Ex Parte RICK et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 28, 2002

08614930 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 28, 2002)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte THOMAS RICK, PETER WAGNER,
and SIEGLEIF LENART
____________
Appeal No. 2000-0435
Application No. 08/614,930
____________
HEARD: December 11, 2001
____________
Before HAIRSTON, RUGGIERO, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellants have requested a rehearing of our decision dated
December 26, 2001, wherein the decision of the examiner rejecting
claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13 through 19, 21 and 22 was affirmed
based upon the sole teachings of Dortenzio.
Appellants argue (request, pages 3 and 4) that:
[T]he apparatus in Dortenzio et al and its method of
operation clearly do not satisfy the limitations of Claim
1. That is, Claim 1 recites that “data which define use
restrictions applicable to the vehicle are stored in the
Appeal No. 2000-0435
Application No. 08/614,930
2
master station”. If, as stated in the Decision on
Appeal, the range of the vehicle from the transmitter
constitutes a “use restriction” within the meaning of
Claim 1, it is clearly not defined by data stored in the
master station, as Claim 1 recites. Rather, the range of
the transmitter is a property which is inherent in the
transmitter and receiver apparatus of the system, and is
unrelated to any information which is stored in the
portable unit of Dortenzio et al. Moreover, Claim 1
further recites that the master station “broadcasts said
data which define use restrictions applicable to the
vehicle”. Once again, accepting for argument’s sake that
the use restriction in question is satisfied by the range
of the portable unit from the vehicle, it is apparent
that such limitation is unrelated to and independent of
any use restrictions applicable to the vehicle which are
defined by data broadcast by the master station.
A fair reading of Claim 1 requires that the use
limitations applicable to the vehicle be defined by data
which are stored in the master station and that the
master station broadcasts such data (containing use
restrictions) to the vehicle. The Dortenzio et al
reference is fundamentally different, and satisfies
neither of the foregoing limitations of Claim 1.
Appellants’ arguments to the contrary notwithstanding,
there is a direct relationship in Dortenzio between the range of
master station transmitter 101 from the receiver 201 in the
vehicle, and the signal strength of the pulse duration data
signals. If the vehicle is out of the prescribed use restriction
range, then it will not receive the transmitted pulse duration data
signals. Thus, we are still of the opinion (decision, page 4) that
“[t]he ‘data which define use restrictions applicable to the
vehicle . . . stored in the master station’ are the specified
Appeal No. 2000-0435
Application No. 08/614,930
3
signal pulses transmitted at periodic intervals . . . by the
transmitter” 101 (Figures 1 and 2), and it is this “data
(containing use restrictions)” that is transmitted to the receiver
in the vehicle (request, page 4).
In Dortenzio, the range of the vehicle from the transmitter is
a use restriction that is similar to the “exceeding a fixed maximum
travel distance” disclosed by appellants (specification, page 9;
request, page 2). In summary, the teachings of Dortenzio satisfy
all of the claimed limitations (request, page 4).
Appellants’ request has been granted to the extent that our
decision has been reconsidered, but such request is denied with
respect to making any modifications to the decision.
Appeal No. 2000-0435
Application No. 08/614,930
4
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
REHEARING
DENIED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH/lp
Appeal No. 2000-0435
Application No. 08/614,930
5
EVENSON MCKEOWN EDWARDS & LENAHAN
SUITE 700
1200 G STREET NW
WASHINGTON DC 20005
Letty
JUDGE HAIRSTON
APPEAL NO. 2000-0435
APPLICATION NO. 08/614,930
APJ HAIRSTON
APJ RUGGIERO
APJ BARRY
DECISION: DENIED
PREPARED: Sep 12, 2003
OB/HD
PALM
ACTS 2

DISK (FOIA)
REPORT
BOOK