10725226 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 2013)

Ex Parte Duong

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 10, 2013

10725226 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 2013)

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. 10/725,226 12/01/2003 Henri Duong 2109 7590 06/10/2013 HENRI DUONG 316 1/2 E. GLENDON WAY ALHAMBRA, CA 91801 EXAMINER KING, BRADLEY T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3657 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/10/2013 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 HENRI DUONG ____________________ Appeal 2011-004938 Application 10/725,226 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, BENJAMIN D.M. WOOD, and HYUN J. JUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Henri Duong (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-3 as failing to define an invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. App. Br. 57; Ans. 3-4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2011-004938 Application 10/725,226 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are related to an “[a]utomatic braking system and [b]ack driving automatic brake system.” Spec., para. [0007]. All three pending claims are independent. Claim 11, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. Detectable automatic braking system used for all kinds of motor and engine vehicles, automobiles, cars, trucks, buses, vans, trains, tanks, motorcycles, airplanes, ships etc., including: Sensor(s)/radar(s) or detectable devices equipping in the front (top) of vehicle and at its rear (top) part for detecting at a distance between two vehicles or obstruction, radar(s) sending information to switch braking unit on to brake the car automatically to stop its running once obstruction being detected, and a (third) radar/sensor equipping in the front of car to detect to sound sonorous alarm or recorded message to driver at the earliest among other radars once obstruction detected by this radar, driver lowering car speed to avert automatic braking, of automatic voice sound. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that the claims are in narrative form and replete with indefinite and functional or operational language. Ans. 4. The Examiner states that the “structure which goes to make up the device must 1 The Examiner states that the “claims appendix does not contain a correct copy of the claims” and that the “claims amendment submitted 8/26/2005 is the last amendment entered.” Ans. 3. The Appellant states that “all amendments filed after the final rejection of 12/30/2005 . . . have not been entered by the examiner.” App. Br. 6. Thus, claim 1 is reproduced showing the last amendment entered by the Examiner on August 26, 2005. Appeal 2011-004938 Application 10/725,226 3 be clearly and positively specified,” the “claim(s) must be in one sentence form only,” “the use of etc. is prohibited,” and the “claims should not refer to figures nor should they depend from themselves.” Id. The Appellant cites portions of the Specification and certain figures and asserts that the cited portions and figures provide bases for claims 1-3. App. Br. 64-117. However, merely identifying how the disclosure provides support for claims 1-3 does not directly address the rejection, does not explain how the claims reasonably apprise those skilled in the art of the scope of the invention, and does not contend that those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claims are read in light of the Specification. See Miles Labs., Inc. v. Shandon, 997 F.2d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, the Appellant’s arguments do not cogently demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that the pending claims are indefinite. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 as failing to define an invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. DECISION For the reasons supra, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 is affirmed. 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). AFFIRMED mls