Ex Parte Gröhlich et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 28, 201613383803 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/383,803 07/12/2012 Klaus Grohlich 502901-908PUS - 9943 315717.00 27799 7590 Cozen O'Connor 277 Park Avenue, 20th floor NEW YORK, NY 10172 12/30/2016 EXAMINER MATTIS, JASON E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2461 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/30/2016 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): patentsecretary @ cozen. com patentdocket@cozen.com patentsorter@cozen.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KLAUS GROHLICH, RONALD HAIN, SEBASTIAN RANDEL, and GOTZ RODERER Appeal 2016-004990 Application 13/383,803 Technology Center 2400 Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHN P. PINKERTON, SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-004990 Application 13/383,803 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 29-31, and 33. Claims 1—15, 17, 19, 22, 23, 26—28, and 32 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Exemplary Claims An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claims 16 and 24, which are reproduced below with emphases added: 16. A method for transferring unmodulated control signals and modulated data signals, in a motor vehicle, comprising: modulating the data signals to produce the modulated data signals; applying digital to analog conversion to the modulated data signals to produce modulated analog data signals; adding, using an adder circuit, the modulated analog data signals to the unmodulated control signals to produce a mixed signal comprising both the modulated analog data signals and, in a baseband, the unmodulated control signals', and transmitting the mixed signal over a same physical medium. 24. A method for receiving at least one or more of transmitted unmodulated control signals and modulated transmitted data signals, comprising receiving, over a physical medium, a transmitted signal that includes the transmitted unmodulated control signals in a baseband and the modulated transmitted data signals', 2 Appeal 2016-004990 Application 13/383,803 converting the received transmitted signal into a mixed signal comprising both the modulated data signals and the unmodulated control signals; filtering the mixed signal to separate the modulated data signals from the unmodulated control signals; applying analog to digital conversion to the filtered modulated data signals to produce digital modulated data signals; and demodulating the digital modulated data signals. The Examiner’s Rejections (1) The Examiner rejected claims 24, 25, 30, 31, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Smart et al. (US 2002/0039388 Al; published Apr. 4, 2002) (“Smart”) and Kumagai et al. (US 5,754,949; issued May 19, 1998) (“Kumagai”). Final Act. 5—7. (2) The Examiner rejected claims 16, 18, 20, 21, 29, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Smart, Kumagai, and Enders et al. (US 2005/0206240 Al; published Sept. 22, 2005) (“Enders”). Final Act. 7-11. Issue on Appeal Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 5—12) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2—3) in light of the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (Ans. 2—5), the following principal issue is presented on appeal: Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 29—31, and 33 because the base combination of Smart and Kumagai fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitations of a method and circuit for receiving and transmitting unmodulated control signals, as recited in each of independent claims 16, 24, 29, and 30? 3 Appeal 2016-004990 Application 13/383,803 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections (Final Act. 5—11) in light of Appellants’ contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 5—12) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2—3) that the Examiner has erred, as well as the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (Ans. 2— 5). We disagree with Appellants’ arguments as to independent claims 16, 24, 29, and 30. With regard to claims 16, 24, 29, and 30, we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 5—10), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 2—5). We highlight and amplify certain teachings and suggestions of the references as follows. We note that each reference cited by the Examiner must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (finding one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references). In this light, Appellants’ arguments as to representative independent claims 16 and 24 (App. Br. 8—11) concerning the individual shortcomings in the teachings of Smart and Kumagai are not persuasive, and are not convincing of the non-obviousness of the claimed invention set forth in independent claims 16, 24, 29, and 30. The Examiner relies upon the combination of Smart and Kumagai as teaching or suggesting the methods and circuits for receiving and 4 Appeal 2016-004990 Application 13/383,803 transmitting unmodulated control signals, as recited in each of independent claims 16, 24, 29, and 30. We agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 5—7 and 7—10; Ans. 2—5) that (i) Kumagai teaches the transmission and reception of control signals that are unmodulated in a baseband; (ii) Smart teaches transmission and reception of both modulated data signals and control signals that are added together; and (iii) Kumagai suggests at column 2, lines 40-46 that use of modulated signals during transmission may cause control signals to leak into other frequencies and increase noise so as to reduce transmission quality (see specifically Ans. 4 citing Kumagai). In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of independent claims 16, 24, 29, and 30, as well as claims 18, 20, 21, 25, 31, and 33 depending respectively therefrom, over the base combination of Smart and Kumagai. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 29-31, and 33 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the base combination of Smart and Kumagai because the base combination teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of a method and circuit for receiving and transmitting unmodulated control signals, as recited in each of independent claims 16, 24, 29, and 30. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 29-31, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed. 5 Appeal 2016-004990 Application 13/383,803 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation