MAGNA MIRRORS OF AMERICA, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 20, 2020

2020000827 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2020)

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.
15/076,917 03/22/2016 Michael J. Baur DON01 P-2720 1038
153508 7590 10/20/2020
HONIGMAN LLP/MAGNA
650 TRADE CENTRE WAY
SUITE 200
KALAMAZOO, MI 49002-0402
EXAMINER
BRUSHABER, FREDERICK M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/20/2020 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
asytsma@honigman.com
patent@honigman.com
tflory@honigman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL J. BAUR

Appeal 2020-000827
Application 15/076,917
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20, which are the sole claims
pending in this application.1 See Appeal Br. 6. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Magna
Mirrors of America, Inc.” Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000827
Application 15/076,917

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates generally to the field of garage
door openers for remotely opening garage doors via a wireless signal.”
Spec. ¶ 2. Apparatus claims 1, 13, and 18 are independent. Apparatus claim
1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A control system of a vehicle, said control system
comprising:
a portable garage door opening module, wherein the
portable garage door opening module comprises a power
source, circuitry, a user input and a transmitter for wirelessly
transmitting signals upon actuation of the user input;
wherein the portable garage door opening module, when
the user input is actuated, and whether disposed in the vehicle
or disposed exterior and remote from the vehicle, wirelessly
transmits a garage door opener signal, and wherein that garage
door opener signal, as transmitted by the portable garage door
opening module, is received by a garage door opener receiver
of a garage door opener of a garage of a house;
a vehicle-based receiver disposed in the vehicle and
operable to receive signals wirelessly transmitted by the
portable garage door opening module when the user input of the
portable garage door opening module is actuated; and
a control disposed in the vehicle, wherein said control,
responsive to said vehicle-based receiver receiving signals
wirelessly transmitted by the portable garage door opening
module upon actuation of the user input, controls an accessory
of the vehicle.
REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Sims et al. (“Sims”) US 2010/0134240 A1 June 3, 2010
Geerlings et al.
(“Geerlings”)
US 2015/0002262 A1 Jan. 1, 2015
Zeinstra et al. (“Zeinstra”) US 2015/0339031 A1 Nov. 26, 2015
Appeal 2020-000827
Application 15/076,917

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 5–7, 11–13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Zeinstra.
Claims 2–4, 14, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Zeinstra and Sims.
Claims 8–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Zeinstra and Geerlings.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Zeinstra, Sims, and Geerlings.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1, 5–7, 11–13, 16, and 17
as unpatentable over Zeinstra
Independent claim 1 includes a limitation pertaining to a portable
garage door opening module that transmits a garage door opener signal.
More specifically, claim 1 recites, “wherein that garage door opener signal,
as transmitted by the portable garage door opening module, is received by a
garage door opener receiver of a garage door opener of a garage of a house.”
Appeal Br. 25, Claims Appendix. Independent claim 13 recites similar
language pertaining to the portable module transmitting a signal that is
received by the garage’s receiver. See Appeal Br. 27, Claims Appendix.
The Examiner finds these limitations disclosed by Zeinstra. See Final
Act. 3, 5. Appellant disagrees, stating that “[n]o signal as transmitted by
Zeinstra’s mobile device is received at a garage door opener of a garage.”
Appeal Br. 7. Instead, Appellant contends that “Zeinstra merely discloses
that communications from the mobile device are received at a system in the
Appeal 2020-000827
Application 15/076,917

4
vehicle” as contrasted with receipt by the garage’s receiver. Appeal Br. 7
(emphasis added).
To begin, the Examiner references where Zeinstra teaches that, in
some embodiments, the recited portable opening module (Zeinstra refers to
it as a “mobile device”) is a cell phone, a tablet or some other portable media
device.2 See Final Act. 3 (referencing Zeinstra ¶¶ 15, 54). Appellant does
not dispute the teachings of these paragraphs, but contends “that Zeinstra
discloses a system that uses the vehicle as an intermediary between a cell
phone and a garage door opener.” Appeal Br. 10.
The Examiner does not challenge such arguments or Zeinstra’s
vehicle-as-an-intermediary teachings. Instead, the Examiner states, “[t]he
disagreement is how to interpret Applicant’s claim language.” Ans. 3. “The
broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘as transmitted by the portable garage
door opening module’ should not be the signal goes directly from the garage
door opening module to the garage door opener receiver as applicant argues
because there is no support to interpret that limitation so narrowly.” Ans. 3–
4.
We disagree with the Examiner’s interpretation above because the
Examiner only addresses a part of the limitation at issue, i.e., the
transmission component. The Examiner disregards the limitation that the
signal “as transmitted by the portable garage door opening module, is
received by a garage door opener receiver of a garage door opener of a

