Ex Parte Tang et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 31, 2007

10716121 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 31, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte TOM TANG, JOHN NANTZ,
RIAD GHABRA, THOMAS LEMENSE, and
JAN SUPRONOWICZ
____________

Appeal 2007-3131
Application 10/716,1211
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: July 31, 2007
____________

Before RICHARD E. SCHAFER, JAMESON LEE, and
RICHARD TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
A. Statement of the Case

This is a decision on appeal by Applicants under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from a rejection of claims 1-20 in Application 10/716,121. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Filed November 18, 2003. The real party in interest is Lear Corporation.

Appeal 2007-3131
Application 10/716,121

Reference Relied on by the Examiner

Kulka US 6,087,930 July 11, 2000

The Rejections on Appeal

The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), as
anticipated by Kulka.
B. Issue
Have the Applicants shown error in the rejection of claims 1-20?
C. Summary of the Decision
The Applicants have shown error in the rejection of each one of
claims 1-20.
D Findings of Fact (Referenced as FF. ¶ No.)
1. The disclosed invention is directed to a “universal” monitor for
use in a remote tire pressure monitoring system. (Specification 1:4-6).
2. The Applicants acknowledge that at the time of invention it was
well known in the automotive industry to provide vehicles with remote tire
pressure monitoring systems for monitoring tire pressure and other tire
parameters. (Specification 1:8-10).
3. Typically, the prior art tire pressure monitors (TPM) transmit
wireless radio frequency signals which include data representing the tire
pressure. (Specification 1:12-13).
4. According to the Applicants, pre-existing TPM systems
are different from one manufacturer to the next, and may even be
different within an individual manufacturer’s platform, and
2

Appeal 2007-3131
Application 10/716,121

consequently, tire monitors must be specially configured for use in a
particular TPM.
5. According to the Applicants, in prior art systems, a tire
monitor configured for use in a particular TPM system has a
manufacturer’s code which may indicate a particular combination of
various characteristics, such as a carrier frequency, modulation
scheme, data format, and/or encryption technique to be used for
wireless signals in that particular TPM system. (Specification 1:22-
26).
6. Thus, according to the Applicants, a need existed for a
“universal” tire monitor which can be used with multiple TPM systems, and
such a “universal” tire monitor would reduce the need for installers and
aftermarket providers to stock multiple tire monitors configured to different
TPM systems. (Specification 2:1-5).
7 The Applicants disclose a first embodiment in which a tire
monitor includes a controller which stores a plurality of manufacturer codes
each identifying a signal format, and a radio frequency program signal is
received by the monitor to select the manufacturer code according to which
the wireless tire monitoring signal will be sent by the monitor.
(Specification 6:24 to 7:20).
8. The Applicants disclose a second embodiment in which the
controller, rather than storing a plurality of manufacturer codes, stores only a
particular manufacturer code that is communicated to the monitor by a
program signal, and during tire monitoring operations the monitor will send
3

Appeal 2007-3131
Application 10/716,121

the wireless tire monitor signal according to the signal format indicated by
the particular stored manufacturer code. (Specification 7:28 to 8:10).
9. In either the first or the second embodiment, the monitor is
deemed “universal” by the Applicants, because the monitor is not configured
specially to operate only according to the format requirements of a single
TPM system but is capable of operating according to any of a number of
signal formats specified by a program signal. (Specification 8:11-15).
10. In the Summary of the Invention portion of the specification,
the Applicants describes, evidently in connection with the first disclosed
embodiment, that the monitor comprises “a storage device for storing a
plurality of codes, each code comprising at least a data format.”
(Specification 2:15-16).
11. In a third embodiment, the Applicants disclose that the
controller of the tire monitor stores a plurality of manufacturer codes each
identifying a signal format required by a particular TPM system, and that the
tire monitor sends out a series of wireless signals each one according to a
different one of the plurality of stored manufacturer codes. (Specification
9:14-18).
12. In the third embodiment, every type of TPM system will be
covered so long as the corresponding manufacturer codes has been stored.
(Specification 9:18-19).
13. In the Summary of the Invention portion of the specification,
the Applicants describes, evidently in connection with the third disclosed
embodiment, that the monitor comprises “a storage device for storing a
4

