Ex Parte McAvoy

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 20, 2010

10731695 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 20, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL B. McAVOY
____________

Appeal 2009-003397
Application 10/731,695
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before WILLIAM F. PATE, III, JENNIFER D. BAHR and
JOHN C. KERINS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-003397
Application 10/731,695

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Michael B. McAvoy (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-7, 11, 12 and 71-77.
Claims 14-70 were canceled and claims 8-10 and 13 have been withdrawn
from consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to a method for distributing power to
a plurality of electrical devices in a vehicle. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of Appellant’s invention:
1. A method for distributing electric power to a
plurality of electrical devices in a vehicle, the
method comprising:

receiving at least a first operating command for at
least one of the plurality of electrical devices;

in response to receiving the operating command,
polling the plurality of electrical devices for power
requests;

receiving at least one power request from the
plurality of electrical devices in response to the
poll; and

distributing power to the electrical devices based
on the at least one power request received from the
plurality of electrical devices.

(Appeal Br., Claims Appendix)(emphasis added).
Appeal 2009-003397
Application 10/731,695

3
THE REJECTION2
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-7, 11, 12 and 71-77 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Weiler (US 5,936,318, issued
August 10, 1999).

ISSUE
Has the Examiner established that Weiler discloses a method in
which, in response to receiving an operating command, a plurality of
electrical devices are polled for power requests?

ANALYSIS
The Examiner has not specifically pointed out where, in the Weiler
disclosure, a step of polling a plurality of electrical devices is performed in
response to receiving an operating command, as set forth in independent
claims 1 and 71. Instead, the Examiner explains that devices 27, 40 and 43
of Weiler “are continually polling all the [electrical] devices 14-18 for power
request[s]”, and points out that, while Appellant “appears to be arguing
selectively polling electrical devices”, the claims “do not preclude
continuously polling electrical devices.” (Ans. 9).
Whether independent claims 1 and 71 might or might not preclude
continuous polling, the claim language, on its face, specifically requires that
there is to be a step performed of polling the electrical devices in response to
receiving an operating signal. There must, therefore, be a particular polling

2 Rejections of claims 71-77 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
(enablement) and of claims 2-7 under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph
(indefiniteness) made in the Final Rejection dated January 30, 2007, were
withdrawn in the Examiner’s Answer. (Ans. 9).
Appeal 2009-003397
Application 10/731,695

4
operation associated with the receipt of and in response to an operating
command. A disclosure of continuously monitoring loads occasioned by
supplying power to electrical devices, even if regarded in a broad sense as a
“polling” of the electrical devices, does not amount to a disclosure of the
claim step requiring a polling in response to the receipt of an operating
signal.
The rejection of independent claims 1 and 71, and of claims 2-7, 11,
12 and 72-77 depending therefrom, will not be sustained.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner has not established, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that Weiler discloses a method in which, in response to receiving
an operating command, a plurality of electrical devices are polled for power
requests.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-7, 11, 12 and 71-77 is
reversed.

REVERSED

mls

PERKINS COIE LLP (BOEING)
P.O. BOX 1247
PATENT-SEA
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98111-1247