Ex Parte Shaffer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 18, 2014

11460456 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 2014)

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.
11/460,456 07/27/2006 Aric Shaffer 81133523 2024
28395 7590 11/19/2014
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
JIANG, YONG HANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/19/2014 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 ARIC SHAFFER, PERRY MACNEILLE,
RONALD MILLER, DAVID DIMEO, and
GARY STRUMOLO
____________________

Appeal 2012-010139
Application 11/460,456
Technology Center 2600
____________________

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

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-010139
Application 11/460,456
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
4–9, 17, 19, and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

The claims are directed to vehicle communication module. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A vehicle comprising:

a logic processor;

a network transceiver in communication with the logic
processor, and configured to establish communication between
a network within the vehicle and the logic processor; and

a communication transceiver in communication with the
logic processor, and configured to establish communication
between a receiver remote from the vehicle and the logic
processor,

wherein the logic processor is configured to receive a
message from the network and, in response to receiving the
message, to cause the communication transceiver to establish
communication with the receiver and to cause the message to be
transmitted to the receiver via the communication transceiver if
the message from the network includes triggering event
information.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Carrender US 6,107,917 Aug. 22, 2000
Pruzan US 6,728,603 B2 Apr. 27, 2004
Appeal 2012-010139
Application 11/460,456
3

REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claim 1, 4–9, 17, 19, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Carrender in view of Pruzan.

ANALYSIS

Appellants have elected to group claims 1, 4–9, 17, 19, and 20
together and have not set forth separate arguments for patentability.
Therefore, we select independent claim 1 as the representative claim for the
group and will address Appellants’ arguments thereto.
With respect to representative independent claim 1, Appellants
generally contend that the Examiner has not found each and every
limitations recited in the claims. (App. Br. 3–4). Appellants contend that
the Pruzan reference "also does not disclose causing the communication
transceiver to establish communication with the receiver remote from the
vehicle in response to receiving the message from the vehicle network."
(App. Br. 3).
Appellants do not specifically explain or differentiate how the two
separate functions recited in the "wherein" clause differentiate the claimed
"vehicle" and its three structural elements. Appellants further contend that
the Examiner is basing the rejection upon conclusory statements and
"modifying Carrender as suggested by the Examiner would impermissibly
alter Carrender's principle of operation." (App. Br. 4).

Appeal 2012-010139
Application 11/460,456
4
The Examiner maintains that:
Pruzan teaches and is; and that protocol converter 30 is able to
receive the messages from the controllers 22 (see col. 3, lines
46-53). Pruzan further teaches the Protocol converter 30 is able
to convert the messages on bus 24 into an appropriate format
for transmission over wireless link 32 to diagnostic system 40
(col. 3, lines 55- 60). Thus, Pruzan clearly teaches the features
of the communication transceiver to establish communication
with the receiver remote from the vehicle in response to
receiving the message from the vehicle network.

(Ans. 8). We further note that the Pruzan reference further teaches:
At decision block 304, the protocol converter determines
whether it detects a request to establish communication with the
vehicle bus, such as, for example, bus 24. Such a request may
originate from an appropriate remote system, such as, for
example, diagnostic system 40.

(Pruzan col. 12, ll. 25–30). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the
Pruzan reference teaches and fairly suggests that the handshaking between
the various controller units would cause the wireless communication
transceiver to establish communication with the remote receiver and to cause
the message to be transmitted to the receiver via the communication
transceiver after the wireless communication has been established.
Otherwise, if the handshaking in Pruzan did not establish communication
and cause the message to be transmitted, the communication would be
unsuccessful.
Appellants further contend:
Claim 1 requires both causing "the communication transceiver
to establish communication with the receiver" and causing "the
message to be transmitted to the receiver via the
communication transceiver." Hence, establishing
communication must mean something other than merely
Appeal 2012-010139
Application 11/460,456
5
transmitting (or exchanging) messages. Pruzan confirms this
distinction: step 308 "ESTABLISH COMMUNICATION
LINK" is separate/different from step 352 "TRANSMIT
MEESAGE."

(Reply Br. 2-4). Appellants do not specifically identify or differentiate what
the limitation means to differentiate from the combination of the Carrender
and Pruzan references. A person having ordinary skill in the art uses known
elements for their intended purpose. Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v.
Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969) (radiant-heat burner used for its
intended purpose in combination with a spreader and a tamper and screed).
“[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the
same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than one
would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007) (quoting Sakraida v.
Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)). Appellants have provided no
evidence tending to show that consolidating and automating ordering of
multiple consumables was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740-41).
Therefore, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's conclusion of
obviousness of representative independent claim 1. Appellants do not
specifically explain or differentiate how the two separate functions recited in
the "wherein" clause differentiate the claimed "vehicle" and its three
structural elements. Appellants again contend that the Examiner's
combination is based upon conclusory statements. (Reply Br. 4). We
disagree with Appellants and find that Appellants have not shown error in
the Examiner's proffered combination.
Appeal 2012-010139
Application 11/460,456
6

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting independent claim 1 based upon
obviousness.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims
1, 4–9, 17, 19, and 20 is sustained.

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) (2011).

AFFIRMED

lv