2 Claims 1 and 13 both further recite that the portable opening module may
be “disposed in the vehicle or disposed exterior and remote from the
vehicle,” hence the vehicle itself, while portable, cannot serve as the recited
portable opening module.
Appeal 2020-000827
Application 15/076,917

5
garage of a house.”3 Emphasis added. On this point, we have been
instructed that “claims are interpreted with an eye toward giving effect to all
terms in the claim.” Bicon Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed.
Cir. 2006). See also Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358,
1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (denouncing claim constructions which render phrases
in claims superfluous).
On the other hand, Appellant’s interpretation is consistent with
Appellant’s Specification, which states, “the module transmits a signal that
is received by the garage door opener of the home.” Spec. ¶ 8. Further,
Appellant’s Specification states that “[w]hen actuated, such a portable
module sends out a radio frequency (RF) signal or particular protocol or
code for controlling the garage door opener at the home or facility.” Spec.
¶ 12. See also Reply Br. 4 (“Thus, it is clear from even a cursory reading of
[Appellant’s Specification] that the portable garage door opening module
communicates directly with the garage door opener receiver and does not
use the vehicle as an intermediary.”).
Additionally, Paragraph 50 of Zeinstra teaches communication
between “vehicle systems and mobile devices,” as well as “between vehicle
systems and remote systems.”4 However, nowhere does the Examiner
indicate (or even suggest) that Zeinstra teaches a portable opening module
whose transmission (i.e., “as transmitted by”) is “received by” the garage’s

3 Appellant contends, “the plain and ordinary meaning would include the
garage door opener receiver directly receiving the same signal as transmitted
by portable garage door opening module.” Reply Br. 3.
4 Zeinstra teaches that, in some embodiments, a “remote system is a home
control system including at least one of a garage door system.” Zeinstra ¶ 3;
see also id. at ¶ 5.
Appeal 2020-000827
Application 15/076,917

6
receiver, as claimed. See also Reply Br. 4 (“Zeinstra does not and cannot
disclose the garage door opener receiver receiving the signal as transmitted
by the mobile phone.”).
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we disagree with the
Examiner’s claim interpretation above, and as such, do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5–7, 11–13, 16, and 17 as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Zeinstra.
The rejection of: (a) claims 2–4, 14, 15, 18, and 19 as unpatentable over
Zeinstra and Sims; (b) claims 8–10 as unpatentable over Zeinstra and
Geerlings; and, (c) claim 20 as unpatentable over Zeinstra, Sims, and
Geerlings
The remaining independent claim on appeal (claim 18) includes
language similar to that above, i.e., the “as transmitted” signal “is received
by” the garage’s receiver. Appeal Br. 28–29, Claims Appendix. The
Examiner, in rejecting this claim, relies on the same rationale as discussed
above. See Final Act. 7. The Examiner does not employ the additional
reference to Sims in a manner that might cure this defect. See Final Act. 8
(“Sims suggest wherein said vehicle-based receiver is incorporated in an
interior review mirror”); Ans. 4. Likewise, the Examiner’s additional
reliance on Geerlings does not cure the above defect. See Final Act. 9
(“Geerlings discloses wherein said accessory comprises an audio speaker of
the vehicle”). Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we likewise
do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2–4, 8–10, 14, 15, and
18–20 as unpatentable over Zeinstra and Sims; Zeinstra and Geerlings; or
Zeinstra, Sims, and Geerlings.
Appeal 2020-000827
Application 15/076,917

7
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5–7, 11–
13, 16, 17
103 Zeinstra 1, 5–7, 11–
13, 16, 17
2–4, 14, 15,
18, 19
103 Zeinstra, Sims 2–4, 14, 15,
18, 19
8–10 103 Zeinstra, Geerlings 8–10
20 103 Zeinstra, Sims,
Geerlings
20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED