Ex Parte Maier et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 13, 2016

12383702 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/383,702 0312612009
26822 7590 04/15/2016
Hackler, Daghighian & Martino
433 North Camden Drive, Fourth Floor
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Uli Maier
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
3900-TWEL 7828
EXAMINER
BUGG, GEORGE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/15/2016 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):
marc@martinopatentlaw.com
jcf@hdmiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ULI MAIER and MARK BRAUN
Appeal2014-007694
Application 12/383,702 1
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, LARRY J. HUME, and JOHN P. PINKERTON,
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 1-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is HUF HULSBECK &
FURST GMBH & CO. KG, a German company. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-007694
Application 12/383,702
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention relates to a tire pressure
monitoring system. Title.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal (emphasis added to contested limitations):
1. A tire pressure monitoring system comprising:
a wheel electronic installable in a pneumatic tire, the
electronic comprising a battery as power source, a pressure
sensor for measuring of tire pressure or pressure change, and a
transmitter for transmitting pressure data;
a receiver for receiving pressure data;
a control unit for evaluating the pressure data;
a serial bus system interconnecting the control unit and
the receiver for enabling the control unit to interrogate the
receiver and receive pressure data from the receiver; and
a data transfer line, separate from the serial bus system,
for connecting the receiver with the control unit, the receiver
being configured for sending to the control unit critical
pressure data via the data transfer line in an unrequested
manner.
2 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
May 7, 2014); Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed June 29, 2014); Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed June 2, 2014); Final Office Action ("Final Act.,"
mailed Oct. 23, 2013); and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed
Mar. 26, 2009).
2
Appeal2014-007694
Application 12/383,702
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Rupp et al. ("Rupp") us 5,768,162 June 16, 1998
Hardman et al. ("Hardman") US 2002/0075145 Al June 20, 2002
Losey et al. ("Losey") US 2002/0095253 Al July 18, 2002
Schulze et al. ("Schulze") US 2005/0110623 Al May 26, 2005
Katrak et al. ("Katrak") US 7,917,270 B2 Mar.29,2011
Rejections on Appeal
RI. Claims 1--4 and 7-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being obvious over the combination of Hardman and Rupp. Ans. 2.
R2. Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Hardman, Rupp, and Shulze. Ans. 6.
R3. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Hardman, Rupp, and Losey. Id.
R4. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Hardman, Rupp, Losey, and Katrak.
Ans. 7.
CLAIM GROUPING
Based on Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 11-15), we decide the
appeal of obviousness Rejection RI of claims 1--4 and 7-10 on the basis of
representative claim 1.
3
Appeal2014-007694
Application 12/383,702
Remaining claims 5, 6, 11, and 12 in rejections R2 through R4, not
argued separately, stand or fall with independent claim 1 from which they
depend.
ISSUE
Appellants argue (App. Br. 11-15; Reply Br. 2--4) the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the
combination of Hardman and Rupp is in error. These contentions present us
with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests a tire pressure monitoring system that includes both "a serial bus
system interconnecting the control unit and the receiver for enabling the
control unit to interrogate the receiver and receive pressure data from the
receiver," and "a data transfer line, separate from the serial bus system, for
connecting the receiver with the control unit, the receiver being configured
for sending to the control unit critical pressure data via the data transfer line
in an unrequested manner," as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments that
Appellants could have made, but chose not to make in the Briefs, and we
deem any such arguments waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We disagree with Appellants' arguments with respect to claims 1-12,
and we incorporate herein and 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 in the Examiner's Answer in
4
Appeal2014-007694
Application 12/383,702
response to Appellants' arguments. We incorporate such findings, reasons,
and rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise noted. However, we
highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for
emphasis as follows.
Appellants generally argue " [a] serial bus system contains a 'master'
and an unspecified number of 'slaves.' The 'slaves' send data only in
response to a request from the 'master.' Thus the words 'serial bus system'
define a specific way in how data is requested and then sent." App. Br. 12.
Further, Appellants allege, in their invention, "a second structure and
method of communication utilizes a data transfer line connected in parallel
to the serial bus directly between the receiver and the control unit. The data
transfer line is configured to automatically send data to the control unit in
the case of a critical pressure occurrence." App. Br. 12-13.