Appeal 2007-3131
Application 10/716,121

plurality of codes, each code comprising at least a data format.”
(Specification 3:4-5).
E. Principles of law
To establish anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every
element in a claim, arranged as is recited in the claim, must be found in a
single prior art reference. Karsten Manufacturing Corp. v. Cleveland Golf
Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383, 58 USPQ2d 1286, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
Anticipation can be found when a claim limitation is inherent or otherwise
implicit in the reference. Standard Havens Products, Inc. v. Gencor
Industries, Inc., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369, 21 USPQ2d 1321, 1328 (Fed. Cir.
1991). That which is missing in the express description must necessarily be
present. Continental Can Co. USA, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264,
1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
In proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, claim
terms are properly construed according to their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
F. Analysis
Claims 1-20 include three independent claims: claims 1, 11, and 19,
which are reproduced below.
1. A universal monitor to be mounted in a tire of a
vehicle, the monitor for use in a remote tire pressure monitoring
system for the vehicle, the monitor comprising:

a sensor for sensing tire pressure;

5

Appeal 2007-3131
Application 10/716,121

a storage device for storing a plurality of codes, each
code comprising at least a data format; and

a transmitter for communication with the sensor and the
storage device, the transmitter for transmitting a wireless signal
including data representing the sensed tire pressure, wherein the
wireless signal is transmitted by the transmitter according to at
least one of the stored plurality of codes.

11. A universal monitor to be mounted in a tire of a
vehicle, the monitor for use in a remote tire pressure monitoring
system for the vehicle, the monitor comprising:

a sensor for sensing tire pressure;

a receiver for receiving a program signal, the program
signal comprising one of a plurality of codes, each code
comprising at least a data format; and

a transmitter in communication with the sensor and for
transmitting a wireless signal including data representing the
sensed tire pressure, wherein the wireless signal is transmitted
according to the one of the plurality of codes received by the
receiver.

19. A universal monitor to be mounted in a tire of a
vehicle, the monitor for use in a remote tire pressure monitoring
system for the vehicle, the monitor comprising:

a sensor for sensing tire pressure;

a storage device for storing a plurality of codes, each
code comprising at least a data format; and

a transmitter in communication with the sensor and the
storage device, the transmitter for transmitting a series of
wireless signals including data representing the sensed tire
pressure, wherein each of the series of wireless signals is
6

Appeal 2007-3131
Application 10/716,121

transmitted according to a different one of the stored plurality
of codes.

Each of claims 1-20 recites something different from one another,
particularly independent claims 1, 11, and 19. The Examiner, however,
adopts a general and scattered approach that does not address all the features
of any one claim specifically. The entirety of the Examiner’s analysis for
claims 1-20, within the stated ground of rejection, is reproduced below
(Answer 3:5-16):
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being
anticipated by Kulka et al (6,087,930).

-- in considering claims 1-10, the claimed subject matter that is
met by Kulka et al (Kulka) includes:

1) the transponder (10), RFID(18), central processing
unit (20), including memory (22), including tire ID code (see:
col. 5, ll. 20-31), low frequency receiver(34), external interface
inputs (26,28), low frequency receiver;

2) the program signal having a low frequency is met
(see: col. 8, ll. 26-41);

3) the remote transmitter including low frequency
transmitter is met by the interrogator (80, col. 8, ll. 25-41);

4) the signal transmitted according to each of the stored
plurality of codes and the receiver recognizing the codes is met
by the interrogator transmitting based on a tag ID value (see;
col. 8, ll. 42 et seq).

-- Claims 11-20 recite subject matter that is met as discussed in
claims 1-10 above.

7

Appeal 2007-3131
Application 10/716,121

The above-quoted analysis is incomprehensible, with regard to
identifying how each feature of any one rejected claim is deemed to have
been met by Kulka. Neither independent claim 1 nor 19 requires a program
signal of any kind, and independent claim 11 does not require a program
signal having a low frequency. None of independent claims 1, 11, and 19
requires a “remote” transmitter, or a transmitter of any kind that includes a
low frequency transmitter. The Examiner, also, nowhere identifies what in
Kulka constitutes the stored plurality of codes, each code comprising at least
a data format, which is required by independent claims 1 and 19. With
regard to independent claim 11, the Examiner nowhere identifies what in
Kulka constitutes the plurality of codes, each code comprising at least a data
format, one of which is included in or comprised by the program signal. We
note that Kulka in col. 8, ll. 26-41, discusses nothing about a plurality of
codes, each comprising at least a data format. Also, the Tag ID value
discussed in col. 8, ll. 42-65, of Kulka is an identification code which
specifies a particular transponder for communication with interrogator 80; it
is not a code that specifies a format for transmission of sensed tire pressure.
The Examiner’s analysis is lacking and inadequate for
establishing a prima facie case of anticipation. The Applicants argue,
persuasively, that the Examiner failed to point out in Kulka the
plurality of stored codes, each code comprising at least a data format,
that is required by independent claims 1 and 19. Claim 1 further
requires that the transmission of a wireless signal including data
representing sensed tire pressure be in accordance to the at least one
of the stored plurality of codes; that has not been accounted for by the
8

