

Appeal 2010-003251
Application 10/849,668
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: KEN B. BARRETT, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
WILLIAM V. SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-003251
Application 10/849,668
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A system, comprising:
a vehicle module; and
an intelligent connector in communication with the vehicle
module, wherein the intelligent connector includes
a wireless transceiver operable to receive a wireless
transmission of a command signal, and
a controller operable to determine a control action
responsive to the command signal and to communicate a
control signal indicative of the control action to the vehicle
module.

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12-14, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Kalika (US 2007/0127417 A1, pub. Jun.
7, 2007).
II. Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Kalika.

OPINION
Each of independent claims 1, 9, and 13 requires, in some form, a
controller operable to communicate (or a step of transmitting) a control
signal to a vehicle module. The Examiner reads “vehicle module” on the
“mobile wireless unit[]” in figure 1A of Kalika. Ans. 3 (citing to Kalika,
para. [0120], which states, “the node may be fixed relative to a movable
object such as a vehicle”). We do not find a “mobile wireless unit[]” per se
Appeal 2010-003251
Application 10/849,668
3
in figure 1A or its accompanying description, but the “node” the Examiner
cited to in paragraph [0120] corresponds to nodes 104-109 in figure 1A. See
Kalika, para. [0021]. Accordingly, we understand the Examiner’s position
to be that the claimed vehicle module reads on a node (104-109) of Kalika.
The Examiner next found that Kalika describes a controller to communicate
a control signal to the vehicle module and cites to processor 120 and display
device 126 of computer 101 of figure 1B. Ans. 3. The Examiner further
mentions “communications between a Processor and a Display Device.” Id.
Accordingly, we understand the Examiner’s position to be that the claimed
control signal is the signal passing between the processor 120 and the
display device 126.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has identified the signal between
processor 120 and display device 126 as the command signal but not
explained how that signal could constitute the claimed command signal.
Reply Br. 4. Appellants appear to mistake the Examiner’s findings
regarding control signals for command signals, but nevertheless we are
apprised of the error in the Examiner’s rejection by this argument.
The claims require the controller to be operable to communicate (or,
for claim 9 transmitting) the control signal to the vehicle module, but the
Examiner finds a processor 120 communicating a control signal to display
device 126 within the computer 101, not a vehicle module (any of nodes
104-109). Accordingly, the Examiner has not made a finding regarding a
controller operable to communicate (or, for claim 9 transmitting) a control
signal from the controller (processor 120) to the vehicle module (nodes 104-
109) in the manner required by each independent claim. Without such a
finding, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s decision regarding the
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12-14, 17, and 20.
Appeal 2010-003251
Application 10/849,668
4
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 15,
16, 18, and 19 (all of which depend from claim 1, 9, or 13) fails to cure this
underlying deficiency, and likewise cannot be sustained.

CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision regarding claims 1-20.

REVERSED

hh