Ex Parte Luebke et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 2, 201411386438 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte CHARLES J. LUEBKE and ROBERT O. ANDERSON ____________ Appeal 2012-009333 Application 11/386,4381 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 5–9, 11–18, and 31–40. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants’ claimed invention relates to a tractor-trailer and particularly to a method of associating wireless signals from sensors in a trailer with the tractor (or cab) to which the trailer is attached. (Spec. 1–2.) Claims 1 and 35 are the only independent claims. Claim 35 is illustrative and is reproduced below: 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Eaton Corporation. (Appeal Br. 4.) Appeal 2012-009333 Application 11/386,438 2 35. A method for establishing an association between a trailer measurement device attached to a trailer and a vehicle used to transport the trailer, the method comprising: operating a vehicle control to generate a control signal and a synchronizing signal; transmitting the control signal from the vehicle to the trailer, the control signal configured to cause a trailer measurement device located on the trailer to transmit a synchronizing message to a processor; transmitting the synchronizing signal to the processor; transmitting the synchronizing message from the trailer measurement device to the processor in response to the control signal transmitted from the vehicle control to the trailer; establishing an association between the vehicle and the trailer measurement device by determining whether the trailer synchronizing message was received by the processor within a predetermined period of time after the synchronizing signal was received by the processor; and designating the trailer measurement device as valid when the trailer synchronizing message is received by the processor within the predetermined period of time, and invalid when the trailer synchronizing message is received by the processor after the predetermined period of time has expired. REJECTIONS Claims 35–40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Lang (US 2003/0025596 A1, pub. Feb. 6, 2003). Claims 1–3, 5–9, 11–18, and 31–34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wortham (US 5,905,433, iss. May 18, 1999) and Lang. Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 for failing to comply with the written description requirement. Appeal 2012-009333 Application 11/386,438 3 ANALYSIS Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Claim 35–40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Lang. Claim 35 calls for “operating a vehicle control to generate a control signal and a synchronizing signal . . . .” The synchronizing signal is transmitted to the processor. The processor is “preferably located in the cabin of [the] tractor . . . .” (Spec. 4 & Fig. 1.) The control signal is transmitted to the trailer “to cause a trailer measurement device located in the trailer to transmit a synchronizing message to the processor . . . .” (Claim 35.) “[A]ssociation between the vehicle and the trailer measurement device [is established] by determining whether the trailer synchronizing message was received by the processor within a predetermined period of time after the synchronizing signal was received by the processor . . . .” (Id.) Appellants argue that Lang does not disclose “generating two separate signals (e.g., a ‘control signal’ and a ‘synchronization signal’) by operating a vehicle control.” (Appeal Br. 11.) Appellants further argue that Lang does not disclose transmitting both a synchronizing signal and a trailer synchronizing message to the processor. (Appeal Br. 12–13.) The Examiner states that paragraph 37 and claims 60–63 of Lang provide such disclosures. (Answer 5–7.) Paragraph 37 states: In order to assure a clear association between the information provider 2 and the detector 3, an assured arrangement of the two apparatuses is carried out by a recognition signal S3, which signals that these two apparatuses 2, 3 are simultaneously available. For instance, a signal S3 of reverse driving, occurring upon shifting to a reverse gear, is transmitted to the detector 3 from a backup light (not shown) of the motor vehicle 1. Again, no wiring is required from the information provider 2 to the detector Appeal 2012-009333 Application 11/386,438 4 3. Additionally, it is possible in one aspect of the invention to provide the necessary recognition association between provider 2 and detector 3 via a starting signal S3 from an ignition of the motor vehicle 1. This signal S3 would be transmitted to the detector 3 upon ignition of the motor vehicle 1 by a component (not shown), which, after the ignition of the motor vehicle 1, is wirelessly supplied with electrical energy. Stated alternatively, once again, no wiring is necessary to establish a communication from the information provider 2 to the detector 3 and vice versa. Claims 60–63 of Lang state, in relevant part, that “the portable sensor and control apparatus [in the trailer] and the alert system [in the tractor] are synchronized on a wireless communication circuit upon occurrence of an electronic vehicle event” (Lang, claim 62) and that an “electronic vehicle event” can include “an ignition, an energization of a vehicle light, a gear change, and combinations thereof” (Lang, claim 63). Lang describes S3 as being sent to the detector in the trailer, not to the processor in the tractor. (Lang ¶ 37.) While we agree with the Examiner that Lang’s “electronic vehicle event” may correspond to Appellants’ control signal” (Answer 14), we do not agree that Lang discloses “a synchronizing signal” generated and sent to the processor and “a trailer synchronizing message” also sent to the processor. Because Lang does not disclose “a synchronizing signal” and “a trailer synchronizing message,” it follows that Lang also does not disclose the required “predetermined period of time” between the synchronizing signal and the synchronizing message. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claim 35 as being anticipated by Lang. For the same reasons we reverse the rejections of dependent claims 36–40, which depend from claim 35, as being anticipated by Lang. Appeal 2012-009333 Application 11/386,438 5 Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Claims 1–3, 5–9, 11–18, and 31–34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wortham and Lang. Claim 1 calls for “designating as valid a trailer sensor message transmitted from a measurement device operably associated with a valid trailer sensor and received by the processor after expiration of the predetermined period of time.” The Examiner states although Wortham does not explicitly disclose this limitation, Lang teaches this limitation in claims 54 and 62 and in paragraph 37. (Answer 10 & 19.) Claim 54 states that “the information provider automatically controls the detector subsequent to the electronic event” and claim 62, as noted above, states that “the portable sensor and control apparatus [in the trailer] and the alert system [in the tractor] are synchronized on a wireless communication circuit upon occurrence of an electronic vehicle event.” Appellants argue that “[c]laim 54 does not describe transmitting data after the expiration of a predetermined time period, as the Examiner alleges.” (Appeal Br. 19.) Appellants further argue that “there is no mention of a ‘time period’ in claim 62. Claim 62 merely disclosed that the synchronization process occurs over a wireless communication circuit, and does not even make mention of transmitting information from the detector to the information provider.” (Appeal Br. 20.) Claim 54 of Lang relates to a signal sent from the information provider (or processor) to the detector. The “designating as valid” limitation of claim 1, however, relates to a signal sent from the detector to the processor. Further, and as discussed above, Lang does not disclose a Appeal 2012-009333 Application 11/386,438 6 “predetermined period of time” between a synchronizing signal and a synchronizing message. Therefore, claims 54 and 62 and paragraph 37 do not disclose designating as valid a message transmitted from a trailer sensor and “received by the processor after expiration of the predetermined period of time.” Thus, we reverse the rejection of claim 1. For the same reasons we reverse the rejections of dependent claims 2–3, 5–9, 11–18, and 31–34, which depend from claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1 Dependent claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1 for failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 40 recites “wherein the control signal is transmitted wirelessly to the trailer.” In rejecting claim 40, the Examiner cites paragraph 7 of the Specification and states that “none of [the disclosed control signals] can be construed as wireless.” (Answer 4.) Appellants present no persuasive argument to the contrary. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 35–40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 5–9, 11–18, and 31–34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1 is affirmed. AFFIRMED-IN-PART Klh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation