Ex Parte Goelz et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 13, 2010

10171418 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 13, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/171,418 06/13/2002 Hans-Peter Goelz Harman.6784 7211
50811 7590 09/14/2010
O''Shea Getz P.C.
1500 MAIN ST. SUITE 912
SPRINGFIELD, MA 01115
EXAMINER
WINDER, PATRICE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2445
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte HANS-PETER GOELZ, TIEN MANH TRAN,
STEFAN BECKERS, and THOMAS ROMANOWSKI
____________________

Appeal 2009-007812
Application 10/171,4181
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JAY P. LUCAS, THU A. DANG, and JAMES R. HUGHES,
Administrative Patent Judges.

LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL2

1 Application filed June 13, 2002. Appellants claim the benefit under
35 U.S.C. § 119 of German patent application 101 28 542.6, filed
June 13, 2001. The real party in interest is Harman Becker Automotive
Systems GmbH.
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-007812
Application 10/171,418

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal from a final rejection of claims 1 to 20 under
authority of 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). The Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences (BPAI) has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

We affirm the rejections.

Appellants’ invention relates to a method of controlling units or
devices (e.g., radio receivers, CD players, GPS, PDAs, and cell phones)
connected to a car’s multimedia network (Spec. 10, middle). In the words of
Appellants:
By storing the functions of the network in
[a] function catalog and generating … programs
associated with the various functions stored in the
function catalog in [a] program generator, and
feeding them into the network, the network
automatically adapts to the addition of network
units or to the reduction (e.g., removal) of network
units.
(Spec. 14, bottom).

The following illustrate the claims on appeal:
Claims 1 and 14:
1. A method for controlling a plurality of units
interconnected in a ring network, comprising the
steps of:

receiving commands at a man/machine
interface connected in the network and providing a
received command signal;

2
Appeal 2009-007812
Application 10/171,418

generating data telegrams from the received
command signal;

providing the generated data telegrams to
the network;

receiving data teglegrams from the network;

sending information corresponding to the
received data telegrams for display;

within the man/machine interface,
generating programs associated with functions of
the network, and

transmitting the generated programs to
selected portions of the man/machine interface.

14. A network having a plurality of multimedia
units arranged in a Media Oriented Systems
Transport (“MOST”) bus configuration,
comprising:

a plurality of units connected together via
the bus, where one of the units comprises a
man/machine interface unit that includes an
application unit that receives input commands and
displays information received from the network;

an interface;

an access unit connected to the application
unit by the interface;

a data unit that receives commands from the
access unit and generates data telegrams, where the
data unit receives information from the network
3
Appeal 2009-007812
Application 10/171,418

and forwards the information to the application
unit;

a transmitting and receiving unit that
provides the generated data telegrams to the
network and provides data telegrams received from
the network to the data unit;

a function catalog that stores functions of
the network; and

a program generator that is part of the
man/machine interface, where the program
generator selectively generates executable
programs for the functions of the data unit.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Razavi US 6,370,449 B1 Apr. 9, 2002

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:

R1: Claims 1 to 3, 5 to 9, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) for being anticipated by Razavi.
R2: Claims 4, 10, 11, and 14 to 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
for being obvious over Razavi in view of “Official Notice.”

We have only considered arguments that Appellants actually raised in
the Briefs. Arguments that Appellants could have made but chose not to
4
Appeal 2009-007812
Application 10/171,418

make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUES
The issues involve whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and 103(a). The issue
under § 102(e) specifically turns on whether the Razavi reference discloses
Appellants’ claim limitation “within the man/machine interface, generating
programs associated with functions of the network,” as required by claim 1.
The issue under § 103(a) turns on whether the Razavi reference discloses
Appellants’ claimed “program generator.”

