Ex Parte Schoepp

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2015

10493723 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
10/493,723 12/15/2004
50811 7590 12/30/2015
O""Shea Getz P.C.
10 Waterside Drive, Suite 205
Farmington, CT 06032
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Harald Schoepp
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.
Harman.7504 7780
EXAMINER
PHUNG,LUAT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2015 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):
uspto@osheagetz.com
shenry@osheagetz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HARALD SCHOEPP 1
Appeal2014-001079
Application 10/493, 723
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, ERIC B. CHEN, and SHARON PENICK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
T , 1 , • 1mroaucnon
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 3-10, 14, 15, 17-24, and26-31. Claims2, 11-13, 16,
and 25 are canceled. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies Harman Becker Automotive Systems GmbH of
Karlsbad, Germany as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-001079
Application 10/493,723
Invention
Appellant discloses a ring-type media oriented system transport
(MOST) network installed in a vehicle in which a plurality of units are
networked and where the plurality of units are connected through supply
lines to a central voltage source. Error diagnostics and overall performance
of the network data are also transmitted through the supply lines. Abstract.
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 14, reproduced below with key limitations
emphasized, are representative:
1. A method for controlling a plurality of multimedia units of a
motor-vehicle infotainment system connected in a network
through a ring-shaped data bus, comprising the steps of:
transmitting data through the ring-shaped data bus during
first predetermined situations;
connecting each of the multimedia units with an
intelligent control unit, which includes a battery, through
corresponding voltage supply lines;
providing electrical power to each of the multimedia
units through the supply lines independent of the other
multimedia units; and
transmitting data between the multimedia units through
the supply lines during second predetermined situations;
where the intelligent control unit communicates with the
multimedia units through the supply lines.
4. The method of claim 1, where the step of transmitting data
through the supply lines transmits diagnostic data through the
supply lines to implement error diagnostics.
5. The method of claim 1, where the step of transmitting data
through the supply lines transmits data through the supply lines
for an update of data to one or more of the plurality of
multimedia units.
2
Appeal2014-001079
Application 10/493,723
14. The method of claim 10, further comprising the step of
controlling a load of the central voltage source.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3-10, 14, and 30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Saito (US 2002/0047308 Al; Apr. 25,
2002), Maryanka (US 5,727,025; Mar. 10, 1998), and Timmerman (US
6,404,326 Bl; June 11, 2002). 2 Final Act. 7-13.
The Examiner rejects claims 15, 19-24, 26-29, and 31under35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Knobl (US 2001/0025376 Al;
Sept. 27, 2001) and Maryanka. Final Act. 13-18.
The Examiner rejects claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Knobl, Maryanka, and Timmerman. Final Act. 18-
19.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in concluding it would have been obvious to
an artisan of ordinary skill to combine the teachings and suggestions of
Saito, Maryanka, and Timmerman in the manner recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Timmerman teaches or suggests
"transmitting ... diagnostic data through the supply lines to implement error
diagnostics," as recited in claim 4?
3. Did the Examiner err in relying on the taking of official notice,
along with the combination of Saito, Maryanka, and Timmerman, to teach or
2 The Examiner also lists claim 13 in this rejection. Final Act. 7, 13.
However, claim 13 was previously canceled. See Amend. 4 (Dec. 21, 2011 ).
3
Appeal2014-001079
Application 10/493,723
suggest "transmitting ... data through the supply lines for an update of data
to one or more of the plurality of multimedia units," as recited in claim 5?
4. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Saito,
Maryanka, and Timmerman teaches or suggests "controlling a load of the
central voltage source," as recited in claim 14?
5. Did the Examiner err in concluding it would have been obvious to
an artisan of ordinary skill to combine the teachings and suggestions of
Knobl and Maryanka in the manner recited in claim 15?
6. Did the Examiner err in concluding it would have been obvious to
an artisan of ordinary skill to combine the teachings and suggestions of
Knobl, Maryanka, and Timmerman in the manner recited in claim 17?
ANALYSIS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts
and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this
appeal \Vas taken. We have considered Appellant's arguments, but do not
find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
Claims 1, 3, 6-10, and 30
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds, among other things, Saito's
media oriented systems transport (MOST) network 10 teaches or suggests
transmitting data through a ring-shaped data bus during first predetermined
situations. Final Act. 7 (citing Saito Fig. 1, i-f 23). The Examiner relies on
Maryanka's transmission of data between multimedia units through supply
lines to teach or suggest transmitting data between the multimedia units
through supply lines. Final Act. 8 (citing Maryanka Fig. 3). The Examiner
relies on Timmerman's use of power bus 60 to transmit information upon
4
Appeal2014-001079
Application 10/493,723
detection of a failure of communications bus 30 to teach or suggest such
transmitting of data during second predetermined situations. Final. Act. 8
(citing, e.g., Timmerman col. 4, 11. 25+ ).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in relying on the combined
teachings and suggestions of Saito and Maryanka because Saito "transfers
different types of media signals over a single network - the MOST
network 10." App. Br. 13. Appellant further argues "Maryanka discloses a
system ... that may transmit various different signals over a single existing
DC power supply line, which purportedly may reduce the number, cost, size
and weight of the cables to be installed in the system." Id. Appellant argues
"[t]he configuration of the system in Maryanka therefore solves a problem
that is not applicable to the system of Saito because Saito already discloses
including a single network ... for transferring various different types of
media signals." Id. at 13-14. However, the Examiner's findings
persuasively show that it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary
skill "to modify the system of Saito to transmit data using the line for power
distribution as suggested by Maryanka, such line being equivalent to the
secondary bus in Timmerman, and using the secondary bus in the event of
failure as suggested by Timmerman." Ans. 4-5. That is, the Examiner's
findings show that an artisan of ordinary skill would have recognized that it
would be beneficial for Saito's MOST network to have backup resource for
communications (e.g., Maryanka's supply-line communications) if Saito's
MOST network failed (in the same way Timmerman's detects a
communication bus failure and switches to a power bus for backup
communications).
5
Appeal2014-001079
Application 10/493,723
Appellant further contends the Examiner erred because Saito includes
a keyword deriving unit 33 that "determines the keywords for the encoding
and decoding of video data as a function of an average of the received
voltage." App. Br. 14 (citing Saito i-f 32, Fig. 6); see also Reply Br. 2
(further citing Saito i-fi-18-9). Appellant argues "[i]f the system of Saito was
modified with the teachings of Maryanka and Timmerman ... the vehicle
load 42 would be modulated in order to transmit data ... through the power
distribution lines of Saito" (App. Br. 14), but "Saito does not teach or
suggest that the keyword deriving unit 33 is capable of properly functioning
when the voltage is modulated" (id.). Thus, Appellant contends that
modifying Saito using the teachings and suggestions of Maryanka and
Timmerman "would make the keyword deriving unit 33 of Saito inoperable
during certain circumstances and, therefore, decrease the capability of the
invention disclosed in Saito." Id. at 15.
Appellant's argument that Saito's keyword deriving unit 33 would be
inoperable during certain circumstances is unpersuasive of error because, as
acknowledged by Appellant, Saito's keyword deriving unit 33 only
determines the keyword as a function of average received voltage during
certain circumstances (i.e., "[ w ]hen the switch is off and the battery voltage
is not more than 12V [and] ... five minutes have elapsed"). See Saito i-f 31,
App. Br. 14. Thus, Appellant does not show that limiting keyword
determination functionality of Saito during additional circumstances (e.g.,
during failure of the MOST network) would have made Saito inoperable for
its intended purpose. Moreover, Saito' s "battery voltage in the engine
operating state falls in the range of about 13.5 V to 16 V" (Saito i-f 29), thus
allowing for the modulation of power for purposes of communication when
6
Appeal2014-001079
Application 10/493,723
the engine is the operating state without modulating above and below 12 V
as posited by Appellant (see App. Br. 14--15). Thus, it would have been
obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill that, to avoid risking interference with
Saito's keyword deriving unit 33, use of the power supply for backup
communications could be disabled when the engine is not in the operating
state. For these reasons, Appellant's argument is unpersuasive of error.
Appellant also argues that "Saito already has a power line to provide
power, and thus there is no rational[] underpinning provided with respect to
why a second power bus should be added to the system of Saito." Reply Br.
3. However, the Examiner's findings show it would have been obvious to an
artisan of ordinary skill to modify Saito to have Saito' s power line both
provide power and provide a backup communications conduit, rather than
adding a redundant power line. See Final Act. 9. Thus, Appellant's
argument is unpersuasive of error.
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been
obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to combine the teachings and
suggestions of Saito, Maryanka, and Timmerman in the manner recited in
claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 1, and claims 3, 6-10, and 30, which Appellant does not
argue separately.
Claim 4
In rejecting claim 4, the Examiner finds Timmerman's
communications of status information over a secondary power bus to enable
operations until the problem is fixed teaches or suggest transmitting
diagnostic data through the supply lines to implement error diagnostics.
Ans. 7 (citing Timmerman col. 2, 11. 23+ ); see also Final Act. 9.
7
Appeal2014-001079
Application 10/493,723
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because "Timmerman neither
discloses [ n ]or suggest[ s] transmitting diagnostics through the supply line to
implement error diagnostics." App. Br. 15. In particular, Appellant argues
"Timmerman discloses that diagnostic testing is performed via ' [a] feedback
element 33 is coupled to the primary communication bus 30 to detect if the
primary communications bus/wire 3 0 is shorted, broken, or pulled
high. ... "' Reply Br. 3. However, Timmerman's use of a feedback element
to determine if there is primary communication bus failure requiring use of a
secondary communications channel does not persuasively distinguish the
claimed diagnostic data from Timmerman' s status information. As the
Examiner finds, in the case of primary communication bus failure,
Timmerman's supply line communication is full-duplex with the slave
sending commands and status information until the problem is fixed. Ans. 7.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Timmerman teaches or suggests
"transmitting ... diagnostic data through the supply lines to implement error
diagnostics," as recited in claim 4.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 4.
