Ex Parte Gumpinger

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 17, 2014

12390883 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 17, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte FRANZ GUMPINGER
____________________

Appeal 2012-006076
Application 12/390,883
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: STEFAN STAICOVICI, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-006076
Application 12/390,883

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Franz Gumpinger (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 14–26. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 14, reproduced below, represents the claimed subject matter
with the key disputed limitation emphasized.
14. A vehicle data acquisition method for analyzing
vehicle conditions, the method comprising the acts of:
identifying, by a vehicle-external computer, a plurality of
vehicles having a first characteristic profile shared by each of
said plurality of vehicles, wherein said identifying uses vehicle-
specific identification data stored in a database external to the
vehicles;
querying, by the vehicle-external computer and in
response to said identifying, vehicle data from each of the
identified plurality of vehicles sharing the first characteristic
profile by way of a wireless communication system;
receiving the queried vehicle data via the wireless
communication system by the vehicle-external computer; and
evaluating the received vehicle data to analyze the
plurality of vehicles each having the first characteristic profile.

Appeal 2012-006076
Application 12/390,883

3
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Mezger US 5,781,871 July 14, 1998
Lipscomb US 2004/0064226 A1 Apr. 1, 2004
Fritzges US 2006/0155997 A1 July 13, 2006
Engel 1 US 2007/0093924 A1 Apr. 26, 2007
Engel WO 2004/104836 A2 Dec. 2, 2004
REJECTIONS
Claims 14, 15, 18, 24, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as
anticipated by Engel ’924. Ans. 5.
Claims 16, 17, 21, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Engel ’924 and Mezger. Ans. 7.
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Engel ’924 and Fritzges. Ans. 10.
Claims 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Engel ’924 and Lipscomb. Ans. 11.
OPINION
The Examiner finds that Engel ’924 teaches all of the limitations of
independent claim 14, including identifying a plurality of vehicles “(via
identifier identifying vehicle[s] [0022], lines 13; [0022], line 23, [0028], line
2; [0033], lines 11-12; [0031], [lines] 2-3; and [0040], line 12)(via car, truck,
Fig. 1, [0031]) having a first characteristic profile (via vehicle control unit

1 We note that the Examiner considers Engel (US 2007/0093924, hereinafter
“Engel ’924”) to be a translation of Engel (WO 2004/104836). See Ans. 5.
Appeal 2012-006076
Application 12/390,883

4
being equipped with [a VIN]) shared by each of said plurality of vehicles,”
and evaluating the received vehicle data to analyze the plurality of vehicles.
Ans. 5-6.
Appellant argues that Engel ’924 fails to teach identifying a plurality
of vehicles having a first characteristic profile shared by each of the plurality
of vehicles, because Engle ’924 instead teaches a single vehicle initiating
communication with a central diagnostic center for assistance with a
problem. App. Br. 5. While Engel ’924 teaches using a VIN (a form of
vehicle-specific identification data) to identify the vehicle seeking a
diagnosis, Engel ’924 teaches neither identification of a plurality of vehicles
nor identification of vehicles with a shared or common profile. Id. at 6-7.
The Examiner responds that a VIN inherently describes a
characteristic profile of a vehicle, “[f]or example Mustang, 2008 year
Model, built in AutoAlliance plant, in Flat Rock Michigan, will share [the]
same features with all Mustang[s] built in same time and rolled out from
same [plant].” Ans. 15. The Examiner then states that “[a] closer look at the
specification submitted by the appellant to [the] USPTO reveals that the
appellant has also used vehicle identification number (VIN) as a first
characteristic profile.” Id. (emphasis omitted, citing Spec., ¶¶ 5 and 12).
Paragraph 5 of Appellant’s Specification states that “[i]dentification
of the relevant vehicles preferably takes place on the basis of their vehicle
identification numbers.” This statement does not mean that identifying a
single vehicle by its VIN is the same as identifying a plurality of vehicles
having a first characteristic profile shared by each of the plurality of
vehicles. Paragraph 12 of Appellant’s Specification states that
Appeal 2012-006076
Application 12/390,883

5
“communication connection with the vehicles having the first characteristic
profile is established on the basis of their vehicle identification numbers,”
which again is not the same as identifying a plurality of vehicles having a
first characteristic profile shared by each of the plurality of vehicles.
We agree with Appellant that Engel ’924 does not teach at least
identifying a plurality of vehicles having a first characteristic profile shared
by each of the plurality of vehicles. App. Br. 5-8. We therefore do not
sustain the rejection of independent claim 14. The Examiner fails to find
that any of Mezger, Fritzges, and Lipscomb include teachings that remedy
the deficiencies of Engel ’924. We therefore do not sustain the rejections of
dependent claims 15–26 for at least the same reason.

DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 14, 15, 18, 24, and 26 under 35
U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated by Engel ’924.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 16, 17, 21, and 25 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Engel ’924 and Mezger.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Engel ’924 and Fritzges.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Engel ’924 and Lipscomb.

REVERSED

tkl