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Disclosure
1. Appellants have invented a method and network for controlling units
or devices connected to a network in a car. (See claims 1, 2, and 14.)
Within Appellants’ man/machine interface, the claimed method generates
programs associated with network functions (claim 1). The Specification
discloses two supporting examples, each of which involves controlling
functions of a network-connected radio. (See Spec. 14.)
Razavi
2. The Razavi reference teaches controlling units or devices connected to
a network in a car. (See col. 9, ll. 31 to 37, 43 to 45, and 54 to 58.) Within
Razavi’s virtual dashboard application, the Jini lookup service provides
5
Appeal 2009-007812
Application 10/171,418

instructions associated with network functions (col. 9, ll. 45 to 51; col. 10, ll.
50 to 51). Razavi further teaches controlling, via the virtual dashboard
application, radio functions of a network-connected radio (col. 10, ll. 44 to
52; col. 11, l. 15).
Official Notice
3. The Examiner takes Official Notice that a Media Oriented Systems
Transport (MOST) was well-known in the computer networking arts at the
time the claimed invention was made (Ans. 8, top and 9, bottom). Official
Notice is taken that markup language and ASCII format were well-known in
the art (Ans. 8, middle).

PRINCIPLE OF LAW
Appellants have the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate
Examiner error. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

ANALYSIS
Arguments with respect to the rejection
of claims 1 to 3, 5 to 9, 12, and 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) [R1]

The Examiner rejects the above-noted claims for being anticipated by
the Razavi reference, pages 4 to 7. Appellants argue Razavi fails to disclose
the claim limitation “within the man/machine interface, generating programs
associated with functions of the network” (claim 1) because Razavi’s
network devices merely use existing services of connected network devices
(App. Br. 8, middle). In reply, the Examiner finds that “[a] program in its
6
Appeal 2009-007812
Application 10/171,418

most basic form is an instruction” and that Razavi’s Jini lookup service
generates instructions that register an upgraded device (Ans. 10, bottom to
11, top).
For the reasons stated above, we will read Appellants’ claimed step of
“generating programs” as meaning “providing instructions.” In doing so, we
note that Appellants’ Specification does not limit the meaning of “generating
programs.” (See Spec. 10 to 14.) That is, reading the claim language
broadly but reasonably, see In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989),
we interpret Appellants’ claimed phrase “generating programs” as
“providing instructions.”
We accordingly find that Razavi’s teaching for controlling radio
functions (i.e., “providing instructions” to the virtual dashboard application)
operates no differently from Appellants’ claimed step of “generating
programs.” (See FF#1, FF#2.)
In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), Appellants made
separate arguments concerning claim 2 (App. Br. 14 to 17). Appellants
argue, for example, that Razavi fails to teach various units (e.g., “an
application unit,” “an access unit,” “a data unit,” “a transmitting and
receiving unit”) of the claimed “man/machine interface unit.” (App. Br. 14,
middle). However, upon review of Razavi’s teachings, we adopt and
endorse the Examiner’s findings regarding claim 2. We refer Appellants to
the “Response to Arguments” section of the Answer for further details (Ans.
14, middle to 15, middle).

7
Appeal 2009-007812
Application 10/171,418

Argument with respect to the rejection
of claims 4, 10, 11, and 14 to 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) [R2]

The Examiner rejects the noted claims for being obvious over the
combination of the Razavi reference and Official Notice, pages 7 to 10.
Regarding claim 14, Appellants argue that the claimed “program generator”
does not read on Razavi’s “virtual dashboard.” (See App. Br. 18 to 20.)
We disagree with Appellants’ argument. As we stated above
regarding claim 1, we broadly but reasonably interpret the claimed
“generating programs” as “providing instructions.” In accordance with that
interpretation, we now interpret the “program generator” of claim 14 as an
instruction generator. We find that Razavi’s “virtual dashboard application,”
which is a part of the computer platform, is an instruction generator.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection R2.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
Appellants have not demonstrated Examiner error in rejecting claims 1 to
20.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections R1 and R2 of claims 1 to 20.

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).

8
Appeal 2009-007812
Application 10/171,418

AFFIRMED

peb

O’SHEA GETZ P.C.
1500 MAIN ST. SUITE 912
SPRINGFIELD, MA 01115
9