Ex Parte Miller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 13, 2016

12428006 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/428,006 0412212009
77327 7590 09/15/2016
ANGELA M, BRUNETTI, PLLC
3233 Lake Forest Dr.
Sterling Heights, MI 48314
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thomas Lee Miller
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.
81190206 8068
EXAMINER
NWUGO, OJIAKO K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/15/2016 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):
ANGELA@I3LA W.COM
LISA@I3LA W.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS LEE MILLER and KARL WILLIAM WOJCIK
Appeal2015-004885
Application 12/428,006
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN P. PINKERTON, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and SCOTT B.
HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-16. 1 We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Ford Global Technologies, LLC as the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal2015-004885
Application 12/428,006
THE INVENTION
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a tire
pressure monitoring system on a towing vehicle having an integrated trailer
brake controller. (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for configuring a tire pressure monitoring
system, on a towing vehicle having an integrated trailer brake
controller system, to monitor a tire pressure for a towed vehicle,
the method comprising the steps of:
connecting the towed vehicle to the towing vehicle;
detecting a signal at the integrated trailer brake controller
system, the signal being indicative of a connection between the
towing vehicle and the towed vehicle thereby defining a trailer
connection confirmation signal;
communicating the trailer connection confirmation signal
from the integrated trailer brake controller system to the tire
pressure monitoring system to initiate communication between
t. . . . ,..J • tue tire pressure momtormg system anu tire pressure sensors on
the towed vehicle.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Watabe (US 2006/0279416 Al, pub. Dec. 14, 2006) and
Davis (US 6,966,613 B2, Nov. 22, 2005). (Final Act. 5-11.)
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellants' arguments in the Briefs present the following issues:2
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the findings of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Sep. 29, 2014); the Reply Brief
2
Appeal2015-004885
Application 12/428,006
Issue One: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Watabe and Davis teaches or suggests the independent claim 1 limitation,
"communicating the trailer connection confirmation signal from the
integrated trailer brake controller system," and the similar limitation recited
in independent claims 6 and 12. (App. Br. 12-24.)
Issue Two: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Watabe and Davis teaches or suggests the additional limitations of claims 2,
4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 16. (App. Br. 24--26.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner errs. We disagree with Appellants' arguments,
and we adopt as our own ( 1) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 5-11)
and (2) the corresponding findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 3-8).
We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by the Examiner and
emphasize the following.
Issue One
In finding that Watabe and Davis teach or suggest the subject matter
of the independent claims, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in W atabe
of a tire air pressure monitoring system which includes monitoring tire
pressure of the wheels on a trailer, and which has a "connection detection
(filed Mar. 27, 2015); the Final Office Action (mailed Apr. 29, 2014); and
the Examiner's Answer (mailed Jan. 28, 2015) for the respective details.
3
Appeal2015-004885
Application 12/428,006
unit" to detect whether the trailer is connected. (Final Act. 5; Watabe
Abstract, Fig. 9, i-fi-171, 72.) The Examiner further relies on the disclosure in
Davis of a trailer brake controller positioned within the towing vehicle,
which includes a "Trailer Brake Electrical Output," an output for "Brake
Indicator Lamps," and "Diagnostics," which alert the operator to "improper
connections." (Final Act. 6; Ans. 7-8, Davis Abstract, Fig. 1, 3:6-7, 3:64,
4:3-5.)
Appellants argue the Examiner errs because W atabe does not disclose
an integrated trailer brake controller system (ITBC), Davis does not disclose
an tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS), one skilled in the art would not
look to combine Watabe and Davis, and in any event the combination would
not result in the claimed subject matter. (App. Br. 20-21.) We are not
persuaded the Examiner errs. Appellants' arguments first focus on the
references individually, which approach is unpersuasive because the
Examiner's rejection is based on the combination of the references. In re
Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for
obviousness is whether the combination of references, taken as a whole,
would have suggested the patentee's invention to a person having ordinary
skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
In addition, we agree with the Examiner that the references "are both
concerned with detecting connection of towed vehicle to a towing vehicle,
therefore are analogous arts and as such would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to combine." (Ans. 5.) Appellants do not point to
any evidence of record that the resulting combination would be "uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an
4
Appeal2015-004885
Application 12/428,006
unobvious step over the prior art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price,
Inc., 485F.3d1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citingKSRint'l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-19 (2007)). The Examiner's findings are reasonable
because the skilled artisan would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple
patents together like pieces of a puzzle" because the skilled artisan is "a
person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21.
We are persuaded the claimed subject matter exemplifies the principle that
"[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."
KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Finally, we agree that there would be no impediment, to one of
ordinary skill, to adapting the appropriate ITBC signal of David to provide
the functionality of the trailer connection unit of Watabe, resulting in the
claimed subject matter. (Final Act. 6.) The test for obviousness is not
whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated
into the structure of the primary reference." Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
Instead, the relevant issue is "what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." Id. "Combining
the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their
specific structures." In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973).
Issue Two
Various dependent claims additionally require the trailer connection
confirmation signal to be "a brake indicator lamp signal" (claims 2, 9, and
13); "a diagnostic signal" (claims 4, 10, and 15); or "a trailer brake output
signal" (claims 5, 11, and 16). Appellants argue the Examiner errs in
5
Appeal2015-004885
Application 12/428,006
finding Watabe and Davis teach or suggest these limitations. (App. Br. 24--
26.) However, given our analysis discussed above, and given the
Examiner's reliance on the above discussed disclosure in Davis of precisely
the signals called out in these dependent claims, we find no error in the
Examiner's findings. (Ans. 7-8.)
CONCLUSIONS
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the obviousness rejections of
claims 1, 2, 4--6, 9-13, 15, and 16. We also sustain the rejections of claims
3, 7, 8, and 14, which rejections are not argued separately with particularity.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-16.
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