Ex Parte Flick

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 20, 2004

09583257 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 20, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte Kenneth E. Flick
____________
Appeal No. 2002-1830
Application No. 09/583,257
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, JERRY SMITH, and GROSS, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1 through
8 and 11 through 44. Claims 9 and 10 are objected to as being
dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if
rewritten in independent claim form including all of the
limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Appeal No. 2002-1830
Application No. 09/583,257
2
The disclosed invention relates to a controller in a vehicle
control system that stores a set of device codes for a plurality of
different vehicles.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads
as follows:
1. A control system for a vehicle comprising a data
communications bus and at least one vehicle device connected
thereto, the control system comprising:
a transmitter and a receiver for receiving signals from said
transmitter; and
a multi-vehicle compatible controller cooperating with said
transmitter and said receiver and for storing a set of device codes
for a given vehicle device for a plurality of different vehicles,
for reading a device code from the data communications bus, and for
determining a match between a read device code and the stored
device codes to thereby provide compatibility with a plurality of
different vehicles.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Grossheim et al. (Grossheim) 4,794,368 Dec. 27, 1988
Dery et al. (Dery) 5,673,017 Sept. 30, 1997
Simms et al. (Simms) 5,808,564 Sept. 15, 1998
Claims 1 through 8, 11, 16 through 26, 32 through 38 and 40
through 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Dery.
Claims 12, 14 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Dery in view of Simms.
Appeal No. 2002-1830
Application No. 09/583,257
3
Claims 13, 15, 28 through 31 and 39 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dery in view of
Grossheim.
Reference is made to the brief (paper number 10) and the
answer (paper number 11) for the respective positions of the
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and
we will reverse all of the rejections of record.
In the findings concerning the teachings of Dery, the examiner
states (answer, page 3) that the bus 24 is a data communications
bus, and acknowledges (answer, page 4) that the controller is not
specifically disclosed as a multi-vehicle controller. Since the
controller in Dery is programmable by the user and is software
driven, the examiner reached the conclusion (answer, page 4) that
“it is inherent that the controller (20) is multi-vehicle
compatible, since the controller maybe [sic, may be] installed in
any vehicle, software driven and is programmed by the owner of the
vehicle.”
Appellant argues (brief, page 9) that Dery discloses a
controller that may be reprogrammed to recognize the address code
of a new transmitter, but does not disclose a controller that is
Appeal No. 2002-1830
Application No. 09/583,257
4
programmed with a set of codes for a plurality of different
vehicles. Appellant argues (brief, page 9 and 10) that Dery
discloses a conventional wiring arrangement of discrete conductors
that connect the microprocessor unit 20 to a plurality of
controlled devices.
Turning first to appellant’s argument concerning the lack of a
bus in Dery, we agree with the examiner (answer, page 9) that “Dery
et al. specifically discloses the bus (24) which interfaces between
the microprocessor unit and various vehicle components to carry out
various controls (col. 6, lines 19-35); thus, a bus which [is]
connected to the microprocessor for communicating and controlling
various vehicle devices is inherently a data communication bus for
communicating with various components of the vehicle.” Turning
next to appellant’s challenge to the examiner’s finding of
inherency for the controller 20 in Dery, we agree with the
appellant’s argument. Although the controller 20 may be multi-
vehicle compatible, it can only store code(s) for one vehicle at
any given time. Thus, the anticipation rejection of claims 1
through 8, 11, 16 through 26, 32 through 38 and 40 through 44 is
reversed because the mere fact that Dery is software driven, and
can be reprogrammed by the owner of a vehicle to provide multi-
Appeal No. 2002-1830
Application No. 09/583,257
1 “To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must make
clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present
in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so
recognized by persons of ordinary skill.’” In re Robertson, 169
F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting
Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268, 20
USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
5
vehicle compatibility, does not necessarily1 lead to the conclusion
that the controller 20 stores “a set of device codes” for “a
plurality of different vehicles” as claimed.
The obviousness rejections of claims 12 through 15, 27 through
31 and 39 are reversed because the control system teachings of
Simms and the remote receiver teachings of Grossheim fail to cure
the noted shortcoming in the teachings of Dery.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 8, 11,
16 through 26, 32 through 38 and 40 through 44 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) is reversed, and the decision of the examiner rejecting
claims 12 through 15, 27 through 31 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
is reversed.
Appeal No. 2002-1830
Application No. 09/583,257
6
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH/lp
Appeal No. 2002-1830
Application No. 09/583,257
7
ALLEN, DYER, DOPPELT, MILBRATH & GILCHRIST P.A.
1401 CITRUS CENTER 255 SOUTH ORANGE AVENUE
P.O. BOX 3791
ORLANDO, FL 32802-3791