Ex Parte Raichle et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 3, 2013

11492758 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KURT RAICHLE, SCOTT KRAMPITZ,
and GARRET MILLER
____________

Appeal 2011-007122
Application 11/492,758
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, LARRY J. HUME,
and JENNIFER M. MEYER, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in this application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2011-007122
Application 11/492,758

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to data gathering and analysis
functionality using portable, familiar, and relatively simple data gathering
tools (see Spec. ¶ [0005]).
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 is exemplary of the claims under appeal and
reads as follows:
1. A data management system for use to gather
vehicle data, comprising:
a data gathering device; and
a host device,
wherein said data gathering device is configured to
gather a data item regarding a target object on the vehicle and to
transmit the data item to said host device, and
wherein said host device is configured to operate on the
data item to produce an output, transmit the output to said data
gathering device and receive a record of an action taken based
on the output.

Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Lightner (US 6,636,790 B1).
Appellants’ Contentions
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
1 because Lightner’s disclosure in columns 3, 5, 8, and 9 teaches gathering
and displaying information related to measurement of performance and
vehicle type in a webpage (Br. 10). Appellants assert that such information
does not describe any connection with “data describing the general history
Appeal 2011-007122
Application 11/492,758

3
and maintenance of the vehicle, and the source of that information being any
sort of device or being in response to anything” (id.).
Appellants further contend that Figure 3 of Lightner shows that the
information from the host computer is posted to a website before the
information is sent to the on-board diagnostics (OBD) system (Br. 11).
Appellants conclude that the data collection from the OBD device takes
place after the information is posted to the website and cannot be in response
to an output from the host device, as recited in claim 1 (id.).
2. With respect to independent claims 11 and 19, Appellants argue
the patentability of these claims based on the same reasons presented for
claim 1 (Br. 12).
3. Regarding claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20, Appellants rely on their
dependency on their base claim (Br. 12-13).

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusion. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the rebuttals to arguments expressed by
the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal
Brief (see Ans. 7-8).
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 7-8), that Lightner’s disclosure in
columns 8 and 9 teaches that the data used to diagnose condition of the
vehicle meets the claimed step of receiving a record of an action taken based
on the output data (see Lightner, col. 8, l. 56 – col. 9, l. 13). As further
Appeal 2011-007122
Application 11/492,758

4
explained by the Examiner (Ans. 8), Lightner describes that upon receiving
data from the vehicle’s data collector, the host sends an output in the form of
a second data packet to adjust a vehicle setting (see Lightner, col. 3, l. 59 –
col. 4, l. 8). Therefore, contrary to Appellants’ position (Br. 11) that the data
collection is not in response to anything, the host in Lightner uses the data to
adjust the corresponding vehicle setting. Additionally, with respect to
Appellants’ assertion (id.) that the reference lacks a description of the
general history and maintenance of the vehicle and the source of that
information, as stated by the Examiner (Ans. 8), claim 1 does not specify the
source of the record for the action taken.
Lastly, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 8) that the vehicle record
provided on a webpage further indicates that the data could be from any
adjustments made to the vehicle’s controller (see Lightner, Fig. 4, col. 3, l.
66 – col. 4, l. 3). In other words, Lightner’s teaching that the diagnostic data
is stored on the host computer, as well as posted to the webpage as an
optional feature (see col. 8, ll. 35-42), merely discusses the additional step of
posting the data on a webpage, which is not precluded by the claim.

CONCLUSIONS
1. The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claim 1, as well as
claims 2-20 not separately argued, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Lightner.
2. Claims 1-20 are not patentable.
Appeal 2011-007122
Application 11/492,758

5
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 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

dw