Ex Parte Davis

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 6, 2017

14199106 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2017)

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.
11123.1108US 7009
EXAMINER
ZAMAN, FAISAL M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2185
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
14/199,106 03/06/2014 GERALD C. DAVIS
52558 7590 12/06/2017
PANASONIC AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEM
COMPANY OF AMERICA
776 HWY 74 SOUTH
c/o Panasonic Legal
PEACHTREE CITY, GA 30269
12/06/2017 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 GERALD C. DAVIS1
Appeal 2017-007041
Application 14/199,106
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1—
9, 14—17, and 21—27, which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Panasonic Automotive
Systems Company of America, Division of Panasonic Corporation of North
America. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-007041
Application 14/199,106
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed storing and retrieving hardware system data in
an automotive context. Spec. 11.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A hardware system data retrieval arrangement comprising:
a printed circuit board including:
a memory device storing historical information
about the printed circuit board;
a first connecting device connected to the memory
device;
a target system; and
an analog switch interconnecting the target system
and the first connecting device, the target system being
configured to enable the analog switch;
a second connecting device connected to the memory
device;
a computing device; and
an electrical communication conduit interconnecting the
computing device and the second connecting device, wherein the
computing device is configured to retrieve the historical
information from the memory device via the electrical
communication conduit.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 5—9, 14—17, 21, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Minami (US 2008/0177926 Al, July 24, 2008)
and Ballard (US 2004/0268039 Al, Dec. 30, 2004). Ans. 2-6.
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Minami, Ballard, and Bryant-Rich (US 2010/0216341 Al, Aug. 26,
2010). Ans. 7.
2
Appeal 2017-007041
Application 14/199,106
Claims 22, 23, 26, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Minami, Ballard, and further Denen (US 5,400,267,
Mar. 21, 1995). Ans. 7-9.
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS2
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
Minami does not disclose “an analog switch interconnecting the target
system and the first connecting device, the target system being configured to
enable the analog switch,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 10-11.
Specifically, Appellant argues “to interpret ‘interconnecting’ to be so broad
as to encompass a mere physical connection would effectively render the
word ‘interconnecting’ meaningless.” Id. at 11. See also Reply Br. 4—6.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusion that claim 1 is
unpatentable over Minami and Ballard. Ans. 2—3. Appellant’s arguments
do not persuade us of error for the reasons stated by the Examiner. Id. at 9—
10.
For emphasis, we note and agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Minami’s switch (Fig. 4, ref. no 12) is “an analog switch” that interconnects
“the target system and the first connecting device.” Ans. 3.
2 Appellant does not separately argue claims 2, 5—7, 14—17, 21, 24, and 25.
App. Br. 10-11. Appellant argues the remaining claims based on arguments
presented with respect to claim 1. Id. at 12—13. Accordingly, because our
decision with respect to claim 1 is dispositive, we address claim 1
specifically and mention the remaining claims only in our ultimate decision.
3
Appeal 2017-007041
Application 14/199,106
DECISION
We affirm, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—9, 14—17, and
21-27.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
4