Claim 5
In rejecting claim 5, the Examiner finds that Maryanka teaches or
suggest transmitting all signals over a line for power distribution and the
Examiner takes official notice that the "update of data to the multimedia
units [was] well known in the art as part of the maintenance phase of a
product lifecyle." Final Act. 10 (citing Maryanka col. 1, 11. 23+).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in taking official notice and
that the combination of Saito, Maryanka, and Timmerman fails to teach or
8
Appeal2014-001079
Application 10/493,723
suggest the claimed transmission of data for an update of data to multimedia
units. See App. Br. 16.
In response, the Examiner finds that the MOST Specification details
messaging that constitutes an update of data to multimedia units, and thus
provides evidentiary support for the Examiner's taking of official notice.
Ans. 7-8 (citing MOST Corp., MOST® Specification Framework,
Version 1.1-07, § 6.8 (Rev. 1.1, 1999)). Appellant does not rebut the
Examiner's use of the MOST Specification as providing such evidentiary
support. Thus, we find the Examiner's taking of official notice was proper.
Therefore, the Examiner did not err in relying on the taking of official
notice, along with the combination of Saito, Maryanka, and Timmerman, to
teach or suggest "transmitting ... data through the supply lines for an update
of data to one or more of the plurality of multimedia units," as recited in
claim 5.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 5.
Claim 14
In rejecting claim 14, the Examiner finds Saito's power supply
teachings, which detail a control unit that has a battery supplying power
depending on variations of a vehicle load, teach or suggest controlling a
load of the central voltage source. Final Act. 28 (citing Saito i-f 28).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred by failing "to provide any
rational[ e] concerning why a skilled person would have found [the disputed
recitation] obvious at the time of the present invention." App. Br. 17.
However, Appellant's conclusory allegation does not persuasively
distinguish the claimed controlling of a load of a central voltage source from
9
Appeal2014-001079
Application 10/493,723
the teachings and suggestions of Saito (which relate to vehicle load being
varied or controlled). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner the
combination of Saito, Maryanka, and Timmerman teaches or suggests
"controlling a load of the central voltage source," as recited in claim 14.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 14.
Claims 15, 19--24, 26-29, and 31
In rejecting claim 15, the Examiner relies on the combination of
Knobl, which, like Saito, discloses the use of a media oriented systems
transport (MOST) network, and Maryanka to teach or suggest the claimed
use of a ring-shaped data bus, central voltage source, and voltage bus. Final
Act. 13-15. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an
artisan of ordinary skill to combine the teachings and suggestions of Knobl
and Maryanka in the claimed manner to provide for a secondary bus in the
event of failure, which the Examiner finds was well-known in the art, as
evidenced by Timmerman. Ans. 9 (citing Timmerman col. 1, 11. 3 8+ ).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because "Knobl teaches that
the A/V system transmits data through a single optical ring shaped
network l," while "Maryanka discloses a system that transmits various
different signals over a single existing DC power supply line." App. Br. 18.
Appellant also argues "Knobl already supplies power to the units, and thus
there is no rational underpinning provided with respect to why a power bus
per Maryanka should be added to the system of Saito." Reply Br. 4.
Appellant's arguments with respect to the combinability of Knobl and
Maryanka are similar to Appellant's arguments with respect to the
combinability of Saito, Maryanka, and Timmerman. However, these
10
Appeal2014-001079
Application 10/493,723
arguments, as they pertain to Knobl and Maryanka, are unpersuasive for
similar reasons to those detailed above with respect to the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in concluding it
would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to combine the
teachings and suggestions of Knobl and Maryanka in the manner recited in
claim 15.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections
of claim 15, and claims 19-24, 26-29, and 31, which Appellant does not
argue separately. App. Br. 19.
Claims 17 and 18
In rejecting claim 17, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings
of Knobl and Maryanka, as detailed with respect to the Examiner's 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 15, in further combination with the
teachings and suggestions of Timmerman. Final Act. 18-19. Appellant
contends the Examiner erred because "a skilled person would not have
looked to combine the multi-bus system of Timmerman, with the single bus
system of Maryanka, since Maryanka solves a problem by using a single bus
system." App. Br. 21. However, as detailed above, the Examiner has shown
it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to make such a
combination (which is similar to the combination of Saito's MOST network
with the teachings and suggestions of Maryanka) for purposes of providing a
backup conduit for communications. Therefore, the Examiner's findings
persuasively show it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill
the combine the teachings and suggestions of Knobl, Maryanka, and
Timmerman.
11
Appeal2014-001079
Application 10/493,723
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1 7. Appellant makes similar arguments with respect to claim 18.
App. Br. 21-22. However, for similar reasons we also do not find these
arguments persuasive of error. Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner's
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 18.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-10, 14, 15,
17-24, and 26-31.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
kis
12