Ex Parte NoguchiDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 9, 201311065069 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 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. 11/065,069 02/25/2005 Kiyoshige Noguchi F05-178580M/MKO 2138 21254 7590 12/09/2013 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC 8321 OLD COURTHOUSE ROAD SUITE 200 VIENNA, VA 22182-3817 EXAMINER MAWARI, REDHWAN K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3665 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/09/2013 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 KIYOSHIGE NOGUCHI ____________________ Appeal 2011-013277 Application 11/065,069 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: EDWARD A. BROWN, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-013277 Application 11/065,069 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 11-21, and 23-25. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The claims are directed to a data recording apparatus. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A data recording apparatus comprising: a data recording unit configured to store vehicle data, the data recording unit being accessible by an external system, wherein the vehicle data includes a control parameter in a control unit equipped in a vehicle; a data control unit configured to record time-series vehicle data in the data recording unit in accordance with an acquired condition, wherein the time-series vehicle data are acquired from the vehicle based on an acquisition content indicative of a type of the vehicle data which the data recording unit is configured to record, and wherein the acquired condition is a condition under which the vehicle data can be acquired for identifying a faulty state of the vehicle; a shutdown processing unit configured to record an operation history in the data recording unit during a shutdown processing, wherein the operation history includes the acquisition content, the acquired condition, and a current operation information of the data control unit, and wherein the shutdown processing unit is configured to perform the shutdown processing before the data recording apparatus is powered off; and an initiation processing unit configured to read the operation history recorded in the data recording unit and to restore an operating state at the time of the shutdown processing based on the read operation history during an initiation processing performed after turning on a power supply, Appeal 2011-013277 Application 11/065,069 3 wherein the initiation processing unit is configured to set the operating state of the data control unit based on initially set data previously recorded in the data recording unit when the operation history is not recorded in the data recording unit. REJECTIONS I. Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hirohisa (JP1 A-09-268943, pub. Oct. 14, 1997), Douglas (JP-A-2001-158310, pub. Jun. 12, 2001) and Brideau1 (CA 2 229425 A1). Ans. 4. II. Claims 3, 5-7, 12-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hirohisa, Douglas, Brideau, Hiroki (JP-A- 2003-293914, pub. Oct. 15, 2003) and Juhasz (US 4,307,455, iss. Dec. 22, 1981). Ans. 6. III. Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hirohisa, Douglas, Brideau and Yoshikazu (JP-A- 9105373, pub. Apr. 22, 1997). Ans. 9. IV. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Juhasz and Yasuhiro (JP-A-2001073864, pub. Mar. 21, 2001). Ans. 10. V. Claims 24 and 25 are listed in the Examiner’s Answer and the Office Action of July 21, 2010 as being rejected over Juhasz and Yasuhiro. The Supplemental Final Rejection of August 31, 2010 rejects these claims based on the combination of Hirohisa, Douglas and Yasuhiro. VI. Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Juhasz, Yasuhiro and Douglas. Ans. 11-12. 1 The Examiner and Appellant refer to this reference as “Michel.” Appeal 2011-013277 Application 11/065,069 4 VII. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hirohisa, Douglas and Nagahisa (JP 2002070637, pub. Mar. 8, 2002). Ans. 12. OPINION Rejections I-III Each of these rejections relies on the following finding by the Examiner: Douglas teaches wherein the initiation processing unit is configured to set the operating state of the data control unit based on initially set data previously recorded in the data recording unit when the operation history is not recorded in the data recording unit (see at least paragraph [0033]). Ans. 5. Appellant correctly points out that: This passage of Douglas relied upon by the Examiner, however, does not address a situation in which the operation history is not recorded. Indeed, Douglas merely teaches when the microprocessor is in a wake mode, the state which was previously saved will be resumed (e.g., see Douglas at paragraph [0033]). App. Br. 14. Thus, we cannot sustain rejections I-III. Rejection IV The Examiner found Yasuhiro to disclose: the data restoring unit is configured to set the data parameter information based on initially recorded data when the operation information is not restored (see at least abstract, paragraph [0031] [0037] - [0057]; Ans. 11. Appeal 2011-013277 Application 11/065,069 5 A number of elements and steps are discussed in the twenty three paragraphs cited by the Examiner. It is not apparent to us what particular elements of Yasuhiro the Examiner considers the above-quoted portion of claim 19 to read on. Without any identification of where each limitation of the rejected claims is shown in the prior art reference, we cannot provide any meaningful appellate review, nor can we conclude that Appellant had a fair opportunity to react to the thrust of the Examiner’s rejection. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (discussing 35 U.S.C. § 132). Thus, this rejection cannot be sustained. Rejections V and VI To the extent claims 24 and 25 are rejected based on Juhasz and Yasuhiro, the rejection must be reversed because there is no explanation by the Examiner as to how parent claim 1 would be rejected under this combination of references. Dependent claims include all limitations of the claims from which they depend. 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph. To the extent claims 24 and 25 are rejected based on Hirohisa, Douglas and Yasuhiro, that rejection must be reversed for the same reasons as those discussed with regard to rejection I. Rejection VI must be reversed for the same reasons as rejection IV. Rejection VII The Examiner found Nagahisa to disclose: a shutdown processing unit (i.e. switch operation via operation switch group; or an ignition switch is turned off by the driver) that is configured to record the sampling rate, the trigger condition, and the recording time during the shutdown Appeal 2011-013277 Application 11/065,069 6 processing in the data recording unit ([0012]; [0015]-[0017]- [0022]; [0047]-[0051]). Ans. 14. However, it is not apparent why the Examiner found that sampling rate, trigger condition and recording time are recorded during shutdown processing in Nagahisa. App. Br. 27-28. Without any identification of where each limitation of the rejected claims is shown in the prior art reference we cannot provide any meaningful appellate review nor can we conclude that Appellant had a fair opportunity to react to the thrust of the Examiner’s rejection. In re Jung, 637 F.3d at 1356. Thus, this rejection cannot be sustained. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. REVERSED Klh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation