Ex Parte Tarte et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 27, 201612284965 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/284,965 09/26/2008 52558 7590 09/27/2016 PANASONIC AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEM COMPANY OF AMERICA 776 HWY 74 SOUTH c/o Panasonic Legal PEACHTREE CITY, GA 30269 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Christopher T. Tarte 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. l 1123.1053US 4842 EXAMINER BROWN, VERNAL U ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2686 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 09/27/2016 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 CHRISTOPHER T. TARTE and DALLAS D. HICKERSON Appeal2015-002734 Application 12/284,965 Technology Center 2600 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 9, 20, and 28-32. Claims 1-8, 10-19, and 21-27 are canceled. See App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. Appeal2015-002734 Application 12/284,965 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' disclosure relates to "a vehicle entry device that is adapted to store data such as audio data for transfer to a vehicle system in a vehicle." Spec. i-f 1. Claims 9, 20, and 28 are independent. Claim 9 is reproduced below for reference (with emphasis added): 9. An integrated vehicle entry/data transfer device (100), compnsmg: vehicle entry logic (208) adapted to provide at least one vehicle entry function; a USB port that is adapted to receive external data; a memory (204) that is adapted to store external data received via the USB port; data processing logic (202) adapted to transfer data from the USB port to the memory (204) and from the memory (204) to a vehicle system in a vehicle, whereby the external data is brought into the vehicle via operation of the at least one vehicle entry function and transferred to the vehicle system from the memory; an internal audio play system (212) for playing the external data; a plurality of pushbutton controls configured to operate the internal audio play system; a first battery (210) adapted to provide power to the vehicle entry logic (208); and a second battery (206) adapted to provide power to the memory independent of the first battery. The Examiner's Rejections Claims 9, 20, 28, and 30-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tilk (US 2005/0277438 Al; Dec. 15, 2005) and Endo (US 6,107,933; Aug. 22, 2000). Final Act. 3. 2 Appeal2015-002734 Application 12/284,965 Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tilk, Endo, and Kolpasky (US 7,301,442 B2; Nov. 27, 2007). Final Act. 6. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt the conclusions and findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and Examiner's Answer as our own, and we highlight the following points for emphasis. Independent Claims Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 9, because "Endo discloses that the second power supply powers the memory device only when the vehicle power supply is disconnected, and thus the second power supply powers the memory device dependent upon the vehicle power supply." App. Br. 12. Particularly, Appellants contend that, in Endo, "the power drawn from battery 9 is inversely related to the power drawn from battery 11, and hence battery 9 provides power to SRAM 8 dependent on battery 11." App. Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 5---6. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. The Examiner correctly finds that "battery (9) [] powers the SRAM without the connection of battery 11 to the SRAM further showing that the battery (9) powers SRAM independent of battery 11." Ans. 2 (citing Endo 1:55-56). The Examiner determines the "[S]pecification provide[s] no special definition for the word independent" (Ans. 2) and, therefore, the claimed "independent" batteries encompass Endo' s power supplies, "because the second power supply does 3 Appeal2015-002734 Application 12/284,965 not rely on the first supply in any way in order to power the memory" (Final Act. 2). We find the Examiner's construction to be reasonable, particularly given that the sole mention of the term "independently" in Appellants' Specification does not provide a narrowing definition of the term. See Spec. i-f 21. Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in the finding the combination of Tilk and Endo teaches or suggests the limitation of claim 9. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 9, and independent claims 20, and 28, which are not separately argued with particularity. See App. Br. 13-15. Dependent Claim 32 Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 32, which requires "the vehicle entry logic (208) and the memory (204) are contained in a same body portion (102)." App. Br. 14. Particularly, Appellants contend that "Tilk simply do[ es] not disclose that memory 322 and car locking system 306 are contained in a same body portion." Reply Br. 8. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. The Examiner correctly finds "Tilk et al. teaches the integrated vehicle entry/data transfer device (300) in which the vehicle entry logic and the memory are contained in a same body portion." Final Act. 2 (citing Tilk Fig. 3). Tilk teaches the integrated device includes shareable resources (including "car key artifact" and "MP3 player" having a memory), and we agree with the Examiner that the key artifact resources are contained in a same body portion, within the meaning of the claim. Ans. 3 (citing Tilk i-f 27). The Examiner also finds, and we agree, that "making devices integral is not sufficient to patentably distinguish over a prior art." Ans. 3; see also 4 Appeal2015-002734 Application 12/284,965 MPEP § 2144.04 Y; Jn re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1965). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 32. CONCLUSION We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 9, 20, 28, and 32. Appellants do not provide additional substantive arguments for the remaining dependent claims; thus we also sustain these claims for the reasons discussed above. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 9, 20, and 28-32. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation