Ex Parte Flick

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 4, 2003

09490192 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 4, 2003)

1 (Paper No. 7, mailed March 12, 2001).
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publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 12
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte KENNETH E. FLICK
____________
Appeal No. 2002-1470
Application No. 09/490,192
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before FLEMING, DIXON, and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEVY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
examiner's final rejection of claims 1-9, 15-19, 21-25, 27-32,
and 34-39. Claims 10-14, 20, 26, 33, and 40 have been indicated
as allowable if rewritten in independent form1.

Appeal No. 2002-1470 Page 2
Application No. 09/490,192
BACKGROUND
Appellant's invention relates to a vehicle alert system for
a vehicle having a data bus. An understanding of the invention
can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is
reproduced as follows:
1. A vehicle alerting system comprising:
a data communications bus extending within the vehicle;
at least one security device at the vehicle for generating
security signals on said data communications bus;
a remote receiver to be carried by a user
a local transmitter at the vehicle; and
a paging controller at the vehicle for causing said local
transmitter to transmit to said remote receiver based upon
security signals on said data communications bus to thereby alert
the user when away from the vehicle.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Grossheim et al. 4,794,368 Dec. 27, 1988
(Grossheim)
Claims 1-9, 15-19, 21-25, 27-32, and 24-39 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Grossheim.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellant regarding the above-noted rejection,
we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 10, mailed
Appeal No. 2002-1470 Page 3
Application No. 09/490,192
July 3, 2001) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of
the rejection, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 9, filed June
11, 2001) for appellant's arguments thereagainst. Only those
arguments actually made by appellant have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which appellant could have made but chose
not to make in the brief have not been considered. See 37 CFR
1.192(a).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of anticipation relied upon by
the examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
appellant's arguments set forth in the brief along with the
examiner's rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we affirm,
essentially for the reasons set forth by the examiner, and add
the following comments. We note at the outset that appellant
asserts (brief, pages 3 and 4) that "[c]laims 1-9, 15-19, 21-25,
27-32, and 34-39 stand or fall together." Consistent with this
Appeal No. 2002-1470 Page 4
Application No. 09/490,192
statement, appellant arguments are generic to each of the
independent claims. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as
representative of the group.
To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose
every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or
inherently. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d
1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
From our review of the record, we find that the issue before
us is whether Grossheim discloses a data communications bus as
set forth in appellant's claims.
The examiner's position (final rejection, page 2) is that
Grossheim discloses a vehicle alerting system comprising a data
communications bus 64 extending within the vehicle, and points to
col. 10, lines 17-25, col. 11, lines 33-35 and figure 2 of
Grossheim.
Appellant asserts (brief, page 6) that the only data bus
described in Grossheim is internal data bus 64 of control unit
34. Appellant argues (brief, page 7) that the internal control
unit data bus is not by itself, or in combination with the
vehicle wiring harness 30, a data communications bus as disclosed
and claimed in the present invention.
Appeal No. 2002-1470 Page 5
Application No. 09/490,192
2 Computer Organization and Design, by David A. Patterson et al.
© 1994 Morgan Kaufman Publishers. A copy of the pertinent pages are attached
to this Decision.
The examiner responds (answer, page 4) that data
communications bus 64 of Grossheim extends within control unit 64
and inherently extends within the vehicle.
With respect to the issue of whether Grossheim discloses a
data communications bus as discloses and claimed in the present
invention, we note that terms in claims are to be given their
ordinary and accustomed meaning, unless it appears that the
inventor used them differently. Envirotech Corp. v. Al George,
Inc., 730 F.2d 753, 759, 221 USPQ 473, 477 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See
also Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. BP Chems. Ltd., 78 F.3d 1575,
1578, 38 USPQ2d 1126, 1129 (Fed. Cir. 1996). From appellant's
statement (brief, page 6) that the “disclosed structure in the
Grossheim et al. patent is simply not a data communications bus
as would be understood by those skilled in the art, and as
disclosed and claimed in the present application” it is our view
that appellant intended for the phrase "data communications bus"
to be given its ordinary and customary meaning, as understood by
one of ordinary skill in the art. We take notice2 that a bus in
a computer system is a shared communication link, which uses one
set of wires to connect multiple subsystems. From the definition
Appeal No. 2002-1470 Page 6
Application No. 09/490,192
of a bus, we find that the data bus of Grossheim is a computer
bus. In addition, from the disclosure of Grossheim (col. 13,
lines 15 and 16) that the microprocessor places the appropriate
data signals on the data bus 64, we find that the data bus 64 of
Grossheim is a data communications bus. As stated by our
reviewing court in In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47
USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998) “[t]he name of the game is the
claim.” Claims will be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitations
appearing in the specification are not to be read into the
claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. cir.
1985).
Claim 1 requires, inter alia, " a data communications bus
extending within the vehicle," and "at least one security device
at the vehicle for generating security signals on said data
communication bus," and “a paging controller at the vehicle for
causing said local transmitter to transmit to said remote
receiver based upon security signals on said data communications
bus.” As claimed, we find that the data communications bus
controls the automobile alarm system. Although from appellant's
specification (page 9, lines 1-9 and figure 1), it appears that
Appeal No. 2002-1470 Page 7
Application No. 09/490,192
appellant intended to refer to a data communication bus for
controlling vehicle devices, such as the engine, in addition to
the vehicle alerting system, claim 1 as broadly drafted, reads on
the data communications bus 64 within the controller 34 of
Grossheim.
As shown in figure 2 of Grossheim, bus 64 communicates data
from the alarm sensors (via data latch 66) and microprocessor 60,
to data latches 76, 78, and 80, which, through interface 88,
connect to pager 56. As data bus 64 is within controller 34, it
inherently extends within vehicle 12, as advanced by the
examiner. Grossheim further discloses (col. 10, lines 47-55)
that:
a paging unit 56 may optionally be connected to
the control unit 34 to provide remote paging
capabilities should a violation be detected.
Such paging unit 56 transmits a prescribed signal,
through antenna 58, to a remote receiver (not shown)
in order to signal the alarm condition. The remote
receiver is typically carried by the owner and emits
a beeping sound when being paged, thereby notifying
the owner that a violation has occurred.
Because the pager transmits a signal through antenna 58 to a
remote receiver (not shown), which is typically carried by the
owner, we find that Grossheim includes a paging controller to
control the transmitting of the alarm signals. In addition,
Appeal No. 2002-1470 Page 8
Application No. 09/490,192
because the paging signals are received from data bus 64, we find
that Grossheim discloses transmitting security signals received
from the bus, to the paging controller.
From all of the above, we are not convinced of any error on
the part of the examiner, and find that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of anticipation of claim 1 that
has not been successfully rebutted by appellant. Accordingly,
we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being clearly anticipated by Grossheim. As claims 2-9, 15-19,
21-25, 27-32, and 34-39 fall with claim 1 (brief, page 3) the
rejection of claims 2-9, 15-19, 21-25, 27-32, and 34-39 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
Appeal No. 2002-1470 Page 9
Application No. 09/490,192
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims
1-9, 15-19, 21-25, 27-32, and 34-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136 (a).
AFFIRMED
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
)
) APPEALS AND
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
SSL/kis
Appeal No. 2002-1470 Page 10
Application No. 09/490,192
ALLEN, DYER, DEPILATE,
MILBRATH & GILCHRIST, P.A.
1401 CITRUS CENTER
255 SOUTH ORANGE AVENUE
P. O. BOX 3791
ORLANDO, FL 32802-3791