Ex Parte Eidson

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 8, 2010

10842113 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 8, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JOHN C. EIDSON
____________________

Appeal 2009-001814
Application 10/842,1131
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JEAN R. HOMERE, and JAY P. LUCAS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING2

1 Application filed May 10, 2004. The real party in interest is Agilent
Technologies, Inc.
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-001814
Application 10/842,113

Appellant requests a rehearing of the Decision mailed March 24,
2010, affirming the final rejection3 of claims 1 to 20.
Appellant’s invention relates to a distributed application that provides
vehicular traffic flow information to a user (Spec. 3, ll. 3 to 7; Spec. 16,
ll. 3 to 4). Representative claims 1, 5, 6, and 19 read as follows:

1. A distributed application, comprising:

a plurality of remote nodes that collectively
gather and process a set of information pertaining
to the distributed application;

a set of mobile agents that are embodied in a
corresponding set of devices which physically
move among the remote nodes, and that carry the
information among the remote nodes as the
devices physically move among the remote nodes.

5. The distributed application of claim 1,
wherein the information includes a set of
computational data generated by the mobile
agents.

6. The distributed application of claim 1,
wherein the information includes a set of
computational data generated by the remote nodes.

3 Final Rejection dated July 20, 2007.
2
Appeal 2009-001814
Application 10/842,113

19. A system, comprising:

a plurality of remote nodes that collectively
gather data and process the data of a distributed
application; and

a set of devices in which are embodied a set
of mobile agents, the devices physically moving
along various paths to pass within proximities to
the remote nodes, the mobile agents exchanging at
least portions of the data with remote nodes as the
devices physically pass within the remote nodes’
proximities.

Appellant, in his Request for Rehearing, contends that the Board, in
its analysis, failed to show that the James reference teaches use of a “set of
mobile agents,” as claimed, to “carry [a set of] information among the
remote nodes,” as recited in claim 1 (Req. Reh. 5, middle to 6, bottom).4
Supplemental to our factual findings5 made in the Decision, we note
that we construe the claim term “carry” (claim 1) as conveying
“information” between remote nodes via the claimed “mobile agents.”
Indeed, we find Appellant’s claimed “information” reads on James’s travel
destination and schedule (e.g., time of arrival, changes of schedule, and
other parameters) (col. 2, ll. 35 to 37). The James reference teaches the

4 We duly noted that the Request for Rehearing begins with a discussion of
dependent claim 5 (Req. Reh. 2, top). However, for the sake of clarity, we
use the order of the claims to address the arguments.
5 More particularly, we cited to the fact that the highway control facility
calculates the location of the vehicle and energizes vehicle mounted
actuators to steer, accelerate and brake the vehicle as necessary (Final
Decision 2009-001814, p. 4).
3
Appeal 2009-001814
Application 10/842,113

claimed “information” (claim 1), as at least two parameters are carried (i.e.,
stored) on-board James’s vehicle.
To “carry,” as claimed, which is to say “convey” some information,
requires a manner of information storage. James teaches just such storage,
for example, in the form of a command input buffer 60 contained within a
vehicle processor 50. (See Fig. 4; col. 5, ll. 44 to 47.) James’s vehicles pass
between traffic highway facilities, sending vehicle information via radio
frequency signals and making adjustments accordingly (Abstract and col. 5,
ll. 44 to 52). James’s vehicle necessarily “knows” when to make the precise
adjustments for “smooth vehicle operation” because the vehicle itself
performs maintenance checks and logging, which we read upon Appellant’s
claimed “computational data” (col. 5, ll. 57 to 58, Fig. 4). James’s storage
elements (e.g., the command input buffer 60 as shown in Fig. 4) keep these
travel parameters current and “carry the information among the remote
nodes as the devices physically move among the remote nodes,” just as
recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Appellant reiterates his view that James’s system
merely passes information between traffic highway facilities without the
claimed “information” that “includes a set of computational data generated
by the mobile agents” (claim 5) (Req. Reh. 3, top). Appellant essentially
disputes that James’s so-called “dumb cars” (cited by the Examiner as
Appellant’s claimed “mobile agents”) generate any of Appellant’s claimed
“computational data” (id.).
We disagree. In our view, Appellant has read the reference’s teaching
of “dumb cars” out of context. (See In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1090 (CCPA
1978) (internal citation omitted) (holding “[a] reference does not fail as an
4
Appeal 2009-001814
Application 10/842,113

anticipation merely because it does not contain a description of the subject
matter of the appealed claim in ipsissimis verbis.”).
We find that James teaches a highway control facility, which
“interrogates” the vehicle transponder for “identification, destination, and
other pertinent travel parameters” (col. 2, ll. 17 to 20). We construe James’s
teaching of “interrogat[ing]” a vehicle as necessarily collecting some
information upon which a navigational calculation is based. (See col. 2, ll.
35 to 37.)
Logic dictates that the above-cited “travel parameters” for
navigational calculations are not only “known” to but also necessarily
conveyed to James’s highway automated system. For instance, when a
vehicle’s on-board navigational system generates (i.e., relates back velocity,
schedule, and other travel parameters) (see col. 2, ll. 17 to 20), the
information sent to the highway control facilities (as the vehicle containing
the transponder passes) performs the functions of steering, accelerating, or
braking the vehicle (id.). Only in this manner (i.e., the exchange of “on-the-
road” vehicle information with the highway control facility’s collected road,
weather, and traffic conditions) can the highway control facility be capable
of a “change of travel schedule, change of destination, or other parameter
changes.” (Col. 2, ll. 35 to 37). Thus, we find that Appellant’s limitation
“wherein the information includes a set of computational data generated by
the mobile agents” of claim 5 reads on James’s teachings of a user interface
unit sending outgoing messages about “change of travel schedule, change of
destination, or other parameter changes.” (Col. 2, ll. 35 to 37).
Accordingly, we find that Appellant has not demonstrated error in this
regard.
5
Appeal 2009-001814
Application 10/842,113

Concerning claim 6, Appellant argues the claim limitation to “carry
the set of computational data generated by the remote nodes.” (Req. Reh. 4).
We find unpersuasive Appellant’s argument since road, weather, and traffic
conditions derived from James’s highway control facilities (Appellant’s
claimed “remote nodes”) are fed into the user interface system on-board the
vehicle (see col. 2, ll. 33 to 37) for purposes of steering, accelerating and
braking the vehicle as necessary. (See id. at 22 to 25.) We thus find
Appellant has not shown Examiner error.
With respect to claim 11, Appellant appears to argue that James
actually teaches two separate, non-integrated systems (i.e., a first on-board
vehicular system and a second roadside system) (Req. Reh. 7). We
acknowledge that a portion of the James reference discusses various
handshaking activities occurring between the highway control facilities.
(See e.g., col. 10, ll. 27 to 40.) However, we refer Appellant to column 2,
lines 17 to 22; column 2, lines 33 to 37; and column 6, lines 25 to 32 (cited
in the Decision at pages 6, middle and 7, middle). Here, we direct
Appellant’s attention to the cited portions of James dealing with the
interaction between the vehicle transponders (i.e., roadway devices) and the
highway control facilities (i.e., roadside devices). (See supra, discussion of
claims 1 and 5). Accordingly, we find Appellant has not shown error in the
rejection of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Appellant makes a general allegation that the
cited text does not teach the claim language (Req. Reh. 5, top). Requests for
rehearing are controlled by 41 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1), including the
requirement that:
6
Appeal 2009-001814
Application 10/842,113

The request for rehearing must state with
particularity the points believed to have been
misapprehended or overlooked by the Board.

(See also Ex parte Letts, 88 USPQ2d 1854 (BPAI 2008) (precedential)).

Further, Appellant makes the same argument for claim 12 that we
found unpersuasive with respect to claim 5 (Req. Reh. 5, top). We refer
Appellant to the above-stated reasoning regarding the rejection of claim 5
for further details. (See supra.)
For all of the above stated reasons, we thus find unpersuasive
Appellant’s arguments for claim 12.
Appellant separately argues claims 19 and 20 in accordance with
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (Req. Reh. 7 to 8). We note, however, that
independent system claim 19 recites language similar to that of claim 1.
(See supra.) We thus apply the same reasoning for the rejection of claim 19
as that for claim 1. Accordingly, we find Appellant has not shown error
with respect to claim 19. We find that dependent claim 20 falls with claim
19, as Appellant merely argues that the claim is patentable over the James
reference by virtue of its dependency from claim 19 (Req. Reh. 8).

DECISION
The Request for Rehearing has been considered and is denied.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

REHEARING DENIED

7
Appeal 2009-001814
Application 10/842,113

peb

AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. IN CARE OF:
CPA GLOBAL
P. O. BOX 52050
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
8