Ex Parte Hjulberg

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2014

12102424 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte LISA MARIE HJULBERG
____________________

Appeal 2012-010264
Application 12/102,424
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-010264
Application 12/102,424

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 11–16 and 18. Claims 1–10, 17, and 19 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal, with disputed
limitations emphasized, reads as follows:
11. A vehicle warning system for providing a user
selected personalized warning sound from a plurality of said
personalized warning sounds upon the presence of a warning
trigger, said system comprising:
a control unit for controlling the operation of said
system;
a storage device coupled to said control unit for storing
said plurality of personalized warning sounds;
an input device coupled to said control unit for inputting
said personalized warning sounds to said control unit, wherein
said control unit controls said storage device to store said
personalized warning sounds in said storage device;
a warning trigger detection device coupled to said control
unit for detecting the presence of said warning trigger;
an audio output device coupled to said control unit,
wherein said control unit controls said audio output device to
reproduce a selected one of said personalized warning sounds
when said warning trigger is detected.
Appeal 2012-010264
Application 12/102,424

3
The Examiner’s Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 11–15 and 18 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Allen (US 2006/0192669 A1; published Aug.
31, 2006) and Zwern (US 5,193,141; issued Mar. 9, 1993). Ans. 5–8.
(2) The Examiner rejected dependent claim 16 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Allen, Zwern, and Mitchell (US 4,904,983;
issued Feb. 27, 1990). Ans. 9.
Appellant’s Contentions
(1) Appellant contends (Br. 9–14) that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 11–15 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Allen and Zwern for
numerous reasons,1 including:
(a) Allen’s signal processing function 120 is not equivalent to
the control unit for controlling the operation of the vehicle warning system
recited in claim 11 (Br. 10–12);
(b) Allen fails to teach or suggest the control unit recited in
claim 11 (Br. 12);
(c) it would not make technical sense to modify Allen’s digital
signal processor (DSP) with Zwern’s input device having custom
warning sounds (Br. 12–13);

1 Appellant argues claims 12–15 and 18, which all ultimately depend from
sole independent claim 11, on the same basis as presented with respect to
claim 11 (Br. 14). Therefore, we select claim 11 as representative of the
group of claims 11–15 and 18 rejected for obviousness over the combination
of Allen and Zwern, and we will only address representative claim 11 in our
analysis herein.
Appeal 2012-010264
Application 12/102,424

4
(d) Allen’s DSP does not control a storage device, and it would
not make sense to modify Allen with Zwern’s storage device control
(Br. 13);
(e) Allen’s DSP only controls operations on the input analog
signal, and the DSP is not capable of triggering the broadcast of
selected messages (Br. 13–14); and
(f) the Examiner has used claim 11 as a roadmap for
impermissible hindsight reconstruction of Appellant’s invention from
Allen and Zwern (Br. 14).
(2) Appellant contends (Br. 14) that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Allen, Zwern, and Mitchell for the
same reasons as presented with respect to claim 11 from which claim 16
ultimately depends. Therefore, we will decide the appeal of claim 16 on the
same basis as claim 11 from which claim 16 ultimately depends.
Reply Brief
No Reply Brief has been presented. Therefore, Appellant has not
disputed the Examiner’s articulated reasoning and findings found at pages
9–11 of the Answer.
Principal Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Br. 9–14), the
following principal issue is presented on appeal:
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 11–16 and 18 as being
obvious over the base combination of Allen and Zwern because (i) Allen and
Zwern combined fails to teach or suggest the vehicle warning system recited
in representative claim 11, and/or (ii) Allen fails to teach or suggest the
control unit for controlling a storage device containing personalized warning
Appeal 2012-010264
Application 12/102,424

5
sounds so as to cause an audio output device to reproduce a selected
personalized warning sounds when a warning trigger is detected, as recited
in representative claim 11?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections (Final Rej. 2–6; Ans. 5-
9) in light of Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief that the Examiner
has erred (Br. 9–14). We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt
as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
action from which this appeal is taken (Ans. 5–9), and (2) the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 9–11) in response to
Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner as to both obviousness rejections.
With regard to representative claim 11, Appellant’s contentions (Br.
10–14) that Allen fails to teach or suggest the recited control unit are not
persuasive. We agree with the Examiner’s reliance (Ans. 5–7 citing Allen’s
Figs. 1 and 3 and paras. 0037, 0038, 0046, and 0062) upon Allen as teaching
all of the features of independent claim 11 except for the personalized
warning, and the Examiner’s determination that Allen’s DSP is capable of
more than just signal processing (Ans. 9–11). We also agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 7) that it would have been obvious to modify Allen’s
vehicle alarm system with the broadcasting of recorded/personalized
messages of Zwern as the alarm in order to better identify the vehicle that
has been disturbed (see Ans. 7 citing Zwern at col. 4, ll. 19–28). The
Examiner has reasonably articulated how and why the combination of Allen
and Zwern teaches or suggests the vehicle warning system and control unit
Appeal 2012-010264
Application 12/102,424

6
as recited in claim 11 (Ans. 5–7 and 9–11), and Appellant has not
sufficiently shown otherwise.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of representative
claim 11 as being obvious over the combination of Allen and Zwern. We
also sustain the rejection of dependent claim 16 over the combination of
Allen, Zwern, and Mitchell for the same reasons provided as to claim 11
from which claim 16 depends.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 11–15 and 18 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Allen and Zwern.
(2) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 16 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Allen, Zwern, and Mitchell.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 11–16 and 18 are 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

lv