Ex Parte Farrell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2016

12843841 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/843,841 07/26/2010
75227 7590 04/01/2016
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P,C
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Brian Farrell
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.
200901036US;60426-977PUS 1 6920
EXAMINER
RUSHING, MARKS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2016 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
cgolaw@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN FARRELL, PA TRICIA KACHOUH,
SANJAYA K. DASH, BRIAN MARLETT, DOUGLAS J.
KING, and STEPHANIE ADL ZARRABI
Appeal2014-006059
Application 12/843,841
Technology Center 2600
Before: ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to vehicle and fob communication
arrangement wherein a transmitter is configured to communicate a challenge
signal and at least one timing signal to a plurality of fobs. The base station
Appeal2014-006059
Application 12/843,841
initiates a vehicle operation in response to at least one return signal. The
return signal is communicated to the base station from at least one of the
fobs in response to the timing signal. See Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A base station assembly comprising:
a transmitter portion configured to communicate a
challenge signal and at least one timing signal to a plurality of
fobs; and
a base station configured to initiate a vehicle operation in
response to at least one return signal, wherein at least one return
signal is communicated to the base station from at least one of
the plurality of fobs in response to the challenge signal and at
least one timing signal.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Perraud
Kachouh
US 6,603,388 Bl Aug. 5, 2003
US 2008/0109123 Al May 8, 2008
THE REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Perraud in view of Kachouh.
ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Perraud and Kachouh teaches the limitation of "wherein at
least one return signal is communicated to the base station from at least one
2
Appeal2014-006059
Application 12/843,841
of the plurality of fobs in response to the challenge signal and at least one
timing signal" as recited in claim 1.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner's findings in the Final Office Action and
Answer and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellants argue that the Examiner failed to articulate a reasonable
rationale to combine the references because the motivational statement to
"avoid problems of contention and interference" is legally insufficient since
the primary reference of Perraud already specifically recites "contention and
interference between multiple transponders associated with the same vehicle
is avoided" (col. 3, 1. 61---col. 4, 1. 5; App. Br. 3).
Appellants further argue that the Examiner's second reason to modify
Perraud to include a second low frequency signal 26 as taught by Kachouh
fails to "provide a system that substantially reduces or eliminates any
perceived hesitation in system response" (App. Br. 3). According to
Appellants the modification adds a completely new transmission step and
completely new response step to the security system of Perraud causing
more hesitation, not less (App. Br. 3).
We do not agree with Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that Perraud teaches transmission of three downlink channels
which are time-division multiplexed, providing non-overlapping time slots
for transmission of Ultra High Frequency (UHF) unlock signals by three
different transponders (keys) for the same vehicle (Final Act. 2; col, 3, 1. 50-
col. 4, 1. 5). The Examiner recognizes that Perraud does not teach a separate
timing signal separate from the challenge signal (Final Act. 2). The
Examiner finds, and we agree that Kachouh teaches a timing signal separate
3
Appeal2014-006059
Application 12/843,841
from the challenge signal (Final Act. 2-3; para. 15, first challenge signal 22,
second RF signal 26, and Fig. 1 ). According to the same paragraph cited by
the Examiner, the second RF signal 28 includes a return encrypted portion to
verify authenticity along with signals that communicate desired commands
such as for unlocking the vehicle doors or allowing operation of the vehicle
(para. 15).
We agree with the Examiner's findings that Perraud's multiplexed
activation signal to activate a plurality of fobs could be further enhanced
with a separate challenge and timing signal to specifically communicate a
specific one of the desired command signals to one of the fobs (see Final
Act. 2). The encryption used in Kachouh eliminates hesitation as compared
to prior art systems using encryption calculation time (para. 5, and see also
para. 8). One skilled in the art could readily recognize that both systems
could be used together, Perraud's system could be used to activate multiple
proximate fobs with the same command (i.e., unlocking a car door) avoiding
problems of contention and interference; and Kachouh' s system could be
also used to activate a specific command from one of the fobs (i.e., allowing
operation of a vehicle). In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to
find precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter claimed because
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a
person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
We further agree with the Examiner's reasoning that one skilled in the
art cannot presume that Perraud resolved all issues of interference, hence
there is motivation to add modifications useful to decrease noise (Ans. 9).
4
Appeal2014-006059
Application 12/843,841
Appellants also argue that even if the modification is proper, claim 1
recites a "transmitter portion configured to communicate a challenge signal
and at least one timing signal to a plurality of fobs" (App. Br. 4). The
Appellants state that the Examiner relies on the second signal in Kachouh as
teaching the claimed timing signal (App. Br. 4). However, according to
Appellants in Kachouh, the second signal is "uniquely crafted for receipt and
response from the selected one of the plurality of remote controlled devices"
(see Kachouh para. 15). Thus, according to Appellants, even ifthe
modification of Perraud with Kachouh were proper, the result would fail to
teach a timing signal communicated to a "plurality of fobs" in the manner of
the claimed invention (App. Br. 4).
We do not agree with Appellants' argument. Kachouh teaches
transmission of a challenge signal 22 and a second LF signal 26 transmitted
to the devices 14, 16, 18, and 20 but only device 14 responds based on the
encrypted information (para. 15). Thus, Kachouh teaches
a transmitter portion configured to communicate a
challenge signal and at least one timing signal to a plurality of
fobs; and
... at least one return signal is communicated to the base
station from at least one of the plurality of fobs in response to
the challenge signal and at least one timing signal
as recited in claim 1. The claim requires at least one of the plurality of fobs
to respond-not all of the fobs to respond. Furthermore, one skilled in the
art would readily recognize that if multiple fobs are assigned the same
encrypted information, then multiple of them would respond to the timing
signal for the same function, such as unlocking the doors.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. For the
same reasons we also affirm the rejection of claims 4 and 7 not argued
5
Appeal2014-006059
Application 12/843,841
separately (App. Br. 7, 8). Appellants make a similar argument for claim 22
as that raised for claim 1, and thus, we also affirm the rejection of claim 22
(App. Br. 9).
Appellants further argue with respect to claims 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 18,
19, 20, 21, and 23, that either there is a plurality of return signals or a first
and second identical return signals, not shown in the prior art (App. Br. 6-
10). We agree with the Examiner's finding, for example, with respect to
claim 10 that Perraud teaches a plurality of key fobs configured to
communicate a response signal (Ans. 5---6).
Appellants further argue with respect to claims 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14,
that Perraud has already assigned timing in the uplink so there is no need to
receive the timing signal second to the challenge signal (see App. Br. 8).
We do not agree with Appellants' argument. Kachouh teaches as addressed
above a separate timing signal arriving second to the challenge signal as an
alternative way of activating a response such as unlocking the doors of a car
(see discussion supra with respect to claim 1).
Appellants also argue with respect to claims 2, 16, and 1 7, that there is
no teaching of alignment (App. Br. 6). We agree with the Examiner's
response that signals 320 and 322 are aligned because they are in a
"coordinated correlation" under the broadest reasonable interpretation (see
Final Act. 3). Furthermore, this is consistent with Appellants' Specification
which provides the purpose for phase alignment to ensure that vehicle
operations are initiated by the return signal (see Spec. para. 36), and both
Perraud and Kachouh provide for such a system.
6
Appeal2014-006059
Application 12/843,841
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Perraud
and Kachouh teaches the limitation of "wherein at least one return signal is
communicated to the base station from at least one of the plurality of fobs in
response to the challenge signal and at least one timing signal" as recited in
claim 1.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-23 is
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7