With respect to claim 1, Appellants specifically contend:
Hardman discloses the use of a single link . . . [and] never
suggests that a first link can work by requesting information
while a second link can work by automatically sending
information. Hardman never teaches, suggests or implies that
two different types of link structures and two different methods
of operation be used.
App. Br. 13. Further, Appellants argue: "Rupp merely discloses that a data
bus recorder could be connected to several data buses to record data traffic
of several buses. Thereby Rupp is disclosing two links of the same type and
is not disclosing two different links of differing types." Id.
We first note, "[i]n the patentability context, claims are to be given
their broadest reasonable interpretations ... limitations are not to be read
into the claims from the specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
5
Appeal2014-007694
Application 12/383,702
1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). Any special meaning assigned to
a term "must be sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from
common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the
field of the invention." Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133
F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Helmsderfer v. Bobrick
Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("A patentee
may act as its own lexicographer and assign to a term a unique definition
that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning; however, a
patentee must clearly express that intent in the written description.").
Absent an express intent to impart a novel meaning to a claim term, the
words take on the ordinary and customary meanings attributed to them by
those of ordinary skill in the art. Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical,
Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).
In addition, the predecessor to our reviewing court guides, "one
cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where ...
the rejections are based on combinations of references." In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Hardman teaches or suggests a tire
monitoring system that measures tire data and transmits "said data in
response to an interrogation request, an alert, or automatically on a
period[ic] basis. Hardman also provides a system that can perform
autonomous transmission to the remote reader/transceiver when a specified
alarm condition occurs. Thus, Hardman provides a system with two
different modes of signaling." Ans. 10 (citing Hardman i-fi-121-31 ).
6
Appeal2014-007694
Application 12/383,702
The Examiner then relies upon "Rupp to show two different
communication links that are buses .... Information can be sent through
each bus." Id. (citing Rupp Fig. 1, elements 36 and 38). "Thus, broadly and
reasonably interpreted, the Appellant[ s'] serial bus system and data transfer
line are interpreted to be the same thing [, i.e.,] interpreted to be
communication links to transfer data. Rupp discloses two buses." Ans. 11.
With respect to Appellants' argument concerning the purported
differences in the claimed "serial bus system" and "data transfer line," the
Examiner finds the serial bus system and data transfer line are "the same
thing," and provides a definition for a "serial bus" from an online dictionary
in support of that finding. Ans. 11. 3 The Examiner further finds "Appellant
has not been clear in the prosecution to distinguish clearly the differences
between a data line and a bus system line. Therefore, [the] broadest
reasonable interpretation of a system bus line would include the data line as
explained above." Ans. 12.
We note Appellants have not cited to a definition of "a data transfer
line" that sends "data ... in an unrequested manner" in the Specification that
would preclude the Examiner's broader reading. 4
Accordingly, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are
not persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings
and suggestions of the cited prior art combination to teach or suggest the
disputed limitations of claim 1, nor do we find error in the Examiner's
3 Citing http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/serial+bus.
4 We find Hardman's disclosure of a signaling mode on a data bus initiated
when a "specified alarm condition occurs" teaches or at least suggests the
contested "data transfer line," as discussed, supra.
7
Appeal2014-007694
Application 12/383,702
resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, and grouped
claims 2--4 and 7-10 which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra.
§ 103(a) Rejections R2-R4 of Claims 5, 6, 11, and 12
In view of the lack of any substantive or separate arguments directed
to obviousness Rejections R2 through R4 of claims 5, 6, 11, and 12 under
§ 103, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims. We deem
arguments not made waived.
REPLY BRIEF
To the extent Appellants may advance new arguments in the Reply
Brief (Reply Br. 2--4) not in response to a shift in the Examiner's position in
the Answer, we note arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised
in the Appeal Brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the
Examiner's Answer will not be considered except for good cause (see 37
C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2)), which Appellants have not shown.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err with respect to obviousness Rejections RI
through R4 of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited prior art
combinations of record, and we sustain the rejections.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-12.
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
8