Ex Parte Drew et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 31, 2018

14231916 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/231,916 04/01/2014
80711 7590 12/31/2018
BGL/ Ann Arbor
524 South Main Street
Suite 200
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Drew
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.
14573-033 5923
EXAMINER
LI, CELI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3661
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2018 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL DREW, BRIAN HERRON,
ERIC WHEELER, and GUS NASSAR1
Appeal2018-005041
Application 14/231,916
Technology Center 3600
Before JAMES P. CAL VE, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Office Action
finally rejecting claims 1 and 4--24. Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Drew Technologies, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest (Appeal
Br. 2) and also is the Applicant pursuant to 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.46.
Appeal2018-005041
Application 14/231,916
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below.
1. A device for sending and receiving messages between an
electronic control unit of a vehicle and an external
device, the device comprising:
a processor;
a memory in communication with the processor;
a first port in communication with the processor,
wherein the first port is configured to communicate with
the electronic control unit of the vehicle;
a second port in communication with the
processor, wherein the second port is configured to
communicate with the external device, wherein the
external device is a vehicle emissions testing device that
is configured to determine that the vehicle has passed an
emissions test; and
wherein the processor is configured to:
receive a request message from the vehicle
emissions testing device via the second port,
transmit the request message to the
electronic control unit of the vehicle,
receive requested information from the
electronic control unit of the vehicle based on the
request message,
determine a first information subset in the
requested information that should be transmitted to
the vehicle emissions testing device and a second
information subset in the requested information
that should not be transmitted to the vehicle
emissions testing device, wherein the information
found in both the first information subset and the
second information subset of the requested
information was requested in the request message
transmit the first information subset to the
vehicle emissions testing device, wherein the first
information subset provided to the vehicle
2
Appeal2018-005041
Application 14/231,916
emissions testing device results in a pass indication
by the vehicle emissions testing device, indicating
that the vehicle has passed the emissions test based
on the first information subset provided to the
vehicle emissions testing device, and
not transmit the second information subset,
wherein the second information subset contains a
portion of the requested information that if
provided to the vehicle emissions testing device
would result in a fail indication by the vehicle
emissions testing device.
Appeal Br. 2-3 (Claims App.).
REJECTION
Claims 1 and 4--24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
for lack of written description.
ANALYSIS
The claimed device is connected between an electronic control unit of
a vehicle and an emissions testing device. The device includes a processor
configured to receive a request message from the vehicle emissions testing
device and transmit that message to the electronic control unit (ECU). The
processor is configured to receive the requested information back from the
electronic control unit. Spec. ,r,r 2, 5, 6, 19, Fig. 3 (device 30 is connected
between ECU 20 of a vehicle and emissions tester 26).
The processor 33 then decides whether to transmit all the information
that is received from the vehicle ECU 20 or to transmit only a subset of that
information to emissions tester 26. Id. ,r 21. The goal of the transmission is
to make emissions tester 26 determine that the vehicle passes the emissions
test. Id.
3
Appeal2018-005041
Application 14/231,916
To ensure that information passed to emissions tester 26 causes the
vehicle to pass the emissions test, the processor is configured to determine
an information subset in the requested information received from the ECU
and transmit only that subset of information to emissions tester 26. Id. ,r 6.
Claim 1 recites this arrangement as a processor that is configured to
determine a first information subset in the information requested from the
ECU and transmit the first information subset to the vehicle emissions
testing device resulting in the vehicle passing the emissions test. Appeal
Br. 2-3 (Claims App.).
Claim 1 also recites that the processor is configured to determine a
second information subset in the information requested from the ECU and
not transmit the second information subset to the vehicle emissions testing
device because the second information subset would cause a fail indication
by the vehicle emissions testing device if it was provided to the emissions
testing device. Id.
The Examiner determines that the Specification does not reasonably
convey to a skilled artisan that Appellant's invention determines a second
information subset that should not be transmitted to the vehicle emissions
testing device. Final Act. 4; Ans. 4--5.
We agree with the Examiner that the Specification does not use the
words "a second information subset." However, the Specification describes
how the processor determines a subset of information in the information that
is received from the ECU and transmits only that subset of information to
the emissions tester. Claim 1 refers to the transmitted subset of information
as "a first information subset." Emissions tester 26 will determine that the
vehicle passes emissions based on the first information subset. Spec. ,r 21.
4
Appeal2018-005041
Application 14/231,916
Processor 33 determines a subset in the requested information and
transmits only information it allows to be transmitted. Id. If the processor
transmits only a subset of the information it receives from the ECU (i.e., a
first subset of the information), the processer effectively determines a second
information subset that it decides not to transmit to the emission tester.
A skilled artisan would understand from these disclosures that the
processor is configured to determine a first subset of received information
that it transmits to the emissions tester and therefore also determines a
second subset of information that it does not transmit to the emissions tester.
Implicit in determining a first information subset to transmit is determining a
second information subset that is not transmitted to the emissions tester.
This understanding is supported by the disclosure that the goal of the
transmission is to make emissions testing device 26 determine based on the
information received that vehicle 24 passes emissions. Id. ,r,r 6, 21. Thus,
the processor may transmit all of the information it receives from the ECU
or only a subset of that information so that the information provided to the
emissions tester results in the vehicle passing emissions. Id. ,r 21. If some
information received from the ECU would cause the emissions tester to fail
the vehicle, the processor can determine an information subset to transmit so
a vehicle passes emissions while retaining an information subset that would
cause the vehicle to fail emissions if it was transmitted. Id. ,r,r 4, 6, 21.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 4--24.
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1 and 4--24.
REVERSED
5