Ex Parte Ghabra et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 20, 201311161935 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/161,935 08/23/2005 Riad Ghabra LEAR 05756 PUS 2934 34007 7590 06/20/2013 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. / LEAR CORPORATION 1000 TOWN CENTER TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER SYED, NABIL H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2683 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/20/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte RIAD GHABRA, RONALD O. KING, JOHN NANTZ, and TOM Q. TANG1 ____________________ Appeal 2010-011104 Application 11/161,935 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before DAVID M. KOHUT, BRYAN F. MOORE, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. HUME, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 37-45. Appellants have previously canceled claims 1- 36. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 The Real Party in Interest is Lear Corporation. (App. Br. 2.) Appeal 2010-011104 Application 11/161,935 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2 The Invention Appellants’ invention relates to a system for receiving tire pressure monitoring (TPM), remote keyless entry (RKE), and passive entry signals in a vehicle. Spec. Para 1. Exemplary Claims Independent claim 40 is representative of the invention in independent claims 37 and 43 (see App. Br. 7), and is reproduced below (emphases added): 40. A method for receiving signals at a vehicle, the method comprising: tuning to a first frequency channel having a first set of frequencies in order to receive a tire pressure monitor (TPM) signal transmitted from a TPM system at a frequency falling within the first frequency channel; tuning from the first frequency channel to a second frequency channel, which has a second set of frequencies disjoint from the first set of frequencies, in response to the vehicle transmitting a challenge signal to a key fob in order to receive a passive entry signal, responsive to the challenge signal, transmitted from the key fob at a frequency falling within the second frequency channel; 2 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Feb. 17, 2010); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed June 9, 2010); Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 13, 2010); Final Office Action (“FOA,” mailed Sep. 8, 2009); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed Aug. 23, 2005). Appeal 2010-011104 Application 11/161,935 3 maintaining the tuning to the second frequency channel until the passive entry signal from the key fob has been received; receiving the passive entry signal from the key fob while tuned to the second frequency channel; and tuning from the second frequency channel back to the first frequency channel upon reception of the passive entry signal from the key fob. Prior Art The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Tranchina US 2005/0099274 A1 May 12, 2005 Katsuta US 2005/0191966 A1 Sep. 1, 2005 Rejections on Appeal Claims 37-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Katsuta and Tranchina. Ans. 3. ISSUE Appellants argue (App. Br. 8-12; Reply Br. 2-3) that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Katsuta and Tranchina is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Katsuta and Tranchina teaches or suggests Appellants’ claimed method for receiving signals at a vehicle including the steps of, inter alia, “maintaining the tuning to the second frequency channel until the passive entry signal from the key Appeal 2010-011104 Application 11/161,935 4 fob has been received . . . and tuning from the second frequency channel back to the first frequency channel upon reception of the passive entry signal from the key fob,” as recited in claim 40? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions with respect to claim 40, and we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Arguments. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 40 for emphasis as follows. Appellants contend that the limitations disputed in claim 40 include features directed to two different triggering events, the first of which is for tuning from a first channel to a second channel, which involves transmission of a challenge signal from a vehicle to the fob. The second triggering event tunes from the second channel back to the first channel, involving reception from the fob of a passive entry signal sent in response to the challenge signal. App. Br. 9. Appellants admit that Katsuta teaches periodically triggering different frequency filters for alternately receiving TPM, RKE, and SMART (i.e., passive entry) signals. App. Br. 10 (citing Katsuta Fig. 3A and ¶ [0061]). Appellants also cite Katsuta’s teaching of such periodic triggering between different frequency filters for alternately receiving TPM and RKE signals, Appeal 2010-011104 Application 11/161,935 5 but in which the periodic triggering is interrupted for a period of time to trigger another frequency filtering for receiving a SMART signal from a key fob during the period of time. App. Br. 10 (citing Katsuta Fig. 5 and ¶¶ [0084]-[0085]). However, Appellants contend that Katsuta: [D]oes not teach or suggest that the period of time in which periodic triggering of frequency filtering for receiving TPM and/or RKE signals is interrupted to trigger another frequency filtering for receiving a Smart signal from a key fob depends on whether reception of the Smart signal from the key fob has occurred. That is, the frequency filtering for receiving a Smart signal from a key fob is not maintained[,] “until the [Smart] signal from the key fob has been received” as set forth in independent claim 40. App. Br. 10. Appellants further contend that Tranchina is not relevant to the above analysis, as the Examiner cites Tranchina as teaching the use of a different frequency for RKE, TPM, and passive entry systems. App. Br. 12. Consequently, Appellants argue that Katsuta does not teach or suggest “maintaining the tuning to the second frequency channel until the passive entry signal from the key fob has been received . . . and tuning from the second frequency channel back to the first frequency channel upon reception of the passive entry signal from the key fob,” as recited in claim 40. App. Br. 11. In response, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that if vehicle receiver 3 in Katsuta is receiving a SMART entry signal with a received signal strength indication (RSSI) greater than threshold voltage (Vth), the vehicle receiver will ensure that transmission of the signal by the key fob is Appeal 2010-011104 Application 11/161,935 6 complete so that the vehicle receiver can convert and analyze the received signal, which will continue to be received until the fob signal transmission is complete so that doors can be unlocked. Ans. 7 (citing Katsuta Fig. 4; ¶¶ [0067]-[0069], [0072] and [0077]-[0078]). The Examiner also finds, and we agree that, with respect to the limitation “tuning from the second frequency channel back to the first frequency channel upon reception of the passive entry signal from the key fob” argued by Appellants, the disputed claim language does not require that tuning from the second frequency to first frequency happens in response to reception of the passive entry signal from the key fob. During examination, a claim must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the applicant has the opportunity to amend claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.”). Claim 40 merely uses the phrase “upon reception,” which we construe under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard to mean that tuning from the second to the first frequency happens after receipt of the passive entry signal. The disputed limitation does not require that reception of the passive entry signal from the key fob causes or initiates the tuning from the second frequency channel back to the first frequency channel. Appeal 2010-011104 Application 11/161,935 7 We agree with the Examiner because, as cited (Ans. 8), Katsuta teaches that after transmitter 45 transmits the passive entry (i.e., SMART) communication request signal after detecting a touch of the door, and control device 5 selects LPF 52 to set the frequency at 2.5 kHz, which was previously set to receive the RKE and TPM waves at a different frequency. Katsuta ¶¶ [0080]-[0084]. Katsuta also teaches that only LPF 51 (for TPM) is selected when the vehicle is running, so that receiver 3 receives the TPM signal, which necessarily requires that the receiver be tuned back to the first frequency. Katsuta ¶ [0080]. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, tuning from the passive entry system frequency to the TPM frequency occurs after the reception of the passive entry signal. We therefore agree with the Examiner’s findings, cited supra, that the combination of Katsuta and Tranchina teaches or suggests Appellants’ method for receiving signals at a vehicle, as recited in claim 40. Accordingly, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner’s characterization of the cited art and related claim construction. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection of independent claim 40. Since Appellants stated that independent claims 37 and 43, and dependent claims 38-39, 41-42, and 44-45 stand or fall with independent claim 40 (App. Br. 12), we similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2010-011104 Application 11/161,935 8 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err with respect to the unpatentability rejection of claims 37-45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Katsuta and Tranchina, and the rejection is sustained. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 37-45 is 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)(1)(iv) (2011). AFFIRMED tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation