Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 22, 2021

2020000669 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2021)

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.
14/994,448 01/13/2016 John P. Joyce 83587729(65080-1750) 1022
113140 7590 04/22/2021
Bejin Bieneman PLC
Ford Global Technologies, LLC
2000 Town Center
Suite 800
Southfield, MI 48075
EXAMINER
PARK, ILWOO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2184
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/22/2021 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):
docket@b2iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN P. JOYCE and SCOTT J. LAUFFER
Appeal 2020-000669
Application 14/994,448
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-000669
Application 14/994,448
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a vehicle subsystem communication
arbitration. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A vehicle subsystem, comprising:
first and second failsafe devices, having a processor and a
memory, the memory storing instructions executable by the
processor to transmit information; and
a first arbitration bus connecting the first and second
failsafe devices, wherein the first arbitration bus transmits
information between the first and second failsafe devices;
wherein the first failsafe device is programmed to
communicate with a third failsafe device over a primary bus and
wherein the second failsafe device is programmed to
communicate with a fourth failsafe device over a secondary bus;
wherein the first failsafe device is programmed to transmit
a first signal including a first master value to the third failsafe
device via the primary bus and the second failsafe device is
programmed to transmit a second signal including a second
master value to the fourth failsafe device via the secondary bus,
wherein at least one of the first master value and the second
master value indicates one of the following values:
the first signal on the primary bus being authoritative, the
second signal on the secondary bus being authoritative, and the
first and second signals on both the primary and secondary buses,
respectively, being authoritative.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Dittmar US 5,784,547 July 21, 1998
White US 6,260,079 B1 July 10, 2001

Appeal 2020-000669
Application 14/994,448
3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–3, 5–13, and 15–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dittmar. Final Act. 3.
Claims 4 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Dittmar in view of White. Final Act. 11.

OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or
on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
“[A]nticipation is a question of fact.” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367,
1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2000), (citing Bischoff v. Wethered, 76 U.S. (9 Wall.)
812, 814–15 (1869); In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
[U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the
document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of
the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited
in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the
thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102.
Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir.
2008).
Thus, it is not enough that the prior art reference discloses part
of the claimed invention, which an ordinary artisan might
supplement to make the whole, or that it includes multiple,
distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to
achieve the claimed invention.
Net MoneyIN, Inc., 545 F.3d at 1371.
Appeal 2020-000669
Application 14/994,448
4

Independent claims 1 and 11
With respect to independent claims 1 and 11, Appellant does not set
forth separate arguments for patentability. Appeal Br. 9. As a result, we
select independent claim 1 as the representative claim for the group. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Therefore, claims 2, 3, 5–9, 11–13, and 15–19
will stand or fall with representative independent claim 1. Arguments which
Appellant could have made but did not make in the Brief are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Regarding claim 1, Appellant argues that Dittmar does not disclose:
wherein the first failsafe device is programmed to transmit a first
signal including a first master value to the third failsafe device
via the primary bus and the second failsafe device is programmed
to transmit a second signal including a second master value to
the fourth failsafe device via the secondary bus
…
wherein at least one of the first master value and the second
master value indicates one of the following values:
the first signal on the primary bus being authoritative,
the second signal on the secondary bus being authoritative,
and
the first and second signals on both the primary and
secondary buses, respectively, being authoritative.
Appeal Br. 9.
Appellant contends that Dittmar does not disclose a “master value,”
i.e., information indicating whether a signal is authoritative, on one or two
busses. Appeal Br. 9–10. Appellant defines a “master value” to be
information indicating whether a signal is authoritative on both, neither, or
only one of the buses. Appeal Br. 8; Spec. ¶ 21. Appellant further defines a
Appeal 2020-000669
Application 14/994,448
5
signal to be authoritative if it is accurate or reliable. Appeal Br. 8–9; Spec.
¶ 8.
The Examiner points to the “message,” “acknowledge message,”
“fault frame” and/or “fault report” in Dittmar as multiple ways of
transmitting a “master value” on each bus that is correct, true, certain,
legitimate, accurate, definitive and/or authoritative. Ans. 5–7, 14–18. The
Examiner finds that when a “message” is without fault, the “acknowledge
message” confirms correct data reception. Ans. 14–16. The Examiner finds
the “fault frame” accumulation turns a bus off and the CPU issues a “fault
report” as part of a watchdog function. Ans. 16–18.
We note claim terms are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation, as understood by those of ordinary skill in the art and taking
into account whatever enlightenment may be had from the specification. In
re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “In the patentability
context, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretations[,]
. . . limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification.” In
re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).
We agree with the Examiner that based upon the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claimed “master value,” the Dittmar reference discloses
that the master value is authoritative on the bus or buses. Ans. 5–7, 14–18.
The Examiner finds multiple ways the Dittmar reference discloses
transmitting a master value on each bus that reads on Appellant’s definition
of a “master value,” i.e. being authoritative and therefore accurate and
reliable. Ans. 14–18. The Examiner finds the Dittmar “message” without
fault is accurate and authoritative. Ans. 15. The Examiner finds the Dittmar
“acknowledge message” confirms correct data reception, therefore being
correct, true, certain, legitimate, definitive, accurate, and authoritative. Ans.
Appeal 2020-000669
Application 14/994,448
6
14–16. The Examiner finds the cited Dittmar “fault frame” accumulation
leads to turning a bus off, hence showing fault, as well as being accurate and
authoritative. Ans. 17. The Examiner further finds the Dittmar “fault
report,” and related communication as part of a watchdog function, are
accurate, legitimate, and authoritative. Ans. 16, 18. We note that Appellant
does not address each of these specific findings made by the Examiner and
did not file a Reply Brief.
As a result, Appellant’s arguments do not show error in the
Examiner’s factual findings or finding of anticipation of representative
independent claim 1, and we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Because
Appellant has not set forth separate arguments for patentability of
independent claim 11 and depending claims 2, 3, 5–9, 11–13, and 15–19,
these claims will fall with representative independent claim 1.

Dependent claims 10 and 20
With respect to dependent claims 10 and 20, Appellant does not set
forth separate arguments for patentability. Appeal Br. 11. As a result, we
select dependent claim 10 as the representative claim for the group. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Therefore, claim 20 will stand or fall with
representative dependent claim 10. Arguments which Appellant could have
made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Regarding claim 10, Appellant argues that the Dittmar reference does
not disclose:
the third and fourth failsafe devices are each programmed to
arbitrate both the first and second master values.
Appeal Br. 11.
Appeal 2020-000669
Application 14/994,448
7
Appellant contends that Dittmar does not “arbitrate” anything at all,
much less both the first and second master values from two different buses.
Appeal Br. 11. Appellant defines “arbitrate” to be determining whether
either or both of two signals is/are “authoritative.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant
further defines a signal to be “authoritative” if it is accurate or reliable.
Appeal Br. 8–9; Spec. ¶ 8. According to Appellant’s Specification, the
arbitration bus determines an action to take place upon detecting a fault or
failure. Spec. ¶ 18. “Arbitration” is again defined as implementing logic to
determine an action. Id.
The Examiner explains how the Dittmar nodes and connections are
monitored for fault detection by a watchdog processor that transmits a fault
report. Ans. 10, 19. If there is fault in bus system 1 of Dittmar, a fault
report and fault message are transmitted, with bus system 1 blocked and data
traffic being processed through bus 2. Ans. 10–11, 19. If CPU 1 of Dittmar
detects fault in bus system 2, there is no switch-over between buses because
data traffic is not affected. Ans. 11, 19. The Examiner finds that Dittmar
discloses the “message with process data, message with a fault frame,
message with acknowledge on bus 1, status report, and/or fault notification
on bus 2” as the first and second master values. Ans. 19. Further, the
Examiner finds that since these “master values” are used to selectively
trigger a switch-over between buses in Dittmar, arbitration is disclosed.
Ans. 19
We agree with the Examiner that Dittmar discloses arbitration among
first and second master values in different buses. Ans. 10–11, 19. The
Dittmar “message with process data, message with a fault frame, message
with acknowledge on bus 1, status report, and/or fault notification on bus 2”
are determined to be authoritative, i.e., accurate and reliable, as logic is
Appeal 2020-000669
Application 14/994,448
8
implemented to selectively trigger a switch-over between buses upon
detecting fault or failure. Id. Appellant does not address these specific
findings made by the Examiner and did not file a Reply Brief.
As a result, Appellant’s arguments do not show error in the
Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of anticipation of representative
dependent claim 10, and we sustain the rejection of claim 10. Because
Appellant has not set forth separate arguments for patentability of dependent
claim 20, this claim will fall with representative dependent claim 10.

35 U.S.C. § 103
With respect to dependent claims 4 and 14, Appellant does not set
forth separate arguments for patentability of the obviousness rejection.
Therefore, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s factual findings
or conclusion of obviousness of claims 4 and 14, and we sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection for the same reasons discussed above with
respect to their respective dependent claims 1 and 11.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 is AFFIRMED.
Appeal 2020-000669
Application 14/994,448
9
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–13,
15–20
102(a)(1) Dittmar 1–3, 5–13,
15–20

4, 14 103 Dittmar, White 4, 14
Overall
Outcome
1–20

RESPONSE
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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED