Ex Parte Flick

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2017

13826752 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/826,752 03/14/2013 Kenneth E. Flick 58311 6906
27975 7590
ADD&G - 27975
1401 CITRUS CENTER 255 SOUTH ORANGE AVENUE
P.O. BOX 3791
ORLANDO, EL 32802-3791
EXAMINER
MCPHERSON, JAMES M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
creganoa @ allendyer. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENNETH E. FLICK1
Appeal 2016-003454
Application 13/826,752
Technology Center 3600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, AARON W. MOORE, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 This paper is captioned by inventor name according to our pre-AIA
convention. The AIA Applicant/Appellant and real party in interest is
Omega Patents, L.L.C. (See App. Br. 1.)
Appeal 2016-003454
Application 13/826,752
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Non-Final
Rejection of claims 1—11, 13, 16-47, 50-60, 62, 65—80, and 82—91, which
are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The application “relates to the field of vehicle control systems and,
more particularly, to a remote function control system and related methods
for vehicles.” (Spec. 11.) Claim 1, reproduced below, exemplifies the
subject matter on appeal:
1. A remote function control system for a vehicle including a
data communications bus extending throughout the vehicle and
coupled to a plurality of vehicle devices, and a wired vehicle
electrical power system, the system comprising:
a wireless data bus device coupled to the wired vehicle
electrical power system and comprising
a wired interface coupled to the data communications bus
in the vehicle, and
a first wireless device coupled to said wired interface; and
a remote function device coupled to the wired vehicle
electrical power system and comprising
a second wireless transceiver to wirelessly communicate
within the vehicle with said first wireless device,
a third wireless transceiver to wirelessly communicate
with a cellular telephone away from the vehicle, and
a controller coupled to said second and third wireless
transceivers to permit communication between the cellular
telephone and at least one vehicle device coupled to the
vehicle data communications bus.
2
Appeal 2016-003454
Application 13/826,752
THE REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Reinold et al.
Flick (“Flick ’830”)
Fein et al.
Flick (“Flick ’278”)
Flick (“Flick ’886”)
US 6,747,365 B2
US 7,015,830 B2
US 2008/0039998 Al
US 8,032,278 B2
US 8,362,886 B2
June 8, 2004
Mar. 21,2006
Feb. 14, 2008
Oct. 4,2011
Jan. 29, 2013
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-9, 16-19, 21-29, 34—37, 39-A7, 50-58, 65-68, 70-
78, 83—86, and 88—91, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Flick ’886, Flick ’278, Reinold, and Fein. (See Final Act.
2-34.)
2. Claims 10, 11, 13, 30-33, 59, 60, 62, 79, 80, and 82 also stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Flick ’886, Flick
’278, Reinold, and Fein. (See Final Act. 34—37.)
3. Claims 20, 38, 69, and 87 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Flick ’886, Flick ’278, Reinold, Fein, and
Flick ’830. (See Final Act. 37—38.2)
2 The Final Action omits Fein from the statement of this rejection, but the
Examiner clarifies in the Answer that such omission was a typographical
error. (See Ans. 16.)
3
Appeal 2016-003454
Application 13/826,752
ANALYSIS
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Non-Final
Action from which this appeal was taken and in the commendably thorough
Answer, and concur in the conclusion that the appealed claims are obvious.
Appellant’s argument that “THE EXAMINER’S PRIMARY
REFERENCE . . . fails to disclose TEN (10) of the claim elements” (App.
Br. 9) overstates the differences between Flick ’886 and the instant claims.
Claim 1, for example, describes a system just like that shown in Figure 1 of
the reference, except that (a) it recites power connections where the
reference is silent about how the devices are powered, (b) the connection
between the wired interface and the remote function device is wireless, not
wired, and (c) the remote controller is cellular phone instead of a fob. We
agree that it would have been obvious to (a) power the devices from the
(already available) vehicle battery, as shown in Flick ’278, (b) substitute a
wireless connection, like that shown in Reinold, for the wired connection,
and (c) substitute a cellular phone for the fob as the remote controller, as
shown in Fein. These are straightforward modifications that the Examiner
supports with rational motivations.
Appellant’s complaints about the number of references are
unpersuasive. Although commonly used to refer to individual documents,
the term “prior art” more generally refers to the wealth of knowledge of
skilled artisans practicing in the relevant filed. It is of no moment that this
knowledge is expressed in two, four, or a dozen different documents. See In
re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The criterion ... is not the
number of references, but what they would have meant to a person of
ordinary skill in the field of the invention.”).
4
Appeal 2016-003454
Application 13/826,752
Appellant’s argument that the “Examiner is using Appellant’s
specification as a roadmap to improperly and selectively combine disjoint
pieces of the prior art” (App. Br. 10) is not persuasive because the Examiner
provides specific motivations, which Appellant fails to address. The fact
that a motivation is described in Appellant’s Specification does not mean
that it may not properly be used in a rejection. Inclusion of a motivation in
an application does not remove it from the prior art.
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument that “[a] person having
ordinary skill in the art would not couple the controller 12 and adapter 14 of
[Flick ’886] with a wired power system as in [Flick ’272] and then turn to
[Reinold] to ‘reduce complexity and cost associated with connecting vehicle
devices through wired configurations.’” (App. Br. 11—12.) There is nothing
inconsistent about making a power connection with wires and, at the same
time, making a communication connection wireless.
Finally, we find Appellant’s Rule 1.132 declaration unpersuasive
because it is conclusory and does not address the Examiner’s stated reasons
to combine.
Because we find Appellant’s arguments and evidence insufficient to
show Examiner error, we sustain the rejections of claims 1—11, 13, 16-47,
50-60, 62, 65-80, and 82-91 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
5
Appeal 2016-003454
Application 13/826,752
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1—11, 13, 16-47, 50—60, 62, 65—80, and 82—
91 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6