Ex Parte Moskowitz et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 29, 2012

09990842 (B.P.A.I. May. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte PAUL A. MOSKOWITZ, CHARLES P. TRESSER,
and ROBERT J. VON GUTFELD
____________________

Appeal 2010-006349
Application 09/990,842
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: HUBERT C. LORIN, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and BIBHU R.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006349
Application 09/990,842

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s non-final rejection of twice-rejected claims 1-6, 8-17, 19-25, and
33-38. Claims 26-32 are withdrawn and claims 7 and 18 are canceled. We
affirm.

THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants claim a secure method and system for securely collecting
usage data from remotely located apparatuses (Specification 1:5-7). Claims
1, 16, and 23 are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system for processing usage data within a local data
processing system installed on a remote apparatus, wherein the
local data processing system comprises:
a sensor for gathering usage data from the remote
apparatus;
a processor for processing the gathered usage data and
calculating a charge based on the gathered usage data;
a security system including an encryption system for
encrypting usage data transmitted between the sensor and the
processor.
16. A system for managing usage data collected on a remote
apparatus, comprising:
a local data processing system having:
a monitoring system for gathering usage data from the
remote apparatus;
a processor for processing the usage data;
a communications system for communicating the
processed usage data; and
a security system for securing the usage data, wherein the
security system includes an encryption system for encrypting
usage data communicated from the monitoring system to the
processor.

Appeal 2010-006349
Application 09/990,842

3
23. A system for managing usage information collected on a
remote apparatus, comprising:
a central server for receiving information from the
remote apparatus, and processing the information to obtain a
usage payment; and
a local data processing system installed on the remote
apparatus, having:
a monitoring system for gathering usage data from
the remote apparatus;
a processor for managing the usage data;
a communications system for communicating
information from the processor to the central server; and
a security system, wherein the security system includes
an encryption system for securing information transmitted to
the central server, and for securing information processed by
the central server.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Force
Davis
Van De Pavert
Ando
Albertshofer
US 5,533,123
US 5,844,986
US 5,914,471
US 5,955,970
US 6,230,081 B1
Jul. 2, 1996
Dec. 1, 1998
Jun. 22, 1999
Sep. 21, 1999
May 8, 2001
Ehrman
Dar
Shimizu
Schwenck
US 2001/0037298 A1
US 2001/0039509 A1
US 2002/0111822 A1
US 2003/0009683 A1
Nov. 1, 2001
Nov. 8, 2001
Aug. 15, 2002
Jan. 9, 2003

REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review.
Appeal 2010-006349
Application 09/990,842

4
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 8, 13, 14, 33, and 36 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Albertshofer and Van De Pavert.
The Examiner rejected claims 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Albertshofer, Van De Pavert, and Ando.
The Examiner rejected claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Albertshofer, Van De Pavert, Ando, and Official Notice.1
The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Albertshofer, Van De Pavert, Aldo, Force, and Schwenck.
The Examiner rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Albertshofer, Van De Pavert, and Davis.
The Examiner rejected claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Albertshofer, Van De Pavert, and Dar.
The Examiner rejected claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Albertshofer, Van De Pavert, and Ehrman.
The Examiner rejected claims 16, 21, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Dar and Van De Pavert.2
The Examiner rejected claims 17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Dar, Van De Pavert, and Ando.
The Examiner rejected claims 22 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Dar, Van De Pavert, Ando, and Ehrman.3

1 Although claim 15 is listed as rejected over Dar, Van De Pavert, and Ando,
the analysis makes clear that the claim is intended to be rejected over Dar,
Van De Pavert, Ando, and Official Notice (Ans. 7).
2 Although claims 16, 21, 23, and 24 are listed as rejected over Dar and Van
De Pavert (Ans. 11-13), and claims 17, 19, and 20 over Dar, Van De Pavert,
and Ando (Ans. 13), the text of the analysis makes it clear that both sets of
claims are intended to be rejected over Dar and Ando.
Appeal 2010-006349
Application 09/990,842

