Ex Parte Palmer

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 12, 2010

10389208 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 12, 2010)

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.
10/389,208 03/14/2003 Lindsay L. Palmer 03536 2649
61363 7590 10/12/2010
ROY A. EKSTRAND
3158 REDHILL AVE., STE 150
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
EXAMINER
LABBEES, EDNY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/12/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte LINDSAY L. PALMER
____________________

Appeal 2009-010013
Application 10/389,208
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN C. MARTIN, and
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, 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 2009-010013
Application 10/389,208

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-11 and 14. Claims 12 and 13 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
According to Appellant, the invention is “an improved vehicle
security system having improved remote status indication for the user.”
(Spec. 4:14-15).

Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows, with
emphasis added:
1. A vehicle security system for use in a host vehicle, said
vehicle security system comprising:
a vehicle unit having an alarm system defining an armed
condition and an unarmed condition and a door lock system defining a
locked condition and an unlocked condition;
a remote unit having user actuateable inputs for lock, unlock
and status inquiry together with a status indicator; and
communication means between said vehicle unit and said
remote unit effective within a communication, range to enable the
remote establishment of said locked or unlocked condition and said
armed or unarmed condition;
said remote unit responding to actuation of said status inquiry
input whether said remote is within said communication range or not
to activate said status indicator to indicate whether said alarm system
is armed and whether said door lock system is locked.

Appeal 2009-010013
Application 10/389,208

3
Prior Art 2
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kratt US 4,994,787 Feb. 19, 1991
Baset US 6,703,919 B2 Mar. 9, 2004
Losey US 6,885,285 B2 Apr. 26, 2005

Rejections and Appellant’s Contentions
1. At page 5 of the Appeal Brief (emphasis added), Appellant
contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 11, and 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Baset and Kratt because:
Appellant’s specification repeatedly describes the
advantages of this improvement [(]for example, at specification
page 8 line 7 through page 10 line 4) which allow the user to
confirm the system status at any time and any remote location.
This gives the user peace of mind instantly by a simple status
inquiry of the remote unit.
Examiner contends that the cited art (particularly Baset
and Kratt et al.) show this feature. The Examiner errs in this
contention. The systems shown in the art require
communication for status information.
CLAIMS 1, 2 AND 3
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 3, Appellant argues that
neither Baset nor Kratt et al shows, describes or suggests this
aspect and improvement of Appellant’s system described
above. Both Baset and Kratt et al require current

2 Should there be further prosecution of this application, we recommend that
the Examiner also consider the April 29, 2004, published application of
Eshel, US 2004/0080403 (filed November 7, 2002).
Appeal 2009-010013
Application 10/389,208

4
communication between the remote unit and the vehicle unit for
information or system condition.
2. At pages 5 and 6 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant contends that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4, 5, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Baset and Kratt because:
Regarding claims 4, 5 and 10, Appellant believes that
nothing in the prior art shows or even remotely suggests the
Appellant’s system in which a condition latch is provided
within the remote unit which is set and which stores the last
user input (lock or unlock) given to the vehicle unit. Further,
Appellant’s system which makes the stored condition status
available at the remote unit is not shown, described or
suggested by the prior art.
3. At page 2 of the Response to Notice of Non-compliant Appeal
Brief filed on September 25, 2008, Appellant contends that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Baset, Kratt, and Losey because: “None of the prior
art shows such use of a wireless phone system in communication with a
vehicle security system.”

Result
We affirm.

Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-11 and 14 because the cited
references do not teach limitations required by these claims?

Appeal 2009-010013
Application 10/389,208

5
FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Office).
1. The Examiner found that Baset at Figure 1 describes a vehicle
mounted anti-theft module (10) with a remote unit having user actuateable
inputs for lock and unlock is met by remote transmitter (13) comprising a
lock button (17) and an unlock button (19). (Ans. 3).
2. We find that Baset also describes the “remote transmitter 13
includes a LED or indicator light 26 which is used according to the method
of the present invention . . . to indicate the status of the lock button 17
condition.” (Col 3, ll. 23-27).
3. We find that Baset states that “there exists a need for
confirming a RKE [(remote keyless entry)] device lock button pressed
condition regardless of the distance away from the vehicle.” (Col 1,
ll. 37-40).
4. We find that Baset at column 1, lines 60-64, further describes
that: “One advantage of the present invention is that it provides a method of
confirming a RKE lock button pressed status. Another advantage of the
present invention is that it eliminates the need to be anywhere near the
vehicle to confirm the lock button pressed status.”

Appeal 2009-010013
Application 10/389,208

6
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 11, and 14
Appellant argues that the Examiner has erred because “[b]oth Baset
and Kratt et al require current communication between the remote unit and
the vehicle unit for information or system condition.” (App. Br. 5).
We disagree. Baset explicitly teaches that an advantage of the
patented invention is that it “eliminates the need to be anywhere near the
vehicle to confirm the lock button pressed status.” (FF 4).
Claims 4, 5, and 10
Appellant argues that the Examiner has erred because “nothing in the
prior art shows or even remotely suggests the Appellant’s system in which a
condition latch is provided within the remote unit which is set and which
stores the last user input (lock or unlock) given to the vehicle unit.” (App.
Br. 5).
We disagree for the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection
and in the Examiner’s Answer at pages 9-10 discussing the rejection of
claims 4, 5, and 10.
Claim 8
Appellant argues that the Examiner has erred because “[n]one of the
prior art shows such use of a wireless phone system in communication with
a vehicle security system.” (Response to Notice of Non-compliant Appeal
Brief, Sept. 25, 2008, at 2).
We disagree with Appellant’s contention that the Examiner has erred
for this reason. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 relies on a combination
of references and is well reasoned. The rejection does not rely solely on a
single reference to teach “a wireless phone system in communication with a
Appeal 2009-010013
Application 10/389,208

7
vehicle security system.” One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1986);
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). In other words, while
Appellant contends that none of the prior art individually provides a
teaching, it is our view that such feature is taught by the combination of the
prior art for the reasons set forth by the Examiner.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-11 and 14 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 1-11 and 14 are not patentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-11 and 14 are 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)(v).

AFFIRMED

babc

ROY A. EKSTRAND
3158 REDHILL AVE., STE 150
COSTA MESA, CA 92626