Ex Parte Petrucci et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2017

13040698 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2017)

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.
13/040,698 03/04/2011 David R. Petrucci P013472-GMVE-CD 3455
80748 7590 02/27/2017
Cantor Colburn LLP-General Motors
20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, NAM V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID R. PETRUCCI, GREGG R. KITTINGER,
DONALD B. HIBBARD JR., RON YOUSIF ASMAR,
and MARK A. WISNEWSKI
Appeal 2016-003827
Application 13/040,6981
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—20, which constitute the only claims pending.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to a remote keyless system employing a single
antenna. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal (disputed limitation emphasized):
1 The real party in interest is identified as GM Global Technology
Operations LLC. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-003827
Application 13/040,698
1. A remote keyless system comprising:
a remote control device configured to create a signal
having at least a component at a first frequency;
a single first antenna disposed within a single glass
window of a vehicle tuned to receive a signal in a frequency
band;
a first filter coupled to the first antenna and configured to
pass the first frequency;
a second filter coupled to the first antenna and configured
to pass the frequency band; and
a remote keyless system controller coupled to the first
filter that, upon receipt of a signal at the first frequency, causes
the vehicle to perform an action;
wherein the first frequency is an integer multiple of a
frequency in the frequency band.
App. Br. 10 (Claims Appendix).
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1—7, 10-17, and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rabinovich et al. (US 8,031,125 B2, iss.
Oct. 4, 2011) (“Rabinovich”) in view of Steele et al. (US 5,635,923, iss.
June 3, 1997) (“Steele”) and Shimo et al. (US 8,040,285 B2, iss. Oct. 18,
2011) (“Shimo”). Final Act. 5-9.
Claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rabinovich, Steele, Shimo, and
Matsumoto (US 6,771,942 B2, iss. Aug 3, 2004). Final Act. 9—10.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue Shimo does not teach the claim 1 limitation a single
first antenna disposed within a single glass window of a vehicle tuned to
receive a signal in a frequency band. App. Br. 7—8. According to
Appellants:
2
Appeal 2016-003827
Application 13/040,698
The Examiner has admitted that neither Rabinovich nor
Steele teach such a limitation and, instead, relies on Shimo for
teaching using a single antenna. In particular, the antennas shown
in Rabinovich are either whip or roof antennas and therefore, not
in the window. The same is true of Steele (mounted on the car;
Col. 2, lines 8-11).
Id. at 7.
Appellants argue Examiner errs because Shimo teaches using two
different antennas in the rear glass of an automobile to receive two different
frequencies (H band and L band). Id. at 7. According to Appellants:
If one on ordinary skill combined Rabinovich and Steele
in a system where the two different frequencies need to be
detected (claims 1 and 11 require a frequency band and a first
frequency that is an integer multiple of a frequency in that band)
with Shimo, the combination would result in using two different
antennas. The MPEP is very clear in this regard - namely, the
prior art must be considered in its entirely, including those
portions that teach away from the claimed (MPEP 2141.02(VI).
Here, Shimo teaches that when detecting two different
frequencies, the skilled artisan should use TWO antennas (see
elements 1 (L band) and 6-7 (H band). Thus, if the combination
was made, the result would include two antennas. The claims
require a single antenna. Thus, the combination does not result
in a system that teaches every element of claims.
Id. at 7—8.
The Examiner finds Rabinovich teaches a single roof antenna for
receiving radio and keyless entry signals, Steele teaches the keyless entry
signal, and relies on Shimo for the single glass antenna disposed in a rear
window of the automobile. Final Act. 5—7. The Examiner finds Shimo
teaches “a single receiving antenna (6) (i.e. a single antenna) disposed within
a single glass window (19) of a rear window (10) of an automobile to
receive H-band (i.e. radio signal) in order to improve antenna gain.” Ans. 4
3
Appeal 2016-003827
Application 13/040,698
(citing Shimo col. 1,11. 41 to 60; col. 2,1. 59 to col. 3,1. 22; col. 7,1. 34 to
col. 8,1. 27; Figs. 1—3). The Examiner further finds:
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious
to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize using the
single glass antenna disposed in a rear window of the automobile
and for receiving the radio digital broadcasting taught by Shimo
et al. in the single roof antenna for receiving radio signals and
remote key less entry signals in the vehicle of Rabinovich et al
and in view of Steele et al. because using the single glass antenna
disposed in the rear window of the automobile to receive H-band
signal would improve antenna gain in the vehicle.
Id. at 4—5.
The Examiner additionally2 finds:
Shimo et al. disclose the antenna conductor 6 for H band or the
antenna conductor 7 for L-band are each monopole antenna
having one feeding point. However, the construction is not
limited thereto, and the antenna conductor 6 for H band may be
each a dipole antenna having one feeding point and an earth
conductor (not shown). In the present invention, the feeding
point provided for an antenna conductor is preferably provided
at a position above or obliquely above the antenna conductor for
the purpose of improving antenna gain (column 8 lines 7 to 16;
see Figure 1). Clearly, Shimo et al. disclose the single antenna
for receiving H band on a single glass window of the vehicle.
Id. at 5.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree, instead,
with the Examiner’s findings above. In particular, Rabinovich teaches a
single roof antenna for receiving radio and remote keyless signals in a
vehicle, Steele teaches a remote control device (RKE transmitter), and
2 These additional findings are reasonable and are not rebutted by Appellants
in a Reply Brief.
4
Appeal 2016-003827
Application 13/040,698
Shimo teaches a single glass antenna disposed in a rear window of the
automobile.
Appellants present no persuasive argument that the term single first
antenna should be limited to exclude the teachings of Rabinovich, Steele,
and Shimo, and present no persuasive argument that the Examiner’s findings
and claim interpretations are unreasonable or overbroad. Claim terms in a
patent application are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the specification, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re
Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appellants’ arguments assert an unreasonably narrow teaching of the
cited references, and Appellants argue the references individually whereas
the rejection is based on the combination of the references. In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“[0]ne cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on
combinations of references.” (citations omitted)); In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in
any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
As stated by the Supreme Court, the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
must be based on:
[Sjome articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness .... [Hjowever, the
analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
5
Appeal 2016-003827
Application 13/040,698
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.
KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
The Examiner’s findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan
would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of
a puzzle” since the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420—21.
On this record, Appellants do not present sufficient evidence that the
combination of the cited references was “uniquely challenging or difficult
for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over
the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157,
1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19). Nor have
Appellants provided objective evidence of secondary considerations, which
our reviewing court guides “operates as a beneficial check on hindsight.”
Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Sys., Inc., 725 F.3d 1341,
1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and
independent claim 11 which recites the disputed limitation. We also sustain
the rejection of dependent claims 2—10 and 12—20 as these claims are not
argued separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20.
6
Appeal 2016-003827
Application 13/040,698
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7