Ex Parte Eidson

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 24, 2010

10842113 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 24, 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
____________________

Decided: March 25, 2010
____________________

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

LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Application filed May 10, 2004. The real party in interest is Agilent
Technologies, Inc.
Appeal 2009-001814
Application 10/842,113

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals from a final rejection of claims 1 through 20 under
authority of 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). The Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences (BPAI) has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

We affirm.

Appellant’s invention relates to a distributed application that provides
traffic flow information to a user (Spec. 3, ll. 3-7; Spec. 16, ll. 3-4). In the
words of Appellant:
The automobiles … include on-board
mobile agents that are capable of obtaining traffic
flow measurements from the remote nodes . . . and
depositing traffic flow measurements with the
remote nodes . . . . For example, the automobiles
… may include on-board devices that
communicate with the remote nodes . . . in order
to provide traffic flow information to the drivers of
the automobiles . . . .
(Spec. 16, l. 29 to 17, l. 4).

Claim 1 is exemplary, and is reproduced below:
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
2
Appeal 2009-001814
Application 10/842,113

information among the remote nodes as the
devices physically move among the remote nodes.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
James US 5,420,794 May 30, 1995

REJECTION
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:

R1: Claims 1 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by James.

Appellant contends that the claimed subject matter is not anticipated
by James because James does not teach Appellant’s claim limitation “a set
of mobile agents … that carry the information among the remote nodes”
(App. Br. 7, middle). The Examiner contends that each of the claims is
properly rejected (Ans. 11, top).
The claims are grouped as per Appellant’s Briefs. Only those
arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in this opinion.
Arguments that Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the
Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE
The pivotal issue before us is whether Appellant has shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The issue
3
Appeal 2009-001814
Application 10/842,113

specifically turns on whether James teaches “a set of mobile agents … that
carry the information among the remote nodes,” as claimed.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.

Disclosure
1. Appellant has invented an application, method, and system for providing
traffic flow information to a user in a moving vehicle (Spec. 3, ll. 3-7;
Spec. 16, ll. 3-4). So-called “remote agents” carry information between
remote nodes that are positioned along the roadside. (See claim 1.) The
remote agents also gather information from the remote nodes (id.).
James
2. The James reference discloses an automated highway system for
providing traffic flow conditions to a user in a moving vehicle. (See
Abstract.) The car carries information between highway facilities that are
positioned along the roadside. (See col. 2, ll. 29-31.) The car also
integrates information from the highway facilities. (See col. 6, ll. 25-32.)
James further discloses calculating a vehicle location and energizing the
car’s actuator’s ability “to steer, accelerate, and brake,” as necessary (col.
2, ll. 22-24).

4
Appeal 2009-001814
Application 10/842,113

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Appellant has the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error
in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir.
2006).

“Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at
issue ‘reads on’ a prior art reference.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc.,
190 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“In other words, if granting patent
protection on the disputed claim would allow the patentee to exclude the
public from practicing the prior art, then that claim is anticipated, regardless
of whether it also covers subject matter not in the prior art.”) (internal
citations omitted).

Our reviewing court states in In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir.
1989) that “claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably
allow.”

ANALYSIS
From our review of the administrative record, we find that the
Examiner presents his conclusions of unpatentability on pages 3 to 7 of the
Examiner’s Answer. In opposition, Appellant presents several arguments.

5
Appeal 2009-001814
Application 10/842,113

Arguments with respect to the rejection
of claims 1 to 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) [R1]

Claim 1 reads, in relevant part, “a set of mobile agents … that carry
the information among the remote nodes.”
Appellant argues that James’ vehicles themselves are nothing but
“dumb cars,” not the claimed mobile agents that carry information from one
remote node to another remote node (App. Br. 7, middle).
In reply, the Examiner finds that James’ cars (cited as Appellant’s
claimed “mobile agents”) do indeed carry information between highway
facilities (cited as Appellant’s claimed “remote nodes”) (Ans. 4, top to
middle).
We agree with the Examiner for the following reasons. Appellant has
invented an application, method, and system for providing traffic flow
information to a user in a moving vehicle (FF#1). So-called “remote agents”
carry information between remote nodes that are positioned along the
roadside (id.). The remote agents also gather information from the remote
nodes (id.). In comparison, the James reference discloses an automated
highway system for providing traffic flow conditions to a user in a moving
vehicle (FF#2). The car carries information between highway facilities that
are positioned along the roadside (id.). The car also integrates information
from the highway facilities (id.). The James patent teaches information
travels with the cars. (See FF#3.) We find this teaching for carrying
information between highway facilities sufficient to meet the claim
limitation “a set of mobile agents … that carry the information among the
remote nodes.” Accordingly, we find no error in this regard.
6
Appeal 2009-001814
Application 10/842,113

