Ex Parte Ehrman et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 29, 2009

10426175 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 29, 2009)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
___________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
___________

Ex parte KENNETH S. EHRMAN, MICHAEL L. EHRMAN, JEFFREY M.
JAGID, JOSEPH M. PINZON, YARON HECKER, and LEONARD PIMENTEL
___________

Appeal 2008-4401
Application 10/426,175
Technology Center 3600
___________

Decided: January 29, 2009
___________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and BIBHU R. MOHANTY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Kenneth S. Ehrman, Michael L. Ehrman, Jeffrey M. Jagid, Joseph M. Pinzon,
Yaron Hecker, and Leonard Pimentel (Appellants) seek review under
35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 82, 84, 85, 89-91, and 93, the only
claims pending in the application on appeal.

Appeal 2008-4401
Application 10/426,175

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

We AFFIRM.
The Appellants invented a way for maintaining assets and managing scheduled
maintenance (Specification Amendment A3 4:5-8). The maintenance as claimed
is applied to mobile assets. Such mobile assets may include forklifts, cars, boats,
and airplanes (Specification 2:15-18).
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary
claim 82, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some paragraphing
added].
82. A system for managing maintenance of a mobile asset,
comprising:
a fixed location management computer system having a first
processing unit for managing information and a first communication
unit in communication with the first processing unit;
a wireless infrastructure having a local monitor with a second
processing unit operating therein, said wireless infrastructure further
having a second and a third communication unit, the second
communication unit communicating with the first communication
unit; and
a mobile asset communicator having a third processing unit, display
unit, and fourth communication unit, said mobile asset communicator
associated with the mobile asset and communicating with said
wireless infrastructure via the third and fourth communication units;
a mobile asset monitor for monitoring maintenance characteristics of
said mobile asset, the mobile asset monitor being coupled to the
mobile asset communicator for transmitting the maintenance
characteristics to the fixed location management computer system;
2
Appeal 2008-4401
Application 10/426,175

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
the first processing unit of the fixed location management computer
system for: receiving the maintenance characteristics from the mobile
asset; determining whether maintenance is required for the mobile
asset;
setting a certain date and location to which the mobile asset is to be
taken to have maintenance performed, if it is determined that
maintenance is required;
generating a maintenance notification message that the mobile asset
has the set certain date and location for maintenance, if it is
determined that maintenance is required; and
communicating the maintenance notification message over the
wireless infrastructure to the mobile asset communicator, if it is
determined that maintenance is required; and
the mobile asset communicator displaying the maintenance
notification message on said display unit, if it is determined that
maintenance is required.

This appeal arises from the Examiner’s Final Rejection, mailed January 11,
2007. The Appellants filed an Appeal Brief in support of the appeal on August 13,
2007. An Examiner’s Answer to the Appeal Brief was mailed on November 15,
2007. A Reply Brief was filed on January 15, 2008. Oral arguments were
presented at a hearing on January 15, 2009.
PRIOR ART
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Zelm US 5,514,967 May 7, 1996
Kotani JP 06068104 A Mar. 11, 1994
Deierlein, Warehouse workhourse goes high-tech, Beverage World, v 119, n.
1688, pp. 98-99, ISSN 0098-2318, 3/15/2000 (Deierlein)
25
26
3
Appeal 2008-4401
Application 10/426,175

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

OBD-II, OBD-II Background, pp. 1-4, 6/15/99 (OBD-II)1
REJECTIONS
Claims 82 and 91 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Deierlein, Kotani and Offical Notice.
Claim 84 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Deierlein, Kotani, Official Notice, and Zelm.
Claims 85, 89, 90, and 93 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Deierlein, Kotani, Official Notice, Zelm, and OBD II.
ISSUES
The issues pertinent to this appeal are
• Whether the Appellants have sustained their burden of showing that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 82 and 91 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Deierlein, Kotani and Offical Notice.
• Whether the Appellants have sustained their burden of showing that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 84 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Deierlein, Kotani, Official Notice, and Zelm.
• Whether the Appellants have sustained their burden of showing that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 85, 89, 90, and 93 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Deierlein, Kotani, Official Notice, Zelm, and
OBD II.
The pertinent issue turns on whether Deierlein was enabled to one of ordinary
skill to the level as claimed; whether Deierlein and Kotani described or suggested

1 http://www.obd-ii.com/background.html
4
Appeal 2008-4401
Application 10/426,175

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
the claim limitations; and whether one of ordinary skill would have looked to
Kotani for maintenance administration descriptions.
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be supported
by a preponderance of the evidence.
Deierlein
01. Deierlein is directed to describing a wireless forklift management
system (Deierlein 1:Abstract).
02. Deierlein describes a two-way messaging unit on each forklift, system
monitors and gateways mounted at fixed locations that wirelessly
communicate with the forklift messaging units and with a manager’s
computer system. Software on the manager’s computer is the brain of
the system and allows a manager to communicate with individual
forklifts. (Deierlein 1).
03. Deierlein’s system allows a forklift to start only if an authorized
operator swipes a security card through a reader on the forklift, and
enters an authorization code, process a vehicle readiness checklist and
receive work orders (Deierlein 1-2).
04. Deierlein’s system maintains continual updating of each forklift’s
location and two way text communication with individual operators in
the forklifts (Deierlein 2).
05. Deierlein’s system gathers data on each forklift and can enable a
preventative maintenance program. Such a program may be based on
actual drive-time hours (Deierlein 2).
5
Appeal 2008-4401
Application 10/426,175

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
06. Deierlein’s system does not allow an operator to use a forklift unless
authorized to do so. Its system also enforces inspection and functioning
according to OSHA safety standards (Deierlein 2).
07. Deierlein’s system generates data that is transmitted to the manager in
case of accident (Deierlein 2).
Kotani
08. Kotani is directed to the scheduling of maintenance (Kotani 1:
Abstract).
09. Kotani describes transmitting maintenance data from a machine
requiring maintenance to a managing system and scheduling a date and
time for maintenance (Kotani 1:Bottom ¶ - 2:Top ¶).
Zelm
10. Zelm is directed to testing high voltage electrical equipment at the
rated voltage level while limiting the maximum output current to a safe
level (Zelm 1:9-12).
11. Zelm describes how, when electrical equipment is not operating, an
insulation tester automatically checks the equipment and disables the
starting mechanism if the equipment is not safe to be operated (Zelm
1:57-60).
OBD II
12. OBD II is directed to describing a new on board diagnostics (OBD)
standard (OBD-II 1).
13. OBD-II signals are most often sought in response to a check engine
message on automobiles that continues to display until reset. After
6
Appeal 2008-4401
Application 10/426,175

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
servicing, the indicator for the message is reset to deactivate the message
(OBD-II 3:¶’s 3-5).
Facts Related To The Level Of Skill In The Art
14. Neither the Examiner nor the Appellants have addressed the level of
ordinary skill in the pertinent arts of systems analysis and programming,
facility maintenance systems, battery maintenance systems, wireless
digital communications, and maintenance planning systems. We will
therefore consider the cited prior art as representative of the level of
ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355
(Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill
in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself
reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’”)
(quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d
158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Facts Related To Secondary Considerations
15. There is no evidence on record of secondary considerations of non-
obviousness for our consideration.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Construction
During examination of a patent application, pending claims are given
their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the Specification. In
re Prater , 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969); In re Am. Acad. of Sci.
Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
7
Appeal 2008-4401
Application 10/426,175

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Limitations appearing in the Specification but not recited in the claim are not
read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed.
Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted “in view of the specification” without
importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily)
Although a patent applicant is entitled to be his or her own lexicographer of
patent claim terms, in ex parte prosecution it must be within limits. In re Corr,
347 F.2d 578, 580 (CCPA 1965). The applicant must do so by placing such
definitions in the Specification with sufficient clarity to provide a person of
ordinary skill in the art with clear and precise notice of the meaning that is to be
construed. See also In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (although
an inventor is free to define the specific terms used to describe the invention, this
must be done with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision; where an
inventor chooses to give terms uncommon meanings, the inventor must set out any
uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure so as to give
one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change).
Obviousness
A claimed invention is unpatentable if the differences between it and the
prior art are “such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.” 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) (2000); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1729-30
(2007); Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1966).
In Graham, the Court held that that the obviousness analysis is bottomed on
several basic factual inquiries: “[(1)] the scope and content of the prior art are to be
determined; [(2)] differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be
ascertained; and [(3)] the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved.” 383
U.S. at 17. See also KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1734. “The combination of familiar
8
Appeal 2008-4401
Application 10/426,175

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.” Id. at 1739.
“When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and
other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a
different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §
103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 1740.
“For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device,
and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve
similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond his or her skill.” Id.
“Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of
endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason
for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Id. at 1742.
Enablement of Prior Art
“To serve as an anticipating reference, the reference must enable that which it
is asserted to anticipate.” Elan Pharm., Inc. v. Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. &
Research, 346 F.3d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “Enablement requires that ‘the
prior art reference must teach one of ordinary skill in the art to make or carry out
the claimed invention without undue experimentation.’” Id. at 1054 (quoting
Minnesota Mining and Mfg. Co. v. Chemque, Inc., 303 F.3d 1294, 1301 (Fed. Cir.
2002) and citing Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc., 188 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed.
Cir. 1999)). "The standard for enablement of a prior art reference for purposes of
anticipation under section 102 differs from the enablement standard under 35
U.S.C. § 112." Novo Nordisk Pharm., Inc. v. Bio-Technology Gen. Corp., 424 F.3d
1347, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2005). "Significantly, [] 'anticipation does not require actual
9
Appeal 2008-4401
Application 10/426,175

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
performance of suggestions in a disclosure. Rather, anticipation only requires that
those suggestions be enabled to one of skill in the art.'" Id. (internal quote from
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs. Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
2001)).
ANALYSIS
Claims 82 and 91 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Deierlein, Kotani and Official Notice.
Claim 82
Claim 82 is the sole independent claim remaining in this application. The
Examiner found that Deierlein described the limitations of claim 82 except for the
specifics of maintenance data transmission and time and location scheduling. The
Examiner found that Kotani described maintenance data transmission and time
scheduling and relied on official notice for location scheduling. The Appellants
contend that Deierlein is not enabling and does not describe the structural
limitations of claim 82 (Appeal Br. 7-11: ¶ i). The Appellants further contend that
there is no reason to combine Deierlein with Kotani (Appeal Br. 11-14: ¶ i1; Reply
Br. 5: ¶ II). The Appellants also contend the Examiner took improper official
notice (Appeal Br. 14-15: ¶ iii) and hindsight (Appeal Br. 7-15: ¶ iv).
We disagree with the Appellants. The Examiner makes specific findings as to
how Deierlein describes, at least inherently, the structural limitations of claim 82.
Fixed location management computer. The third to last paragraph of
page 1 of the Warehouse Reference discloses a manager's computer
and the second to last paragraph of page 2 disclose a central
management station which Examiner construes to be a fixed location
management computer,
10
Appeal 2008-4401
Application 10/426,175

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
First and second processing units. The first processing unit is the
processing unit inherent to the manager's computer or the central
management station ("fixed computer system") and the second
processing unit is the processing unit inherent to the system monitors
and Gateways mounted throughout the facility that exchange wireless
data with the vehicles, with each other, gather information and are
linked to the manager's computer system. See the fourth to last
paragraph of page 1 of the Warehouse Reference discussing the
system monitors.
Second, third and fourth communication units. The second and third
communication units are the communication units inherent in the
system monitors and Gateways (wireless infrastructure local monitor)
mounted throughout the facility that exchange wireless data with the
vehicles and send information to the manager's computer system. See
the fourth to last paragraph of page 1 of the Warehouse Reference.
The fourth communication unit is inherent to the mobile asset
communicator (Vehicle asset communicator) in order to enable two-
way communication with the wireless infrastructure. See the fifth to
last paragraph of page 1 of the Warehouse Reference.
Mobile asset communicator having a display unit. The Vehicle Asset
Communicator enables two-way text messaging with the larger
network which inherently requires a display unit for the operator to
view the text message. This messaging with the operators is discussed
in the 5th to last paragraph of page 1 and again in the 2nd paragraph
of page 2.
The processing unit determining whether maintenance is required for
the mobile assets. The manager's computer/central management
station is disclosed as being the "brain of the system" in the 3re to last
paragraph of page 1, and in the 5th of page 2 it is disclosed that this
computer determines when maintenance is required, such as
determining a maintenance program based on actual drive-time hours
and also, as disclosed in the 2nd paragraph of page 2, when it would
determine that it needs to send text messages to an operator to enforce
maintenance schedules and warn of impending mechanical problems
(note Examiner has modified this determining of maintenance to
include determining a date and location for maintenance).
11
Appeal 2008-4401
Application 10/426,175

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
The processing unit generating a maintenance notification that
maintenance has been set. The manager's computer/central
management station is disclosed as being the "brain of the system" in
the 3re to last paragraph of page 1, and in the 2th paragraph of page 2
this computer generates text messages/notification to the operators to
enforce maintenance schedules and warn of impending mechanical
problems (note Examiner has modified this maintenance message to
include notice of date and location of scheduled maintenance).
A mobile asset communicator displaying a maintenance notification
message on a display unit. The Vehicle Asset Communicator enables
two-way text messaging with the larger network which inherently
requires a display unit for the operator to view the text message. This
messaging with the operators is discussed in the 5th to last paragraph
of page 1 and again in the 2nd paragraph of page 2.
(Answer 14-17). Thus, we find that the above structural limitations are
described by Deierlein. The Appellants argue that Deierlein fails to show details
such as the functional status of an engine or lift arms (Reply Br. 6: ¶ III), but this
argument is not commensurate with the scope of the invention, as such details are
not in claim 82.
As to enablement, “[t]o serve as an anticipating reference, the reference must
enable that which it is asserted to anticipate.” Elan Pharm., Inc. v. Mayo Found.
for Med. Educ. & Research, 346 F.3d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “Enablement
requires that ‘the prior art reference must teach one of ordinary skill in the art to
make or carry out the claimed invention without undue experimentation.’” Id. at
1054.
The Appellants argue that significant experimentation was required to reduce
the invention to practice and go through the factors in In re Wands, 858 F.2d
731,737 (Fed. Cir. 1988)) (Reply Br. 3-4). As to the Wands factor of claim
breadth, claim 82 is in fact broad. It lists a computer processor at each of a fixed
location, a wireless infrastructure and a mobile asset, with communication units to
12
Appeal 2008-4401
Application 10/426,175

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
allow communication among those three processors. The claim then lists a
monitor for unspecified maintenance characteristics that are transmitted from the
mobile asset to the fixed computer and unspecified criteria for scheduling
maintenance that has a message generated, transmitted and displayed. This
message includes a specific date and time for maintenance. Thus, there is little
implementation detail specified in the claim. All of the structural components
were known to interoperate in a network by those of ordinary skill.
As to the next two Wands factors of the nature of the invention and the state of
the prior art, the invention is little more than a wireless data communication
network. The state of wireless data communication networks was well advanced at
the time of the invention. As to broad limitations of collecting, transmitting and
displaying maintenance information, the state of the art in monitoring equipment
characteristics and transmitting messages regarding those characteristics was also
well developed at the time of the invention, as evidenced by Kotani. Kotani also
provides evidence that the level of skill in equipment maintenance arts was well
developed, and would have required knowledge of the equipment being
maintained, equipment interfaces to digital computers, and data collection and
transmission systems. One of ordinary skill having such knowledge would have at
least known how to monitor operation time, as suggested by Deierlein, and
transmit and display the time elapsed for such operation.
As to the level of predictability in the art, computer systems are deterministic
rather than probabilistic systems and therefore have a high degree of predictability,
requiring little experimentation other than the debugging of systems that occur due
to implementation detail issues. At the very high level of design in claim 82, there
would be little issue with debugging. Debugging requirements at lower levels that
are not specified in the claims would be irrelevant to a Wands analysis. Finally, as
13
Appeal 2008-4401
Application 10/426,175

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
to working examples, the Deierlein article described how to create at least a simple
working example at the relatively high level of linking computers and wireless
network systems well within the state of the art at the time of the invention (FF 02
- 07). Thus, we find both that the art described the limitations of claim 82 and
enabled the invention at least to the level of detail recited in claim 82.
As to the combining of Kitano with Deierlein, the Examiner has not relied on
Kitano for anything more than the general administration of maintenance for
equipment having electronic systems. Kitano is applied only to show that it was
known to transmit maintenance information from the equipment to a management
system and to schedule a date and time for such maintenance (FF 09). One of
ordinary skill would have known that Deierlein’s system, which also transmits
information for maintenance such as vehicle hours, and is used for a maintenance
program (FF 05), would have needed to schedule a date and time for such
maintenance based on those vehicle hours. Kotani merely provides evidence that
those of ordinary skill knew to provide such scheduling in administering
maintenance.
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives
and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same
field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a
predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same
reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a
person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.
KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740. Finally, the Appellants contend that the official notice
was improper because the official notice implied that it was a maintenance facility
rather than a computer that received a maintenance location (Appeal Br. 15: Third
¶). We find this argument to be simply misunderstanding the Examiner’s finding.
14
Appeal 2008-4401
Application 10/426,175

