Ex Parte Ando

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 25, 2011

11401301 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 25, 2011)

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.
11/401,301 04/11/2006 Katsuyuki Ando 2635-347 4492
23117 7590 10/25/2011
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
AMAYA, CARLOS DAVID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2836
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/25/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KATSUYUKI ANDO
____________

Appeal 2009-014973
Application 11/401,301
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MACDONALD, and
GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-014973
Application 11/401,301

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-24. (App. Br. 5.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The Disclosed Invention1
The disclosed invention includes an apparatus for controlling a
vehicle comprising a first vehicle control apparatus, a second vehicle control
apparatus, a storage medium, a communication circuit and a control circuit.
(Spec. 4:8-18.) The first vehicle control apparatus may be activated prior to
the activation of the second vehicle control apparatus. (Spec. 4:3-5.) The
control circuit “inhibits processing that uses data held in the storage medium
(11a), during a delay interval between a time point of activation of the first
vehicle control apparatus and a specific subsequent time point that occurs
not later than the time point of activation of the second vehicle control
apparatus.” (Spec. 4:18-24.) In this manner, the invention reduces the
possibility of erroneous operation due to the non-reception of data between
the time the first vehicle control apparatus is activated and the time the
second vehicle control apparatus is activated. (Spec. 4:6-8.)

Exemplary claim 1 follows:
1. In a control system of a vehicle, a first vehicle control apparatus
comprising a communication circuit that is coupled for data communication
with a second vehicle control apparatus, and a storage medium for storing
data received from said second vehicle control apparatus via said
communication circuit, said second vehicle control apparatus being changed

1 The ensuing description constitutes findings of fact designated as FF 0.
Appeal 2009-014973
Application 11/401,301

3
from an inoperative condition to an operative condition at an activation time
point that is delayed with respect to an activation time point at which said
first vehicle control apparatus becomes changed from an inoperative
condition to an operative condition;
wherein said first vehicle control apparatus comprises control circuit
means for inhibiting execution of processing that utilizes data stored in said
storage medium, during a delay interval extending from said activation time
point of said first vehicle control apparatus up to at least said activation time
point of said second vehicle control apparatus.

The Examiner rejected claims 1-10 and 14-22 as anticipated under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) by Kobayashi (U.S. Patent No. 5,739,761, Apr. 14, 1998).
(Ans. 3-6.)
The Examiner rejected claims 11-13, and 23-24 as obvious under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Kobayashi and Murphy (U.S. Patent No.
6,662,094 B2, Dec. 9, 2003). (Ans. 6-7.)

ISSUE
Appellant’s responses to the Examiner’s positions present the
following issue:
Does Kobayashi disclose “inhibiting execution of processing that utilizes
data stored in said storage medium, during a delay interval,” as recited in
independent claim 1,and as similarly recited in independent claims 8 and 14?
Appeal 2009-014973
Application 11/401,301

4

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
Kobayashi
1. Kobayashi discloses a system that prohibits communication between
an engine control unit that has been supplied with electrical power and other
control units that have not yet been supplied with electrical power:
A further aspect of the present invention provides a vehicular
controller for releasing the prohibition on communication with
the other electronic control devices when a predetermined time
elapses after a key switch is actuated, after being deactuated,
when a prescribed electronic control device is being supplied
with electric power. In this way, prohibition on communication
operations with the other communication device is released
when a predetermined time lapses after an actuation of the key
switch, after being deactuated when a prescribed electronic
control device is being supplied with electric power. Therefore,
the electronic control device does not commence
communication operations immediately after the actuation of
the key switch and since the communication prohibition is
released after a predetermined time has lapsed, erroneous
malfunction diagnosis operations are avoided. In short,
erroneous malfunction diagnosis operations due to electric
power onset operation delays or the like are avoided.
(2:48-65.)
ANALYSIS
Issue - Claims 1-24
Appellant asserts that Kobayashi does not disclose “inhibiting
execution of processing that utilizes data stored in said storage medium,
during a delay interval,” as recited in claim 1 and as similarly recited in
independent claims 8 and 14. (App. Br. 15.) In response, the Examiner
found that Kobayashi at column 2, lines 48-63, discloses this claim
Appeal 2009-014973
Application 11/401,301

5
limitation because that passage mentions a 400 ms delay “to avoid
malfunction diagnostics.” (Ans. 9.) But claim 1 requires more than
avoiding malfunction diagnostics; it requires “inhibiting execution of
processing that utilizes data stored in said storage medium, during a delay
interval.” And the passage of Kobayashi cited by the Examiner does not
even mention a storage medium, let alone the limitation of inhibiting
processing that utilizes data from a storage medium during a delay interval.
(FF 1.)
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1, 8 and 14. Moreover, although the Examiner rejected some of the
dependent claims based not only on Kobayashi but also on a secondary
reference (i.e., Murphy), the Examiner does not assert that Murphy discloses
the claim limitation that is missing from Kobayashi. (See Ans. 6-7.)
Accordingly, we will also not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-24.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-24.

REVERSED

ke