Ex Parte Flick

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 20, 2009

10085403 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 20, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KENNETH E. FLICK
____________

Appeal 2009-004554
Application 10/085,403
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: October 20, 2009
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and BIBHU R.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-004554
Application 10/085,403

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of the
final rejection of claims 1-32 which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM1.

THE INVENTION
The Appellant’s claimed invention is directed a method including
installing in a vehicle a remote control device which includes a controller
and wireless receiver to permit the wireless enabling of a customer selected
remote control feature package (Spec. 3:22-26). Claim 1, reproduced below,
is representative of the subject matter of appeal.

1. A method of providing a customer-selected remote
control feature package in a vehicle, the method comprising:
installing a universal remote control device in the vehicle, the
universal remote control device comprising a controller and a
wireless receiver cooperating therewith for permitting wireless
enabling of the customer-selected remote control feature
package from among a plurality of possible remote control
feature packages;

1 Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in
this decision. Arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007).
Appeal 2009-004554
Application 10/085,403

3
negotiating sale or lease of the vehicle with the customer and
comprising
offering the plurality of possible remote control feature
packages to the customer, and
accepting an order for the customer-selected remote control
feature package from the customer; and
wirelessly enabling the customer-selected remote control
feature package for the universal remote control device.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
Treyz US 6,526,335 B1 Feb. 25, 2003

The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Treyz.

THE ISSUE
At issue is whether the Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred
in making the aforementioned rejections.
This issue turns on whether Treyz discloses “wireless[ly] enabling the
customer-selected remote control feature package for the universal remote
control device” when given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of
the Specification.

Appeal 2009-004554
Application 10/085,403

4
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are supported
at least by a preponderance of the evidence:2
FF1. Treyz discloses an automobile personal computer system (Title) with
wireless communication capabilities (Col. 1:28-31). Settings for the
personal computer system may be adjusted using computing devices that are
separate from the automobile personal computer (Col. 1:60-63).
FF2. Treyz discloses that a user may log onto a web site and subscribe to a
digital satellite service available from the automobile manufacturer (Col.
22:24-27).
FF3. Treyz discloses that data that enables the automobile personal
computer to obtain the satellite service may be downloaded to the personal
computer. The user may provide a code for the personal computer to
activate the service (Col. 22:29-34).
FF4. Treyz discloses that the services may include music services, news
services, communication services, and data services (Col. 22:56-58) and
satellite radio (Col. 22:64).
FF5. Treyz discloses that a wireless device such as a key chain may be used
to control the automobile personal computer (Col. 23:23-25).
FF6. Treyz discloses that a wireless key chain device and personal
computer may be used to open the door locks, start the engine, adjust the
heat and air conditioning, control the wipers, and control the headlights and
rear defogger (Col. 23:29-41).

2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
Appeal 2009-004554
Application 10/085,403

5
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Principles of Law Relating Claim Construction
We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications not solely
on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest
reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech.
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The properly interpreted claim
must then be compared with the prior art.

Principles of Law Relating to Anticipation
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d
628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Analysis of whether a claim is patentable over
the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 begins with a determination of the scope
of the claim.

ANALYSIS
The Appellant argues that the rejection of claims 1, 16, and 27 is
improper because Treyz fails to disclose “wirelessly enabling the customer-
selected remote control feature package for the universal remote control
device”. (Br. 10). The Appellant reiterates this statement in the Reply Brief
at page 3. The Appellant states that Treyz does teach wirelessly enabling
satellite radio and a vehicle with remote control features, but that Treyz does
not disclose wirelessly enabling remote control features as claimed (Br. 10).
The Appellant argues that claims 1 and 16 also recite limitations to
Appeal 2009-004554
Application 10/085,403

6
negotiating the sale or lease of the vehicle not found in the Treyz reference
(Br. 10-11).
In contrast the Examiner has determined that Treyz discloses
wirelessly enabled features from a remote key chain including a GPS system
(Ans. 10). The Examiner has also determined that Treyz discloses the
ability to remotely subscribe to digital satellite radio services meeting the
claimed limitations (Ans. 10-11).
We agree with the Examiner. We begin with claim construction. The
Specification states:

“The universal remote control device 30 includes a controller and a
wireless receiver cooperating with the controller to permit wireless
enabling of the customer-selected remote control feature package
from a plurality of possible remote control feature packages”

(Spec. 7:7-12, emphasis added).

Giving the term “wireless enabling the customer-selected remote
control feature package for the universal remote control device” in claim 1
its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, we
construe this term to broadly require the wireless enabling of a customer-
selected remote control feature package for the universal remote control
device. There is no limitation placed on what package specifically may be
wirelessly enabled in this claim construction.
Turning to Treyz, it is disclosed that a user may subscribe to digital
satellite service that is available from the automobile manufacturer over a
web site (FF2). The automobile personal computer is provided with a code
to activate the services (FF3). The services may include for example music
services, new services, and data services (FF4). Thus we determine that the
Appeal 2009-004554
Application 10/085,403

7
automobile personal computer serves as a “remote control device” to
activate or “enable” the customer selected satellite radio “music package”
wirelessly, meeting the claimed limitation. There is no limitation in claim 1
that would prohibit the “remote control feature package” from being selected
from the packages of music services, new services, or data services received
by satellite radio. The recitation of “negotiating sale or lease of the vehicle
with the customer” is considered inherent in sale or lease of the vehicle. For
these reasons, the rejection of claim 1, and claims 16 and 27 which contain a
similar cited limitation is sustained. The Appellant has not argued for the
dependent claims 2-15, 7-26, and 28-35 separately and the rejection of these
claims is sustained for the same reasons.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Treyz.

DECISON
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-32 is sustained.

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2009-004554
Application 10/085,403

8
MP

ALLEN, DYER, DOPPELT, MILBRATH & GIL CHRIST P.A.
1401 CITRUS CENTER 255 SOUTH ORANGE AVENUE
P.O. BOX 3701
ORLANDO FL 32802-3791