Ex Parte Hashim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 8, 2017

13943020 (P.T.A.B. May. 8, 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.
13/943,020 07/16/2013 Hasdi R. Hashim 83373425 67186-032 PUS1 1744
46442 7590 05/10/2017
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Ford
400 W. MAPLE RD.
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
CAO, CHUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2115
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/10/2017 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):
cgolaw@yahoo.com
ptodocket @ cgolaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HASDI R. HASHIM
and DONALD CHARLES FRANKS
Appeal 2017-002955
Application 13/943,0201
Technology Center 2100
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify Ford Global Technologies, LLC as the real party
interest. (Appeal Brief 1.)
Appeal 2017-002955
Application 13/943,020
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final
rejection of claims 1, 3—12, and 14—17.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.3
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to master and slave controllers with
coordinated timing using a pulse width modulated (PWM) signal.
(Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A controller timing system, comprising:
a master controller to generate a pulse width modulated
signal as a timing signal;
a first slave controller configured to wake in response to
the timing signal; and
a second slave controller configured to wake in response
to the timing signal, wherein timing of the first slave controller
and timing of the second slave controller is coordinated based on
the timing signal.
2 Claims 2 and 13 were canceled during prosecution and are thus, not before
us on appeal.
3 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed July 16, 2013, the
Non-Final Rejection (“Non-Final Act.”) mailed March 17, 2016, the Appeal
Brief (“App. Br.”) filed July 21, 2016, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
mailed November 25, 2016, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed
December 29, 2016.
2
Appeal 2017-002955
Application 13/943,020
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4—6, 8—11, and 14—17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Rocher (US 2012/0030330 Al, Feb. 2, 2012) and Guo
(US 7,759,826 Bl, July 20, 2010). (Final Act. 2-3.)
Claims 3 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Rocher, Guo, and Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) (Spec. 1, 3 4).
(Final Act. 3—4.)
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Rocher,
Guo, and De Frutos (US 2005/0231146 Al, Oct. 20, 2005). (Final Act. 4—
5.)
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, and 8
The Examiner finds that Rocher discloses first and second slave
computers (Figure 1) configured to wake in response to a “timing signal”
where the master controller generates a command frame signal as the
“timing signal.” (Non-Final Act. 2 and Ans. 6 citing Rocher || 17—21.) The
Examiner acknowledges that Rocher does not disclose a pulse width
modulated (PWM) signal as “a timing signal” and therefore relies on Guo
for this feature. {Id. citing Guo 2:33—44, 4:1—3, and 5:10—60.) The
Examiner’s reason to combine is that both Rocher and Guo disclose a
network controller of a vehicle, and Guo would have further enhanced the
functionality and efficiency of Rocher by implementing the timing signal as
a PWM signal to obtain predictable results. (Non-Final Act. 3 and Ans. 7.)
3
Appeal 2017-002955
Application 13/943,020
Appellants argue that the cited combination of references fails to
render claim 1 obvious because, in Rocher, “the slave computers are not
waking in response to a common command from the master computer, but
rather an individualized command assembled by the gateway.” (App. Br. 4.)
According to Appellants, “since the command frame from the master
computer is never actually received by the slave computers, the modified
version of Rocher fails to teach or suggest each feature of the claim.” (Id.)
Thus, Appellants argue, Rocher fails to disclose slave computers
“configured to wake in response to the timing signal,” as recited in the
claim. (Id.)
We disagree with Appellants’ arguments. Contrary to Appellants’
first argument, Rocher’s slave computers, in fact, do awaken in response to
the command frame generated by the master computer. Specifically, Rocher
discloses the master computer manages the wakeup and sleep events of each
of the slave computers. (1 18.) Rocher further describes
[T]he master computer emits a single command frame
comprising the addresses and commands for each of the targeted
slave computers. The gateway 14 receives said single command
frame, extracts the information from it, then emits for the
attention of each of the slave computers involved a command
frame similar to that which it would have conventionally
received from the master computer 16 (FIG. 1). (121.)
Thus, in Rocher, the slave computers awaken in response to the master
computer’s command frame, and are thus, “configured to wake in response
to the timing signal,” as claimed.
4
Appeal 2017-002955
Application 13/943,020
Appellants’ next argument, that Rocher’s slave computers do not
receive the command frame from the master computer, is not commensurate
in scope of claim 1, which does not require that the timing signal generated
by the master computer is received by the slave computers. Instead, the
claims merely recite that the slave computers are configured to awaken in
response to the timing signal generated by the master computer. Thus,
Appellants’ argument in this respect is not supported by language in the
claims and is likewise not persuasive of Examiner error.
Appellants also argue that the Examiner’s “reasoning provided in
support of the proposed modification lacks a rational underpinning at least
because there is no basis for the Examiner’s assertion that the modification
would actually enhance the functionality or efficiency of Rocher.” (App. Br.
5.) According to Appellants, “The proposed modification eliminates
Rocher’s individually addressed commands, and replaces them with a single
pulse-width modulated signal.” (Id.) “Rocher as modified, would be less
functional and less efficient.” (Id.)
Appellants’ argument assumes the Examiner’s modification
eliminates Rocher’s individually addressed commands, but Appellants have
cited to no part of the record indicating the Examiner modifies Rocher in this
manner, and we aware of no such finding from our review of the record.
Moreover, we find there is a rational underpinning in Guo that supports the
proposed modification by suggesting use of a PWM signal to transition “a
smart connector between on and off (i.e. awake and sleep) states without the
use of a microcontroller and/or a dedicated on/offpin/'’ (2:32—36.) This
would indeed enhance functionality and efficiency of Rocher as the
5
Appeal 2017-002955
Application 13/943,020
Examiner finds, specifically, by providing the capability to control wake and
sleep states without adding extra features. The Specification suggests a
similar objective of using the PWM signal to avoid adding an extra feature
such as a time-triggered interface, a software layer, or generation of a
periodic message. (Spec. 14.) In addition, the Examiner correctly finds
both Rocher and Guo are directed to network controllers for vehicles, and
that their similar subject matter would have suggested their combination to a
person of ordinary skill. (Non-Final Act. 3.) Therefore, on this record, we
find the Examiner has provided sufficient “articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Thus, we do not find Appellants’ argument
persuasive.
Appellants also argue that “Individually addressed commands are
critical to Rocher’s principle of operation, and the proposed modification of
Rocher changes this principle of operation by [] requiring the slave
computers to wake in response to the same signal.” (App. Br. 6.)
Appellants further argue that “Individually addressed commands within a
command frame are a critical component of Rocher, which the proposed
modification completely eliminates.” (Id.) “Changing Rocher to
communicate using a common pulse width modulated signal effectively
eliminates the purpose of Rocher as it fundamentally changes the manner in
which Rocher communicates.” (Id.) Again, as noted, Appellants cite to no
part of the record evidencing that the Examiner’s proposed combination
modifies Rocher by eliminating individually addressed commands, and we
6
Appeal 2017-002955
Application 13/943,020
find none in our review of the record. Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments
concerning Rocher’s principle of operation and intended purpose are not
persuasive.
No separate arguments are provided for dependent claims 3 and 8,
which fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 9
Regarding claim 9, Appellants argue that Rocher and Guo fail to teach
a “master controller is configured to wake in response to an input from a
vehicle key, a battery plug-in, or both.” (App. Br. 7—8.) According to
Appellants, “Rocher’s paragraphs 2, 17, and 18 [cited at Non-Final Act. 3]
refer to vehicle functions controlled electronically, but not waking up a
master controller.” {Id. at 7.) Appellants contend that “Guo [merely] states
at c. 1,11. 20-24 that a controller can control devices.” {Id. at 7.) We agree
with Appellants that the cited parts of Rocher and Guo do not teach or
suggest the claimed feature. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 9.
Claim 4—7
Appellants argue “the slave computers in Rocher fail to teach any
controllers ‘having a clock’ as is claimed.” (App. Br. 6.) We agree that the
Examiner has not shown that Rocher’s controllers have clocks.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 4 or its dependent
claims. Nonetheless, the Examiner and Appellants are advised to consider
7
Appeal 2017-002955
Application 13/943,020
whether De Frutos (| 46), in combination with Rocher and Guo, teaches or
suggests this feature.
Claims 10—12 and 14^17
Appellants argue Rocher fails to teach “waking a clock of the first
slave controller and a clock of the second slave controller” as claimed. (Id.)
We agree with Appellants’ argument. However, we again note that the
Examiner and Appellants should consider whether De Frutos (| 46), in
combination with Rocher and Guo, teaches this feature.
Remaining Arguments
Our decision concerning the foregoing arguments is dispositive of all
issues outstanding in this case. Accordingly, we do not reach Appellants’
remaining arguments with regard to certain dependent claims for reasons of
efficiency and expediency, and to conserve the Board’s limited resources.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, and 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We reverse the rejection of claims 4—7, 9-12, and 14—
17.
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-IN-PART
8