Next, Appellant argues that the claim limitations “remote nodes that
collectively gather and process a set of information” and “a set of mobile
agents … that carry the information among the remote nodes” cannot be met
because the same information that is collected and gathered in James is not
also carried among the remote nodes.
The Examiner points out that the same information that is collected by
the vehicle on-board transponder is also used to control the car’s direction
and speed (Ans. 8, bottom).
In this case, we agree with the Examiner’s reasoning. The patent
discloses: “The highway control facility interrogates the vehicle transponder
for identification, destination, and other pertinent travel parameters or user
services to route the vehicle, schedule maintenance, provide user services.”
(Col. 2, ll. 17-22.) That is, James’ highway control facilities (the claimed
“remote nodes”) gather and process a set of information (the claimed
“information”), and the cars (the claimed “remote agents”) carry the
information set, which includes the car’s identification, destination, and
other pertinent parameters, among the highway facilities (“remote nodes,” as
claimed). Thus, James’ on-board vehicle information system operates no
differently from Appellant’s claimed invention. Therefore, we find
unpersuasive Appellant’s argument that the same claimed “information” is
not carried “among remote nodes,” as claimed. Accordingly, we find no
error in the Examiner’s analysis of claim 1.
Dependent claim 5 recites, wherein, in relevant part, “the information
includes a set of computational data generated by the mobile agents.”
7
Appeal 2009-001814
Application 10/842,113

Regarding claim 5, Appellant argues that James does not mention any
“computations.” (App. Br. 9, top). That is, in the James reference, no
information is computed aboard James’s cars (id.).
We find that James teaches calculating a vehicle location and
energizing the car’s actuator’s ability “to steer, accelerate, and brake,” as
necessary (FF#2). This finding (see FF#2) suffices to meet Appellant’s
claimed “computational data generated by the mobile agents,” as recited in
claim 5. We thus find unconvincing the argument that James fails to teach
“computations,” as argued by Appellant (App. Br. 9, top). Accordingly, we
find no error.
Dependent claim 6 recites, wherein, in relevant part, “the information
includes a set of computational data generated by the mobile agents.”
Regarding claim 6, Appellant argues that although James discloses
calculating data, the calculation is for vehicle navigation, and not for
information carried by vehicles from one highway control facility to another
(App. Br. 9, middle).
We find unconvincing Appellant’s argument that James’s vehicle
navigation data is not the same as the “information” of claim 6, since
Appellant places no restriction or limitation on what is meant, included, or
represented by “data” that is “computational,” as claimed. Reading the
claims broadly but reasonably, see In re Zletz, cited above, the claim
limitation “computational data” reads on James’ teaching for a roadside
processor 70 that calculates navigation adjustments and sends that data to the
car. (See col. 8, ll. 53-57). Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s
analysis of claim 6.
8
Appeal 2009-001814
Application 10/842,113

Next, Appellant contends that the James reference “[teaches] that
vehicle position data is communicated directly from one highway control
facility to the next, not carried by the vehicles from one highway control
facility to the next.” (App. Br. 9, bottom).
We already addressed this argument with respect to claim 1. (See
supra.) Accordingly, we find no error regarding the analysis of claim 6.
Appellant separately argues independent claims 11 and 19 (App. Br.
10, middle to bottom). However, we find that claim 11 and claim 19 have
substantially similar subject matter as claim 1. For the same reasons
expressed above with respect to claim 1 (see supra), we find that James’
teachings meet the limitations of claims 11 and 19. Accordingly, we find no
error.
Appellant argues that claims 12 to 18 are patentable because of their
dependency from independent claim 11 (App. Br. 10, top to middle).
However, mere allegations of patentability based on dependency, such as
those presented by Appellant in the Briefs (id.), are not considered a
persuasive form of argumentation. (See 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b).)
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s analysis of claims 12 to 18.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1 through 20.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection [R1] of claims 1 through 20.

9
Appeal 2009-001814
Application 10/842,113

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

peb
AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES INC.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION,LEGAL DEPT.
MS BLDG. E P.O. BOX 7599
LOVELAND, CO 80537
10