Ex Parte Enders et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 10, 2009

10234868 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 10, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte THORSTEN ENDERS, JUERGEN SCHIRMER,
FRANK STIEGLER, TIMO KUEHN,
and KLAUS DOSTERT
____________

Appeal 2009-001977
Application 10/234,868
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided:1 June 10, 2009
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and MARC S. HOFF,
Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-001977
Application 10/234,868

2
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3, and 9. The Examiner has indicated that claims 4, 5,
10, and 11 contain allowable subject matter (Ans. 2). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants invented a supply line arranged in a star configuration and
used to power and send data to components of a motor vehicle. The
impedance of the star point of each supply line arrangement is matched to
the characteristic impedance of each individual supply line. A resistor is
added to each incoming supply line and is frequency-dependent below 100
MHz. This arrangement reduces the reflections that occur within the supply
line.2 Independent claim 1 is reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized:
1. A supply line structure for supplying energy to electrical
components of a motor vehicle and for transmitting information
between at least a portion of the electrical components, comprising:

supply lines arranged in a star configuration having at least
one star point, the at least one star point exhibiting an impedance
corresponding to a characteristic impedance of individual supply line
branches running thereinto, wherein each supply line is used to
transmit both energy and information across a single wire;

wherein an additional series resistor is arranged at the at least
one star point in each of the individual supply line branches;

2 See generally Spec. 2:19-30, 3:13-31, 4:17-23, 5:22-7:9, and 10:13-21.
Appeal 2009-001977
Application 10/234,868

3
wherein the additional series resistor is frequency-dependent
below a frequency of 100 MHz, whereby at a frequency of 0 Hz, the
additional series resistor has a resistance value of substantially 0
ohm, and in a frequency range above 100 MHz for transmission of
information via a supply line, the additional series resistor has a
resistance value of Zseries.

The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejection:
Schmid US 5,313,460 May 17, 1994
Rall US 5,734,658 Mar. 31, 1998

Morita US 6,008,691 Dec. 28, 1999
Hoetzel US 6,373,375 B1 Apr. 16, 2002
(1) Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schmid, Hoetzel, and Morita (Ans. 3-4).
(2) Claims 3 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schmid, Hoetzel, Morita, and Rall (Ans. 4-5).
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
refer to the Briefs and the Answer3 for their respective details. In this
decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by
Appellants. Arguments which Appellants could have made but did not make
in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

3 Throughout the opinion, we refer to: (1) the Appeal Brief filed May 22,
2007; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed September 21, 2007; and (3) the
Reply Brief filed November 19, 2007.
Appeal 2009-001977
Application 10/234,868

4
Appellants group the claims as follows: (1) claim 1; and (2) claims 3
and 9 (App. Br. 4-10). We will address each grouping separately.

Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Schmid discloses all the limitations of
representative claim 1, except that each supply line is used to transmit
energy and data across a single wire and the additional series resistors in the
star point are frequency-dependent (Ans. 3-4). The Examiner relies on
Hoetzel and Morita to cure these deficiencies (Ans. 4). Appellants argue
that: (1) Schmid does not disclose the supply lines are arranged in a star
configuration; (2) Hoetzel does not teach each supply line transmits energy
and information across a single wire; (3) Morita’s frequency-dependent
supply line teaches away from combining with Schmid’s supply line having
an impedance with fixed resistance; (4) Morita is nonanalogous art; and (5)
the Examiner has not provided a motivation to combine Morita with Schmid
(App. Br. 5-8; Reply Br. 2-4).

ISSUES
The following issues have been raised in the present appeal:
(1) Under § 103, have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that Schmid discloses supply lines arranged in a star configuration in
rejecting claim 1?
(2) Under § 103, have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combined Schmid and Hoetzel system teaches each supply
line is used to transmit both energy and information in rejecting claim 1?
Appeal 2009-001977
Application 10/234,868

5
(3) Under § 103, have Appellants shown that Morita is nonanalogous
art?
(4) Under § 103, have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combined Schmid and Morita system teaches including an
additional series resistor in each supply line branch that is frequency-
dependent in rejecting claim 1?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.

Schmid
1. Schmid discloses a supply line structure for a motor vehicle having
lines (e.g., lines L1-L6) arranged to meet at a ring line 2 in a star shaped
configuration. (Col. 3, ll. 28-55; Fig. 1).
2. Schmid discloses load lines LL are secured to ring lines or star
points 1 and 2, and lines 3 connect both the ring line 2 and each circuit of the
data lines associated with lines (e.g., one of L1-L6) to exchange data to and
from any of the lines (e.g., others of L1-L6). (Col. 3, ll. 28-33 and 52-55;
Figs 2 and 4).
3. Figure 2 of Schmid shows more details of a section of the data line
indicated by dashes as II in Figure 1 and associated with line L1. Schmid
discloses that bus coupling networks (e.g., station network SN1 and
distributor networks VN1) are provided at each end of a line (e.g., L1), and
line 3 is connected to data ring line 2 of the star point. (Col. 3, ll. 18-20, 37-
41, and 52-55 and col. 3, l. 60-col. 4, l. 30; Figs. 1-2).
Appeal 2009-001977
Application 10/234,868

6
4. Schmid discloses a load line LL and a data line LD. (Col. 3, ll. 56-
59; Fig. 3).
5. Schmid discloses a battery that supplies 5V at transmitter Tx. (Col.
4, ll. 46-54 and col. 6, ll. 1-3; Fig. 1).
6. Schmid discloses that each data line has a specific resistance that
can be set to match the resistance at the data line’s ends using a low
resistance impedance converter Ra4 together with the resistor R1 to affect
radiation behavior advantageously. (Col. 2, ll. 46-49 and col. 5, ll. 17-20).

Hoetzel
7. Hoetzel teaches that the supply lines 10 that can carry data are
two-wire supply lines and carry a voltage. (Col. 1, ll. 42-45 and col. 2, ll.
33-34 and 41).
8. Hoetzel teaches that data can be transmitted using a frequency shift
key (FSK) technique (Col. 2, ll. 53-66).

Morita
9. Morita teaches an analog filter or a frequency-dependent resistor
used in various data communication systems (e.g., video signals, equalizers,
tuners, and digital signal processing) to filter or reduce noise in such
environments. (Col. 1, ll. 4-13; col. 30, l. 66-col. 31, l. 46; Figs. 23-24).
10. Morita teaches the use of frequency-dependent resistors to change
the impedance of the system. (Col. 2, ll. 20-28).

4 Ra is not shown in the figures of Schmid. See generally Schmid.
Appeal 2009-001977
Application 10/234,868

7
Appellants’ Disclosure
11. Appellants discuss using the invention to avoid the reflections in
the supply line of a data communication system. (Spec. 5:31-6:7).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073-74 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
doing, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set forth in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966) (stating that 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 leads to three basic factual inquiries: the scope and content of the prior
art, the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, and the
level of ordinary skill in the art). “[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). Furthermore,
“there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness” . .
. . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim,
for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.

KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
“The analogous-art test requires that the Board show that a
reference is either in the field of the applicant's endeavor or is
reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was
Appeal 2009-001977
Application 10/234,868

8
concerned in order to rely on that reference as a basis for rejection.”
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986-87 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Oetiker, 977
F.2d at 1447).

ANALYSIS
Schmid discloses a supply line structure for a motor vehicle having
numerous supply lines (e.g., lines L1-L6) arranged to meet at a data ring
lines 1 and 2 in a star shaped configuration (FF 1-2). Figure 2 shows more
details of a portion of the data line associated with line L1 (FF 3). Schmid
discloses that bus coupling networks (e.g., station network SN1 and
distributor networks VN1) are provided at each end of line L1, and line 3 is
secured to ring line 2 of the star point. (Id.) Notwithstanding the distributor
networks (e.g., VN1) being located along the connection from a station
network (e.g., SN1) to the ring line 2 (see FF 3), we find that the entire
circuit from the station network (e.g., SN1) to the ring line 2 defines a
supply line. Thus, we are not persuaded that the “Schmid merely discloses a
data communication system including distributor arrangements” (App. Br. 5)
(emphasis omitted) arranged in a star configuration.
Additionally, lines 3 connect both the ring line 2 and each circuit for
the data lines associated with L1-L6 to exchange data to and from any of the
lines (FF 2). Thus, even if the entire circuit shown in Figure 2 associated
with each line L1-L6 is determined not to be a supply line, Schmid also
discloses a supply line 3 for each branch of a supply line structure shown in
Figure 1 connected to data ring lines or star points 1 and 2 and arranged in a
Appeal 2009-001977
Application 10/234,868