Appeal 2007-3131
Application 10/716,121

Examiner. Claim 19 further requires that the series of wireless signals
including data representing the sensed tire pressure be transmitted in
accordance with respectively different ones of the stored plurality of
codes; that has not been accounted for by the Examiner.
The Applicants argue, persuasively, that the Examiner failed to
point out in Kulka, a plurality of codes, each code comprising at least
a data format, one of which being comprised by the program signal, as
is required by claim 11. Claim 11 further requires that the
transmission of a wireless signal including data representing the
sensed tire pressure be in accordance with the one of the plurality of
codes; that has not been accounted for by the Examiner.
In response to the Applicants’ argument that the claimed
“codes” of each independent claim must each comprise at least a data
format, which format according to the specification may be used to
identify a signal format including any number of characteristics, such
as carrier frequency, modulation scheme, data format, and/or
encryption technique, the Examiner simply states that nowhere in the
claims are the definition of the terms “code” and “format” recited.
(Answer 5:5-6).
The Applicants have merely pointed to that part of the
specification which gives examples of factors which figure into the
establishment of different signal formats for wireless data
transmission. The Applicants have not argued that any one claim
requires a particular signal format of wireless transmission. Indeed,
the claims do not require any particular format of data transmission.
9

Appeal 2007-3131
Application 10/716,121

The Examiner’s response regarding the Applicants’ reliance on an
unclaimed definition of “code” or “format” is misplaced.
The Examiner is entitled to read “code’ and “data format”
broadly, according to the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d at 321, 13 USPQ2d at
1322. So long as a code, satisfied by some data or information,
specifies or indicates a format for wireless transmission of data that
includes the sensed tire pressure, that would satisfy the “code” and
“data format” aspects of the claims. However, the Examiner has gone
beyond the limit of reasonableness, effectively reading out of the
claims any meaningful significance of the requirement of a plurality
of codes, each code comprising at least a data format. The Examiner
evidently reads the claims as only requiring transmission of data
according to any format. (Answer 5:10-18). That reading is
excessively broad, and unreasonable.
It is not in dispute that Kulka does not disclose any choice of
data format for transmission of data including the sensed tire pressure.
On page 5 of the Answer, the Examiner states:
Use of stored codes and transmission of data according “to a
format” is clearly taught by Kulka in a manner which reads on
the limitations of the claimed subject matter. In col. 10 ll. 29-
33, Kulka clearly states that signals transmitted from the
RFID(18) to the remote interrogation source(30) are transmitted
in serial format. As well, Kulka states that parameters output
from memory(22) are transmitted serially after preamble signal
bits, which implies that parameter data is coded data that is
serially transmitted to the remote interrogation source.

10

Appeal 2007-3131
Application 10/716,121

It is unexplained on what rationale the Examiner regards the claim feature of
a plurality of codes, each code comprising at least a data format, as being
satisfied simply by any data being transmitted according to a fixed format.
In the absence of any explanation given by the Examiner, we conclude
that the stated view of the Examiner is unreasonable.
The specification discloses three embodiments, all of which
refer to a plurality of codes each specifying or indicating one of many
possible data formats according to which data including the sensed
tire pressure may be sent by wireless transmission. Although the
Applicants could have recited in the claims a plurality of codes, each
code “specifying” or “indicating” a data format, it is evident that the
Applicants use the language “comprising at least a data format” to
refer to the same. In the Summary portion of the specification, the
Applicants refer to: “a plurality of codes, each code comprising at
least a data format.” Such choice of language is not an unreasonable
one. Format is an appearance that data possesses. Data cannot
reasonably “include” or “comprise” a format unless those terms refer
to the substantive content or significance of the data. Here, a code’s
comprising a data format can reasonably mean only that the meaning
of the data specifies or indicates a particular format. It does not mean,
as the Examiner concludes, simply that the data has a given format.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 1-20 as
anticipated by Kulka cannot be sustained.
11

Appeal 2007-3131
Application 10/716,121

CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by
Kulka is reversed.

REVERSED

smt

12

Appeal 2007-3131
Application 10/716,121

Jeffrey M. Szuma
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
Southfield, Michigan 48075-1238
13