11245531 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2013)

Ex Parte Jiang

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 31, 2013

11245531 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2013)

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. 11/245,531 10/07/2005 Shengbing Jiang GP-306704-RD-KAM 6821 65798 7590 05/31/2013 MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 42690 WOODWARD AVENUE SUITE 200 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304 EXAMINER HUSSAIN, FARRUKH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2444 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/31/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SHENGBING JIANG ____________ Appeal 2011-001249 Application 11/245,531 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-001249 Application 11/245,531 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims remaining in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appellant’s Invention Appellant’s invention relates generally to a distributed embedded system that provides extensible task and message scheduling and, more particularly, to a distributed embedded system that provides extensible task and message scheduling, where the system includes a system configuration manager and a plurality of electronic control units each having a configuration manager (Spec. 1, ¶ [0001].)1 Representative Claim Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed limitation emphasized, further illustrates the invention: 1. A distributed embedded system comprising: a plurality of electronic control units (ECUs), each ECU including an ECU configuration manager, a configuration data for task scheduling table, a configuration data for network accessing table and a configuration data for message retrieving table; a system configuration manager including a plurality of configuration data tables, where one configuration data table is assigned for each ECU, wherein the configuration data tables include task scheduling and message scheduling for the ECUs; and 1 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed August 9, 2010; and Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed March 10, 2010. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed June 9, 2010. Appeal 2010-001249 Application 11/245,531 3 a communications network for transmitting messages between the ECUs and the systems configuration manager, wherein the system configuration manager transmits the configuration data tables for the ECUs on the communications network to provide the configuration data for the configuration data for task scheduling table, the configuration data for network accessing table and the configuration data for message retrieving table so that the task scheduling and the message scheduling for the ECUs can be reprogrammed. Rejections on Appeal 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1-6 and 8-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fuchs (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2004/0128673 A1, published July 1, 2004), and Nielsen (U.S. Patent No. 6,665,601 B1 issued Dec. 16, 2003). 2. The Examiner rejects claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fuchs, Nielsen, and Gormley (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2007/0073944 published Mar. 29, 2007 (filed Sep. 23, 2005)). ISSUE Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellant’s contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, we have determined that the following issue is dispositive in this appeal: Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Fuchs and Nielsen collectively, would have taught or suggested “a system configuration manager including a plurality of configuration data tables, where one configuration data table is assigned for each ECU, wherein the configuration data tables include task scheduling and message scheduling for the ECUs” (emphasis added), within the meaning of independent claim 1 and the commensurate limitations recited in independent claims 8 and 14? Appeal 2010-001249 Application 11/245,531 4 ANALYSIS Appellant contends, inter alia: Appellant respectfully submits that the references of record cannot possibly teach or suggest the above-recited features of independent claims 1, 8 and 14 at least because neither Fuchs nor Nielson, alone or in combination, teach or suggest 1) a system configuration manager that is independent from the plurality of ECUs; (App. Br. 13-14.) We agree for essentially the same reasons argued by Appellant discussed infra. The Examiner relied on Nielsen to teach or suggest the system configuration manager as claimed. (Ans. 5.) The cited portions of Nielsen disclose an ECU that includes a microprocessor that controls or manages communication of messages with the other ECUs on the data bus 40. (Nielsen, col. 5, ll. 62-65; Fig. 3.) However, as noted by Appellant, Nielsen does not teach or suggest a microprocessor that stores configuration data for each ECU, as claimed. (App. Br. 17.) The Examiner also submits that Fuchs teaches a system configuration manager (configuration manager 507), that is not part of an ECU. (Ans. 15.) However, as noted by Appellant, the configuration manager 507 is a part of the ECU 200 and does not appear to store configuration data for each ECU, as claimed. (Reply Br. 2.) Independent claims 8 and 14 recite commensurate limitations. Based on this record, we conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 8, and 14. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s Appeal 2010-001249 Application 11/245,531 5 rejection of claims 1, 8, and 14, and associated dependent claims 2-72, 9-13, and 15-20. CONCLUSION OF LAW Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). REVERSED Vsh/pgc 2 As noted above claim 7 stands rejected as unpatentable over Fuchs, Nielsen, and Gormley. We do not find, nor has the Examiner established, that Gormley cures the deficiencies of Fuchs and Nielsen. Therefore, the rejection of claim 7 is reversed for the same reasons discussed supra.