Ex Parte Petrie et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2014

11801101 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ROB PETRIE and DANIEL JOHN WALLACE
____________________

Appeal 2012-000216
Application 11/801,101
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-000216
Application 11/801,101

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-10 and 16-291. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.

BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention is directed to a system and method for limiting
access to asset management information (Spec., para. [0008]).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A computer implemented method for limiting access to asset
management information, said method comprising:
receiving at said computer information from a first
reporting source about an asset;
receiving at said computer information from a second
reporting source about the asset;
storing the information from the first reporting source
and the information from the second reporting source into a
database such that the information from the first reporting
source and the information from the second reporting source
can be accessed from the database; and
enabling a first entity to access a first subset of the
information stored in the database while a second entity is not
allowed to access the first subset of the information stored in
the database.

1 Claims 11-15, though recited in the claim appendix (App. Br. 16-17), are
withdrawn (App. Br. 4).
Appeal 2012-000216
Application 11/801,101

3
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
Claims 1-8, 16-23, and 26-292 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Bauerle (US 6,564,127 B1, iss. May 13, 2003) and
Smith (US 2005/0065678 A1, pub. Mar. 24, 2005).
Claims 9, 10, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bauerle, Smith, and Woon (US 2007/0050137 A1, pub.
Mar. 1, 2007).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-8, 16-23, and 26-29
Appellants argue independent claims 1 and 16 together, so we select
claim 1 as representative. See, 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Bauerle fails to
disclose receiving information from a second reporting source, as claimed,
because the multiple sensors cited by the Examiner in Figure 2 “all rely on a
single transceiver 12 to report information (a first reporting source). Alone,
elements 72, 74, 86 and 55 are unable to ‘report’ information and therefore
cannot be considered reporting sources.” (App. Br. 9).
The Examiner directs us to, among other places, Figure 2 of Bauerle,
shown below, which portrays a schematic diagram of the components of a
mobile station (“MS 11”) (col. 5, l. 37), which is “for use in the network of
FIG. 1.” (col. 2, ll. 63-64).

2 We take as inadvertent error the inclusion of claims 9, 10, 24, and 25 in the
Examiner’s statement of rejection at page 5 of the Answer, because these
claims are not addressed in this rejection, but are separately rejected at
page 9.
App
App

are i
PCM
Spec
“not
broa
inter
F.3d
Tech
desc
infor
infor
eal 2012-0
lication 11
Figure 2

In Figur
n commun
72, and s
We cons
ification.
solely on
dest reason
preted by
1303, 131
. Ctr., 367
ribes that “
mation inc
mation an
00216
/801,101
of Bauerle
e 2, we fin
ication wi
peed senso
true the cl
We determ
the basis o
able cons
one of ord
6, (Fed. C
F.3d 1359
reporting
luding, bu
d status in
, showing
d a transce
th a numbe
r 86.
aim term “
ine the sc
f the claim
truction ‘in
inary skill
ir. 2005)
, 1364, (F
sources” a
t not limit
formation.
4
componen
iver 12 an
r of senso
reporting
ope of the
language
light of t
in the art.
(en banc) (
ed. Cir. 20
re devices
ed to, loca
” (Para. [0
ts of a mo
d micro co
rs, includi
source” ac
claims in
, but upon
he specific
’” Phillips
quoting In
04)). The
“capable
tion inform
099]).

bile statio
ntroller 5
ng GPS 55
cording to
patent app
giving cla
ation as it
v. AWH C
re Am. A
Specifica
of providin
ation, op
n 11.
7 which
, ECM 74
the
lications
ims their
would be
orp., 415
cad. of Sci
tion
g asset
eration
,

.
Appeal 2012-000216
Application 11/801,101

5
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that each of devices 55, 72,
74, and 86 properly correspond to the recited “reporting sources,” because
they provide location, operation, and status information to micro controller
57 and transceiver 12. Because there is more than one “reporting source”
disclosed, Bauerle discloses both “a first reporting source” and “a second
reporting source.”
Appellants’ argument that these reporting sources are “unable to
report” is unpersuasive, because each of these reporting sources provide
information to the micro controller 57 across the network interface 66 (col.
6, ll. 12-16), and thus permit other devices to “receive . . . information from
a first [or second] reporting source about an asset,” as recited in independent
claim 1. To the extent that Appellants argue that the only device capable of
“reporting” is transceiver 12, this is unpersuasive, because it is not consistent
with the description of a reporting source in the Specification.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the micro
controller 57 of Bauerle “cannot perform the claimed [receiving, storing, and
enabling] features of independent claims 1 and 16, and therefore can only be
considered a ‘reporting source’ and not a ‘computer,[’] as claimed.” (Reply
Br. 2-3). The Examiner, however, cites to column 2, lines 6-20, and column
4, lines 26-30, which refer to the mobile application service center, or
“MASC.” (Ans. 6). The MASC is displayed in Figure 1, shown below:
App
App

We u
store
whic
MAS
2, l.
this
can a
Fina
one
enab
infor
subs
seco
envir
eal 2012-0
lication 11
s

nderstand
s, and ena
The MA
h in turn c
C receive
5), and sto
section of
lso store t
lly, Bauerl
subset of in
ling a seco
mation, tr
et of inform
nd entity,
onmental
00216
/801,101
Figure 1
tations 11,
the Exam
bles acces
SC receiv
omprise re
s informat
res it (col.
Bauerle to
he inform
e disclose
formation
nd entity,
affic condi
ation onl
consumers
data, beca
of Bauerle
as well as
iner to fin
s to inform
es informa
porting so
ion from t
4, ll. 57-6
mean the
ation recei
s enabling
, environm
consumer
tions (col.
y to an app
, are there
use it is no
6
, showing
network-c
d the claim
ation, to b
tion from
urces desc
he reportin
2), as claim
micro con
ved from t
a first enti
ental data
s, to acces
4, ll. 49-5
ropriate s
fore not al
t sent to th
multiple m
onnected
ed “comp
e the MA
reporting s
ribed abo
g sources
ed. (In a
troller 57 i
he reportin
ty, weathe
(col. 4, ll
s a second
1), as claim
ubset of a
lowed to a
em. This
obile
MASC.
uter,” that
SC system
ources M
ve, in Figu
(col. 1, l.
ddition, w
n the MS
g sources
r agencies
. 41-44), a
subset of
ed, by se
ll entities.
ccess the
is consist

receives,
.
S 11,
re 2. The
64 to col.
e interpret
11 vehicle
. Id.)
, to access
nd
nding each
The
ent with

Appeal 2012-000216
Application 11/801,101

7
the description of access by direct or indirect communication, in contrast
with reporting, described by example in the Specification. (Para. [0145] and
[0252]).
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 16, as well
as dependent claims 2-8, 17-23, and 26-29 that were not separately argued.
(App. Br. 10).
Claims 9, 10, 24, and 25
These claims are argued only by reference to claims 1 and 16 (App.
Br. 10). We sustain their rejection for the same reasons set forth for claim 1,
above.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1-10 and 16-29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
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

Klh