Ex Parte Minami et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 201310504423 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 10/504,423 08/13/2004 Katsuaki Minami GOT 190NP 8830 23995 7590 09/24/2013 RABIN & Berdo, PC 1101 14TH STREET, NW SUITE 500 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 EXAMINER MOONEYHAM, JANICE A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3689 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/24/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte KATSUAKI MINAMI and SATOSHI SAKAGUCHI ____________ Appeal 2011-011760 Application 10/504,423 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before HUBERT C. LORIN, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and THOMAS F. SMEGAL Administrative Patent Judges. LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Katsuaki Minami, et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the rejection of claims 1-7 and 12-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). Appeal 2011-011760 Application 10/504,423 2 SUMMARY OF DECISION We AFFIRM.1 THE INVENTION Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A vehicle operation information management and evaluation system, comprising: a database that accumulates operation information that is gathered from a running vehicle through a network, the operation information including a fuel consumption amount; and a management device that sends the operation information accumulated in the database to a client computer through the network, receives an instruction related to at least one of driving operation and running route for the vehicle from the client computer, and sends the received instruction to a driver of the vehicle, to reduce a fuel consumption amount of the vehicle. THE REJECTION The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: Weisman US 6,220,223 B1 Apr. 24, 2001 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed Jan. 6, 2011) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Apr. 28, 2011). Appeal 2011-011760 Application 10/504,423 3 The following rejection is before us for review: 1. Claims 1-7 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weisman. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims for obviousness over Weisman? FINDINGS OF FACT We rely on the Examiner’s factual findings stated in the Answer. Additional findings of fact may appear in the Analysis below. ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 is directed to a system comprising two elements: (1) a database and (2) a “management device.” The database element is defined functionally; specifically, it “accumulates [ ] information that is gathered from a running vehicle through a network” (claim 1). The Examiner found that Weisman, at column 4, lines 51-61, discloses a database that accumulates information. Ans. 4. The “management device” is also defined in claim 1 functionally; specifically, it (a) sends the information accumulated in the database to a client computer through the network, (b) sends a second information (“an instruction related to at least one of driving operation and running route… to a driver of the vehicle, to reduce a fuel consumption amount of the vehicle”), and (c) reports to the client computer that the second information has been Appeal 2011-011760 Application 10/504,423 4 sent to the driver of the vehicle. The Examiner found that Weisman discloses the “management device.” Ans. 4. The Examiner concedes that Weisman “does not, however, teach using a network. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a network for the system so it could be used on multiple cars and the data stored externally.” Ans. 4. In effect, the Examiner made a finding that the use of a network was well known at the time of the invention and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the same in the Weisman system for the stated reasons. The Appellants argue that “Weisman's arrangement encourages a driver to drive in a fuel-efficient manner by permitting him to drive faster if he does drive in a fuel-efficient manner.” Br. 9. This is not a persuasive argument as to error in the rejection because claim 1 makes no mention of “encourage[ing] a driver to drive in a fuel-efficient manner by [not] permitting him to drive faster if he does drive in a fuel-efficient manner.” Claim 1 is drawn to an apparatus for gathering and transmitting certain types of information. The claimed apparatus places no limitation on a driver’s conduct as a result of the information. The Appellants also argue that “[n]othing in the reference would suggest gathering information through a network, sending the information to a client computer though the network, receiving an instruction from the client computer, and sending the received instruction to the driver of the vehicle.” Br. 9. This is also not a persuasive argument as to error in the rejection. This argument fails to address the Examiner’s position. The Examiner very clearly presented facts, including citations to passages in Appeal 2011-011760 Application 10/504,423 5 Weisman, in support of a legal conclusion of obviousness that are not specifically challenged. The Examiner already conceded that Weisman, “does not, however, teach using a network.” Ans. 4. Accordingly, there is no dispute that “[n]othing in the reference would suggest gathering information through a network, sending the information to a client computer though the network ...” The question is whether it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a network in the Weisman system. The Appellants have not addressed that question. Accordingly, we do not find the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims for obviousness over Weisman. We have considered all the arguments, including those directed at independent claims 2 and 7 and the remaining claims (Br. 9-10), but find that they are unpersuasive as to error in the Examiner’s position for the same reasons. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-7 and 12-15 is affirmed. AFFIRMED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation