Ex Parte Grenn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 22, 2013

11531545 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DANIEL P. GRENN, MAREK L. WILMANOWICZ,
ANIKET KOTHARI, LEONARD G. WOZNIAK, RICK H. SCHROEDER,
ANDREW M. ZETTEL, PETER E. WU, WIE D. WANG,
MICHAEL J. TALJONICK, and JAYANTHI PADMANABHAN
____________________

Appeal 2011-004055
Application 11/531,545
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-004055
Application 11/531,545

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1-401. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The rejected claims are directed to a distributed on-board diagnostic
(OBD) architecture for a vehicle control system that controls the engine and
monitors the vehicle’s systems, as well as a method of distributing OBD
functions in such a vehicle control system (Spec., para. [0004]). Claims 1,
13, and 25 are independent claims.
EXEMPLARY CLAIM
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A distributed on-board diagnostic (OBD)
architecture for a control system of a vehicle,
comprising:
a plurality of control modules that are in
communication with one another; and
a designated master OBD control module
that is one of said plurality of control modules,
wherein said master OBD control module executes
functions that a remainder of said plurality of
control modules are not configured to execute
including arbitrating and storing OBD freeze frame
data and determining OBD status flags of said
remainder of said plurality of control modules.

1Our decision will refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed
September 13, 2006), Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed July 20, 2010), and
Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed December 9, 2010), as well as the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed October 15, 2010).
Appeal 2011-004055
Application 11/531,545

3
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
Claims 1-4, 13-16, 25-28, 30, and 38-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wong (US 2001/0041956 A1, pub. Nov. 15, 2001) in
view of Smith (US 5,671,141, iss. Sep. 23, 1997);
Claims 5, 7, 11, 12, 17, 19, 23, 24, 29, 32, 36, and 37 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wong in view of Smith and Bodin (US
2006/0052921 A1, pub. Mar. 9, 2006), and further in view of Okada (US
2004/0080997 A1, pub. Apr. 29, 2004);
Claims 6, 8, 18, 20, 31, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wong in view of Smith, and further in view of Bodin;
Claims 9, 10, 21, 22, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Wong in view of Smith and Bodin, and further in view of Mitcham (US
2005/0043868 A1, pub. Feb. 24, 2005); and
Claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wong in
view of Smith and Bodin, and further in view of Gessner (US 2005/0267655
A1, pub. Dec. 1, 2005).
ANALYSIS
Appellants first argue the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim
25 is in error (App. Br. 10-12). Claim 25 recites the limitation “a designated
master OBD [on-board diagnostic] control module that . . . executes
functions . . . including . . . determining OBD status flags of said remainder
of said first and second pluralities of control modules.” The Examiner states
this limitation is taught by the executive program module of Smith (Ans. 8-
9). However, as Appellants point out, “Smith is directed to an OBD system
architecture that detects faults of engine components. Appellants’ claimed
Appeal 2011-004055
Application 11/531,545

4
system, on the other hand, determines OBD status flags of control modules.
. . . Appellants respectfully assert that control modules are different than
engine components. Specifically, the control modules monitor and/or
control the various engine components” (Reply Br. 7) (underlining original).
We agree with Appellants’ analysis that the prior art references do not show
or suggest the claimed determining of on-board diagnostic status flags of
control modules. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wong in view of
Smith.
Independent claims 1 and 13 recite similar limitations as independent
claim 25, and Appellants argue these claims are allowable for similar
reasons (App. Br. 12). Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wong in
view of Smith.
The remaining claims depend from independent claims 1, 13 and 25,
and Appellants argue the claims are allowable for similar reasons as the
independent claims. Thus, we do not sustain each of the rejections of
dependent claims 2-12, 14-24, and 26-40.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wong in view of Smith, Bodin, Okada, Mitcham, and
Gessner is REVERSED.

REVERSED
Klh