9
star configuration. See FF 1-2. Thus, we disagree with Appellants (App. Br.
5) and find that Schmid shows supply lines that are arranged in a star
configuration as recited in claim 1.
Additionally, contrary to Appellants’ assertions (App. Br. 5), both
Schmid and Hoetzel disclose the limitation of a supply line “used to transmit
both energy and information across a single wire” recited in claim 1. That
is, the transmission of data through the data line or LD shown in Figure 3 (FF
4) of Schmid requires energy to transmit the signal from one point to
another. More specifically, in order to transmit the data or information,
Figure 1 of Schmid shows a battery that supplies a voltage (e.g., 5V) or
energy across the data lines. See FF 5. Thus, giving the claim limitations
their broadest reasonable interpretation, we find that Schmid’s data lines
carry both energy and information and are, thus, supply lines as broadly as
recited in claim 1. See In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Schmid also shows the data line or LD has shown a
number of lines or single wires (see FF 4), each of which carries data and
energy. Finally, claim 1 includes the open-ended transitional phrase
“comprising” that does not preclude the prior art from having other wires
that also transmit both energy and information.
As for Hoetzel, we acknowledge that supply line 10 has two wires (FF
7). Nonetheless, Hoetzel teaches that the supply line carries a voltage and
data. (Id.) As stated above with regard to Schmid, energy or voltage will be
needed in Hoetzel’s supply line to transmit the data, and similarly, each wire
of the supply line that transmits the data will contain both the data and
energy. Additionally, Hoetzel teaches that the data can be transmitted using
a frequency shift key (FSK) technique (FF 8), in which the data or
Appeal 2009-001977
Application 10/234,868

10
information is digitized or converted into units of energy before
transmission. We therefore find that both Schmid and Hoetzel disclose and
teach the limitation of “each supply line is used to transmit both energy and
information across a single wire” as recited in claim 1.
Appellants next argue that Morita is nonanalogous art (App. Br. 7-8;
Reply Br. 4). Both Appellants and Morita relate communication systems
that transmit data over supply lines. (See FF 9 and 11). Thus, Morita is in
the same field of endeavour as Appellants. See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 986-87.
Morita also teaches that a filter or a frequency-dependent resistor is used in
various data communication systems in order to filter noise (FF 9).
Appellants are similarly concerned with eliminating reflections (e.g., noise)
in a supply line (FF 11). Thus, Morita is also reasonably pertinent to the
problem with which Appellants were concerned. See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 986-
87. We therefore find that Morita is analogous art.
Appellants further contend that Morita teaches away from combining
with Schmid and, therefore, the Examiner does not provide an adequate
reason to combine the references (App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 3-4).
Specifically, Appellants find that Schmid discloses an impedance with a
fixed resistance on the data line LD and to incorporate the
frequency-dependent resistor of Morita into Schmid would change Schmid’s
principle of operation (App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 3).
We agree that Schmid discloses a supply line structure that includes a
resistor R1 at the data line LD (FF 6). However, Schmid also discloses that
each data line has a specific resistance that can be set to match the resistance
at the ends of the data line, and each supply line branch uses a low-resistance
impedance converter Ra together with the resistor R1 to affect radiation
Appeal 2009-001977
Application 10/234,868

11
behavior advantageously. See id. Thus, Schmid discloses an interest in
selecting an appropriate resistance to have an advantageous effect on
radiation or noise. See id.
Morita teaches an arrangement used with data transmission devices
for reducing noise effects that includes a frequency-dependent resistor (FF
9-10). As radiation disclosed in Schmid is a type of noise, Morita suggests
an alternative to the impedance converter Ra and resistor R1 of Schmid’s
data communication device that similarly reduces noise to affect radiation
behavior advantageously. See FF 6 and 9. Morita’s arrangement includes a
frequency-dependent resistor that assists in reducing noise (FF 9).
Substituting the frequency-dependent resistor of Morita’s for Schmid’s
impedance converter Ra and resistor R1 yields no more than the predictable
result of reducing the noise (e.g., radiation) during data transmission on the
combined Schmid and Morita supply line. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Additionally, Schmid does not indicate that having a variable
resistance or a frequency-dependent system would destroy its principle of
operation. Schmid is primarily concerned with matching impedance on the
data line’s ends in order to affect radiation behavior advantageously (FF 6).
In effect, Schmid teaches an ordinarily skilled artisan that impedance
matching with the impedance converter Ra and resistor R1 minimizes
reflections or noise. See FF 6. Morita further recognizes that impedance
changes with frequency and that the frequency-dependent resistors are used
to abate noise during these changes (FF 9-10). Thus, we do not find that
Morita destroys the principle of operation of Schmid. Rather, Morita
provides a further solution to deal with the noises and impedance on a
supply line. Morita’s frequency-dependent resistors would advantageously
Appeal 2009-001977
Application 10/234,868

12
assist in matching the impedance on the line’s ends and reduce the noise.
See FF 6, 9, and 10. Thus, we find there is ample support in the record to
combine Schmid and Morita and further find that Morita does not teach
away from combining with Schmid such that Morita changes Schmid’s
principle of operation.
Lastly, Appellants contend that Morita does not suggest a
frequency-dependent resistor in a load line like Schmid’s (App. Br. 8; Reply
Br. 4). We take exception to this statement. First, claim 1 recites that
supply lines carry both energy and data and that those supply lines have
frequency-dependent resistors. Thus, Morita does not need to disclose a
frequency-dependent resistor in a load line. Second, the rejection is based
on the combination of Schmid, Hoetzel, and Morita. Thus, Appellants
cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually. See In re
Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Moreover, as
discussed above, the combination of Schmid and Morita teaches a supply
line structure having a frequency-dependent resistor in each supply line of
the star configuration. Thus, this argument also fails to rebut persuasively
the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not shown the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Schmid, Hoetzel,
and Morita.

Appeal 2009-001977
Application 10/234,868

13
Claims 3 and 9
Representative dependent claim 35 recites that each additional series
resistor has the same resistance value in all the individual supply lines. The
Examiner finds that Schmid, Hoetzel, Morita, and Rall collectively teach the
limitations of claim 3 (Ans. 4-5). Referencing the discussion of claim 1,
Appellants argue that Schmid, Hoetzel, and Morita fail to disclose the star
configuration limitation, the single wire limitation, and the frequency-
dependent resistors limitation previously discussed (App. Br. 9-10; Reply
Br. 4-5). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument, for the same
reasons discussed above in connection with claim 1, and need not address
whether Rall cures any alleged deficiency. This argument also fails to
persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness – a
position we find reasonable.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not shown the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 3 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Schmid,
Hoetzel, Morita, and Rall.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) Under § 103, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in finding that Schmid discloses supply lines arranged in a star configuration
in rejecting claims 1, 3, and 9.
(2) Under § 103, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in finding that the combined Schmid and Hoetzel system teaches each

5 Appellants group claims 3 and 9 (App. Br. 9-10). Accordingly, we select
claim 3 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2009-001977
Application 10/234,868

14
supply line is used to transmit both energy and information in rejecting
claims 1, 3, and 9.
(3) Under § 103, Appellants have not shown that Morita is
nonanalogous art.
(4) Under § 103, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in finding that the combined Schmid and Morita system teaches including an
additional series resistor in each supply line branch that is frequency-
dependent in rejecting claims 1, 3, and 9.

DECISION
We have sustained the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, and 9.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3 and 9 is affirmed.
No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

pgc

KENYON & KENYON LLP
ONE BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10004