Ex Parte Flick

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 26, 2004

09034963 (B.P.A.I. May. 26, 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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 25
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte KENNETH E. FLICK
____________
Appeal No. 2003-0287
Application No. 09/034,963
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON, and BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 8, 11,
14, 21, 25 and 28.
The disclosed invention relates to a portable vehicle security
system programmer in wireless communication with a programmable
vehicle security system.
Appeal No. 2003-0287
Application No. 09/034,963
2
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads
as follows:
1. A combination of a portable vehicle security system
programmer and a programmable vehicle security system temporarily
connected in wireless communication therewith, the vehicle security
system being switchable to a programming mode responsive to a
programming mode signal and when in the programming mode setting a
plurality of programmable features responsive to feature
programming signals, said portable vehicle security system
programmer comprising:
a portable housing;
wireless programming mode means in said portable housing for
wirelessly communicating to the programmable vehicle security
system a programming mode signal;
a plurality of manually settable switches carried by said
portable housing, each manually settable switch having a plurality
of manually settable switch positions in which the switch will
remain until a different switch position is manually set by a user;
indicia on said housing adjacent respective manually settable
switches to identify respective programmable features associated
therewith; and
wireless feature programmer means in said portable housing for
wirelessly communicating to the programmable vehicle security
system a plurality of feature programming signals based upon the
plurality of manually settable switches.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Grossheim et al. (Grossheim) 4,794,368 Dec. 27, 1988
Suman et al. (Suman) 5,113,182 May 12, 1992
Sollestre et al. (Sollestre) 5,864,297 Jan. 26, 1999
(filed Apr. 20, 1995)
Appeal No. 2003-0287
Application No. 09/034,963
3
Claims 1, 8, 11, 14, 21, 25 and 28 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Suman in view of
appellant’s admitted prior art, Sollestre and Grossheim.
Reference is made to the brief (paper number 22) and the
answer (paper number 23) for the respective positions of the
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
For all of the reasons expressed by the appellant, and for the
additional reasons set forth infra, we will reverse the obviousness
rejection of claims 1, 8, 11, 14, 21, 25 and 28.
At the outset, we agree with the appellant’s argument (brief,
page 9) that the statement “wireless communication techniques may
also be used” is an expression as to how the disclosed invention
may be implemented, and is not an admission by appellant. As this
statement is part of appellant’s disclosed invention, the examiner
may not properly rely on it to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness.
We additionally agree with the appellant’s argument (brief,
pages 8 and 9) that the control module 30 in Suman is permanently
installed within the vehicle via the pin connector 38, and does not
use wireless programming techniques. The manually programmable
switches 31 through 35 are located on the control module 30 (Figure
Appeal No. 2003-0287
Application No. 09/034,963
4
2), and the conventional key fob remote transmitter 20 is the only
portion of the Suman system that uses a wireless communication
technique to make contact with the vehicle (Figure 1).
Sollestre uses a key fob transmitter T that can be placed in a
programming mode by depressing certain function keys on the key fob
for a minimum period of time (column 2, lines 56 through 62; column
8, lines 11 through 18). The programming mode is used by Sollestre
to reprogram the receiver R so that it will accept signals from a
different transmitter (Abstract). The key fob in Sollestre makes
use of standard unlock, lock and panic buttons (Figure 1), and does
not use switches that maintain a set switch position “until a
different switch position is manually set by a user” as claimed by
appellant.
With respect to the teachings of Grossheim, we agree with the
appellant’s argument (brief, pages 11 and 12) that the personal
computer programmer 105 referenced by the examiner (answer, page 6)
is connected to the security system via a serial interface cable
(column 14, line 56 through column 15, line 3), and does not use
wireless technology.
In summary, the obviousness rejection is reversed because we
agree with the appellant’s arguments (brief, pages 12 and 13) that
the applied references “fail to teach or even suggest a portable
Appeal No. 2003-0287
Application No. 09/034,963
5
vehicle security system programmer for wirelessly communicating to
a programmable vehicle security system a plurality of feature
programming signals based upon a plurality of manually settable
switches,” and that the examiner has used impermissible hindsight
reconstruction to reject the claims on appeal.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 8, 11, 14,
21, 25 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH/lp
Appeal No. 2003-0287
Application No. 09/034,963
6
ALLEN, DYER, DOPPELT, MILBRATH & GILCHRIST P. A.,
1401 CITRUS CENTER
255 SOUTH ORANGE AVENUE
P. O. BOX 3791
ORLANDO, FL 32802-3791