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
The Examiner found it was well known for date and time for maintenance to be set
(Answer 4). Clearly, given Deierlein’s use of a manager’s computer system, such
a system would be the predictable structure to perform the setting of date and time.
Thus, the Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing the Examiner
erred.
Claim 91
Claim 91 further requires the third processing unit generates a transaction code
and associates the transaction code to the maintenance notification message. The
Examiner found that it was known to those of ordinary skill to generate such
transaction codes (Answer 4). The Appellants repeat their arguments from claim
82. Thus, the Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing the Examiner
erred.
The Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 82 and 91 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Deierlein, Kotani and Offical Notice.
Claim 84 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Deierlein,
Kotani, Official Notice, and Zelm.
Claim 84 further requires the third processing unit partially disables the mobile
asset upon the certain predetermined date being passed without the scheduled
maintenance occurring. The Examiner found that Zelm describes disabling
equipment unsafe to operate (Answer 5). The Appellants rely on their arguments
in support of claim 82, and further contend that Zelm is too disparate to be
combined with Deierlein and would change the principle of operation of Deierlein
(Appeal Br. 19-20).
15
Appeal 2008-4401
Application 10/426,175

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
We disagree with the Appellants. We found the arguments for claim 82
unpersuasive supra. Zelm is applied only to show that it was known by those of
ordinary skill to disable the starting mechanism of equipment if the equipment is
not safe to be operated (FF 11). This is hardly incompatible or disparate with
Deierlein. Indeed, Deierlein suggests as much in enforcing requirements of only
authorized operators being able to use a forklift and of inspection and functioning
according to OSHA safety standards (FF 06). Certainly there is nothing about
disabling unsafe equipment that would restrict the practice to Zelm, or suggest that
only those in the field of test equipment would know of such practices. Indeed the
practice relates more to maintenance engineering than electrical engineering.
The Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 84 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Deierlein, Kotani, Official Notice, and Zelm.
Claims 85, 89, 90, and 93 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Deierlein, Kotani, Official Notice, Zelm, and OBD II.
Claim 85 further requires the third processing unit provides operational access
to the at least partially disabled mobile asset only by an authorized maintenance
operator. Claim 89 further requires an input interface for receiving an indication
from a maintenance operator of maintenance having been performed to the mobile
asset, and deactivating the maintenance notification message in response. Claim
90 further requires the deactivation of the maintenance notification message is
performed wirelessly. Claim 93 further requires the third processing unit
maintaining the maintenance notification message at least until receiving
notification that maintenance work has been performed on the mobile asset. The
Examiner found that OBD-II described how it was known to reset a system after
16
Appeal 2008-4401
Application 10/426,175

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
being serviced to remove a diagnostic message (Answer 6; FF 13). The Appellants
again rely on their arguments in support of claim 82, and further contend that fail
to describe these limitations and that OBD-II is disparate with Deierlein (Appeal
Br. 21-25).
We disagree with the Appellants. As to claim 85, Deierlein describes allowing
only an authorized operator to use a forklift (FF 06). Since performing
maintenance is a use of a forklift, it was predictable that such enforcement would
pertain to the type of use such as maintenance. As to claims 89 and 93, OBD-II
shows that it was known to have an interface for a diagnostic message, deactivate
the message after servicing, and retain a message regarding the need for service
until deactivated (FF 13). As with Kotani, OBD-II is used to provide evidence that
one of ordinary skill know to provide and deactivate messages in digital
maintenance systems. The reasons for using such messages in mobile vehicles
such as automobiles would equally pertain to mobile vehicles such as forklifts, viz.
to warn when maintenance was required. As to claim 90, Deierlein describes the
communication channel as a wireless network (FF 01).
The Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 85, 89, 90, and 93 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Deierlein, Kotani, Official Notice, Zelm, and OBD II.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 82, 84, 85, 89-91, and 93 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the prior art.
17
Appeal 2008-4401
Application 10/426,175

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows:
• The rejection of claims 82 and 91 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Deierlein, Kotani and Offical Notice is sustained.
• The rejection of claim 84 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Deierlein, Kotani, Official Notice, and Zelm is sustained.
• The rejection of claims 85, 89, 90, and 93 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Deierlein, Kotani, Official Notice, Zelm, and OBD II is
sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2007).

AFFIRMED 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

18
Appeal 2008-4401
Application 10/426,175

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

LV:

TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
RYAN A. SCHNEIDER, ESQUIRE
600 PEACHTREE STREET, NE
5200 BOA PLAZA
ATLANTA, GA 30308
19