5
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence.
1. Van De Pavert discloses encryption of usage data between a card and
processor, in that "usage data (balance) transferred from the card to the
device is encrypted." (Col. 4 ll. 39-41).
2. Albertshofer discloses "[f]or capturing momentary travel data of the
vehicle the control unit provided on the vehicle may be connected to
various sensors ..." (col. 3 ll. 31-34).
3. Albertshofer discloses the use of stored accounting tables on a card
inserted into the reader on the golf cart which uses collected usage data
from which "accounting data may also be generated right away from the
usage data" on the golf cart (col. 4 ll. 50-59), which in one embodiment,
the sensed usage is actually charged at the cart against a stored credit to
keep the vehicle moving. (Col. 5, ll. 42-52).
4. Schwenck discloses an epoxy layer with embedded signature, in that:
The body 16 is made of a black epoxy polymer material such as
may be commonly used in the electronics industry as an
adhesive for electronic components. The matrix material of the
body carries a chemical marker or signature: a substance
present, often added specifically, to aid recognition of the
matrix material in tests.
(para. [0090]).
5. Dar discloses a processor that stores usage data in a memory, in that "it
is seen that vehicle 900 includes a CPU 1202, which interfaces with

3 Claims 22 and 25 depend from claims 19 and 23, which we interpret to be
rejected over Dar and Ando. Therefore, we interpret the rejection of claims
22 and 25 is intended to be over Dar, Ando, and Ehrman.
Appeal 2010-006349
Application 09/990,842

6
movement or operation determining sensor 902, memory 904 and
onboard communicator 906." (para. [0205]).
6. Ando discloses a local processor centralized at each toll road gate which
calculates and collects tolls after communication with an on-board
system in a passing vehicle (col. 1 ll. 30-39).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8-14
The rejection of claim 1 is affirmed. Appellants do not provide a
substantive argument as to the separate patentability of claims 2, 4, 5 and 8-
14 that depend from claim 1, which is the sole independent claim among
those claims. Therefore, we address only claim 1, and claims 2, 4, 5, and 8-
14 fall with claim 1. See, 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants argue “[n]either the card nor the secure module of Van De
Pavert gathers usage data from a remote apparatus because neither is a
sensor to gather usage data of the telephone” (App. Br. 7).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument, because the
combination discloses these features, but Appellants are attacking the
reference individually when the rejection is based on a combination of
references. See, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). We find that
Van De Pavert discloses a security system with encryption system which
encrypts usage data (FF 1). We also find Albertshofer discloses a sensor and
processor, which gather and process usage data (FF 2). Therefore, we find
the combination meets the claim requirements, because Van De Pavert
discloses a security system which encrypts usage data (FF 2), and
Appeal 2010-006349
Application 09/990,842

7
Albertshofer discloses transmitted the gathered and processed usage date
between a sensor and a processor (FF 1).
The remainder of arguments directed to alleged shortcomings in Van
De Pavert (App. Br. 7-9) are unpersuasive for the same reason.
Claim 3
Dependent claim 3 requires “a tamper resistant encasement that
encases at least one component of the local data processing system.”
Appellants argue “Ando fails to show a tamper resistant encasement”
(App. Br. 11).
We find Appellants arguments unpersuasive because the Examiner
found that Ando's disclosure of sensing the removal of screws fastening a
circuit board to a case of the on-board device is interpreted “to mean a
tamper resistant encasement” (Ans. 7). Appellants offer no rebuttal
evidence. We therefore find no error in the Examiner’s prima facie case
with respect to the rejection of claim 3.
Claim 15
Dependent claim 15 requires “wherein the sensor measures the weight
placed on the remote apparatus.”
Appellants argue Ando does not disclose the requirement of claim 15
(App. Br. 11).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument, because the
combination discloses these features, but Appellants are attacking the
reference individually when the rejection is based on a combination of
references. The Examiner relied on the taking of Official Notice for the
requirement of claim 15, not on Ando, and Appellants have not traversed
Appeal 2010-006349
Application 09/990,842

8
properly such taking of the official notice. We therefore affirm the rejection
of claim 15.
Claim 6
Dependent claim 6 requires “the tamper resistant encasement
comprises an epoxy having a signature embedded therein.”
Appellants argue Force does not disclose the limitation of claim 6,
because “Force teaches secure digital signatures but never mentions epoxy
as part of a tamper-resistant encasement (App. Br. 12).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument, because the
combination discloses these features, but Appellants are attacking the
reference individually when the rejection is based on a combination of
references. Our review confirms that Schwenck discloses a tamper-resistant
encasement comprising epoxy with an embedded signature (FF 4), thus
meeting the claim requirement.
Claims 16 and 20-22
The rejection is affirmed as to claim 16. Appellant does not provide a
substantive argument as to the separate patentability of claims 20-22 that
depend from claim 16, which is the sole independent claim among those
claims. Therefore, we address only claim 16, and claims 20-22 fall with
claim 16. See, 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants argue “Dar does not disclose or suggest, inter alia, ‘a local
data processing system for gathering data, communicating the usage data to
a processor located on the remote apparatus [and] calculating a charge on the
processor based on the usage data[.]...’” (App. Br. 13).
Appellants' argument fails, because it argues limitations not present in
the claim, which only requires a local data processing system with a
Appeal 2010-006349
Application 09/990,842

9
processor to process usage data, but does not require that the processor be on
the remote apparatus, and does not require calculating a charge.
Appellants also argue claim 16 requires “processing be done locally
and not at a centralized unit as required by Dar.” (App. Br. 14).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument, because we find Dar
discloses a vehicle 900 that “includes CPU 1202” (FF 5), and is thus local to
the vehicle, thereby meeting the claim requirement.
Claim 17
Dependent claim 17 requires “a tamper resistant encasement for
securing the processor.”
Claim 17 is affirmed for the same reasons set forth above at claim 3.
Claim 19
Dependent claim 19 requires “a central server for receiving the
processed usage data and securing a usage payment, wherein the usage
payment is determined from the processed usage data.”
Appellants argue “Ando fails to show a central server for receiving
the processed usage data. Each of the toll gates of Ando are stand-alone
systems.” (App. Br. 14).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument, because we find Ando
discloses a central server at each toll gate which receives data from a vehicle
and calculates a toll based on that data (FF 6), thus meeting the claim
requirements. This is because the term “central server” is not defined, and
we broadly construe the term to encompass the server at each toll gate in
Ando.
Appeal 2010-006349
Application 09/990,842

10
Claims 23-25
The rejection is affirmed as to claim 23. Appellants do not provide a
substantive argument as to the separate patentability of claims 24 and 25 that
depends from claim 23, which is the sole independent claim among those
claims. Therefore, we address only claim 23, and claims 24 and 25 fall with
claim 23. See, 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants argue, “Dar does not disclose or suggest, inter alia, ‘a local
data processing system for gathering data, communicating the usage data to
a processor located on the remote apparatus; [and] calculating a charge on
the processor based on the usage data[.]’” (App. Br. 14).
Appellants' argument fails, because it argues limitations not present in
the claim, which only requires a data processing system on the remote
apparatus with a processor that manages usage data, and does not require
calculating a charge. Additionally, we find Dar discloses a system with
processor 1202 located on a remote apparatus of a vehicle, which manages
usage data collected from sensor 902 by storing the data in memory 904 (FF
5), thus meeting the claim requirements.
Claims 33-38
The rejection is affirmed as to method claim 33. Appellants do not
provide a substantive argument as to the separate patentability of claims 34-
38 that depend from claim 33, which is the sole independent claim among
those claims. Therefore, we address only claim 33, and claims 34-38 fall
with claim 33. See, 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Independent claim 33 requires, inter alia, “communicating the usage
data to a processor located on the remote apparatus; calculating a charge on
the processor based on the usage data.” Claim 33, therefore, differs from
Appeal 2010-006349
Application 09/990,842

11
claim 1 by requiring the calculation of charge to take place on the remote
apparatus where usage data is gathered.
Appellants argue “a careful reading of Albertshofer clearly reveals
that the billing data is provided by the base station that is not located on the
vehicle ...” (App. Br. 9).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument, because we find
Albertshofer discloses using stored accounting tables on a card inserted into
a reader on the golf cart which uses collected usage data from which
"accounting data may also be generated right away from the usage data" on
the golf cart. (FF 3). In fact, in one embodiment, the sensed usage is
actually calculated and charged at the cart against a stored credit to keep the
vehicle moving. (FF 3).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 8, 13, 14, 33, and 36
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Albertshofer and Van De Pavert.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 3-5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Albertshofer, Van De Pavert, and Ando.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Albertshofer, Van De Pavert, Ando, and Official Notice.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Albertshofer, Van De Pavert, Aldo, Force, and Schwenck.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Albertshofer, Van De Pavert, and Davis.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Albertshofer, Van De Pavert, and Dar.
Appeal 2010-006349
Application 09/990,842

12
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Albertshofer, Van De Pavert, and Ehrman.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 16, 21, 23, and 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Dar and Van De Pavert.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 17, 19, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Dar, Van De Pavert, and Ando.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 22 and 25 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Dar, Van De Pavert, Ando, and Ehrman.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 8-17,
19-25, and 33-38 is AFFIRMED.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

MP