Ex Parte Aue et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 1, 2016

12674960 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/674,960 02/24/2010 Axel Aue
26646 7590 03/03/2016
KENYON & KENYON LLP
ONE BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10004
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.
10191/6014 1778
EXAMINER
DANG,KHANH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2185
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/03/2016 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@kenyon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AXEL AUE
and
MARTIN GRUENEWALD
Appeal2014-002945
Application 12/674,960
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SivIITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-002945
Application 12/674,960
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 15-22 and 24--34, which are all the claims remaining in
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
15. A communication system, comprising:
a CAN bus; and
at least two devices connected using the CAN bus, at least
one of the at least two devices including:
a) a CAN control unit configured to transmit, in a
first transmission mode, CAN data frames over the CAN
bus using a first physical protocol;
b) an asynchronous, serial communication (ASC)
interface unit configured to transmit, in a second
transmission mode, ASC data frames over the CAN bus
using a second physical protocol; and
c) a switch adapted to switch over between the first
transmission mode and the second transmission mode as a
function of at least one agreement effective between the at
least one of the at least two devices and at least one other
of the at least two devices;
wherein the CAN control unit is configured to transmit the
CAN data frames over the CAN bus in the first transmission
mode using a first bus clock pulse, and the ASC interface unit is
configured to transmit the ASC data frames over the CAN bus in
the second transmission mode using a second bus clock pulse,
the second bus clock pulse being higher than the first bus clock
pulse.
2
Appeal2014-002945
Application 12/674,960
Gruenewald
Prior Art
US 2003/0100980 Al May 29, 2003
Examiner's Rejections
Claims 15-21, 24--27, and 31-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) 1 as unpatentable over Gruenewald.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Gruenewald and Official Notice.
Claims 28-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Gruenewald and Official Notice.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Office Action and the Examiner's Answer as our own. We find the
Examiner's Answer persuasively addresses Appellants' contentions raised in
the Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner
for the reasons given in the Answer. We highlight the following issues from
the Reply Brief for emphasis.
Section 103 rejection of claims 15-21, 24-27, and 31-34
Claim 15 recites "transmit the CAN data frames over the CAN bus in
the first transmission mode using a first bus clock pulse, and ... transmit the
1 Page 3 of the Answer lists claims 15-21, 24--2 7, and 31-34 as rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102, while page 5 of the Answer lists these claims as
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Since Appellants address these claims as
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we do as well.
3
Appeal2014-002945
Application 12/674,960
ASC data frames over the CAN bus in the second transmission mode using a
second bus clock pulse, the second bus clock pulse being higher than the
first bus clock pulse." Emphasis added. Appellants contend the higher
transmission rates discussed in paragraph 30 of Gruenewald are not over the
CAN bus as recited in claim 15, but rather are over a network with short line
lengths. Reply Br. 3. Paragraph 30 teaches using shorter line lengths to
increase transmission speed, but does not teach the shorter lines create a bus
other than the CAN bus. Rather, paragraph 30 suggests shortening the line
lengths of the CAN bus to increase transmission speed. Appellants have not
provided persuasive evidence or argument to show shortening the lines of a
bus results in a different bus.
Claim 15 also recites a switch that switches "as a function of at least
one agreement effective between the at least one of the at least two devices
and at least one other of the at least two devices." Appellants contend the
TTCAN windows taught by Gruenewald do not constitute an agreement to
switch modes, because TTCAN windows are not conventionally used for
switching to ASC mode. Reply Br. 4--5. Paragraph 13 of Gruenewald
teaches using a TTCAN system for controller communication according to
Gruenewald's invention, which is a switching arrangement to switch
between modes as discussed in the following paragraph 14 and throughout
the entire disclosure of Gruenewald. Appellants have not persuasively
explained how using the switching arrangement to switch between modes as
taught by Gruenewald in the TTCAN system taught by Gruenewald was
beyond the level of ordinary skill.
4
Appeal2014-002945
Application 12/674,960
We sustain the rejection ofclaim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 16-
21, 24--27, and 31-34, which fall with claim 15.
Section 103 rejection of claim 22
Claim 22 recites "using the second physical protocol to establish a
point-to-point link or a point-to-multipoint link to a predefined number of
receiving devices to prevent asymmetric delays on the CAN bus."
Appellants contend the faster transmission taught by Gruenewald is not
performed over the can bus as recited in independent claim 33. Reply Br. 6.
We find Appellants' contention unpersuasive for the reasons given in our
analysis of claim 15.
We sustain the rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Section 103 rejection of claims 28-30
Claim 28 recites "wherein the header part of the ASC data frame is
smaller than the header part of the CAN data frame by a factor of between 2
and 5." The Examiner finds selecting the size of the header was known in
the art. Ans. 21-23. The Examiner also finds the relative sizes of the ASC
and CAN headers, where the ASC header is smaller than the CAN header,
was known in the art, and concludes making the size of the header of the
ASC frame smaller than the size of the CAN frame would have been
obvious. Id. The Examiner also finds determining a range "between 2 and
5" only requires routine experimentation. Final Act. 7. Appellants have not
provided persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner's findings.
We sustain the rejection of claims 28-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
5
Appeal2014-002945
Application 12/674,960
DECISION
The rejections of claims 15-22 and 24--34 are affirmed.
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
6