Ex parte SIMMONS

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 4, 1997

08068357 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 4, 1997)

Application for patent filed May 27, 1993. 1
-1-
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was
not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding
precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte JEFFREY J. SIMMONS
____________
Appeal No. 97-1384
Application 08/068,3571
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before URYNOWICZ, KRASS and LEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 97-1384
Application 08/068,357
-2-
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection
of claims 1, 3, 7 through 9, 11 through 13 and 15, the only
claims remaining in the application.
The invention pertains to the establishment of a radio
frequency communication link between a controller and a remote
controller system.
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as
follows:
1. A radio frequency data link to establish
communications between a controller and a remote controllable
system, comprising:
interface means for producing command signals
indicative of desired system functions;
transmitting RF means for receiving the command signals
and responsively generating radio frequency signals
representative of the command signals, the transmitting RF means
including an RF modem having a serial number;
a remote controllable system, including:
a switch being selectable to a plurality of positions,
each switch position representing a predetermined ID number that
identifies the remote controllable system;
receiving RF means for receiving the radio frequency
signals and responsively converting the radio frequency signals
into control signals, the receiving RF means including an RF
modem having a serial number, wherein the radio frequency signals
include information representing the serial number of the
transmitting RF modem and the predetermined ID number associated
with the receiving remote controllable system; and
Appeal No. 97-1384
Application 08/068,357
-3-
logic means for receiving the control signals,
performing the desired function, and producing a reply signal
that indicates the serial number of the receiving RF modem to
establish point-to-point communication between the transmitting
and receiving RF modem pair.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Kirchner et al. (Kirchner) 4,665,519 May 12, 1987
Rubin 4,788,543 Nov. 29, 1988
Nelson et al. (Nelson) 4,852,122 Jul. 25, 1989
La Mura et al. (La Mura) 5,157,222 Oct. 20, 1992
Caswell et al. (Caswell) 5,231,273 Jul. 27, 1993
(filed Apr. 9, 1991)
Claims 1, 3, 7 through 9, 11 through 13 and 15 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. As evidence of obviousness, the
examiner cites Nelson in view of Caswell and Rubin with regard to
independent claims 1 and 9, adding La Mura to this combination
with regard to claims 3, 13 and 15 and adding Kirchner to the
original combination with regard to claims 7, 8, 11 and 12.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of appellant and
the examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answers for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that, in accordance with
appellant's grouping of claims at page 3 of the principal brief,
claims 3, 7, 8 and 13 will stand with independent claim 1 and
Appeal No. 97-1384
Application 08/068,357
-4-
claims 11, 12 and 15 will stand or fall with independent claim 9.
Thus, we will consider only independent claims 1 and 9.
The examiner's position, in a nutshell, is stated at
page 2 of the supplemental answer [Paper No. 18]:
Nelson teaches a radio data link or a
plurality of RF modems having means for
producing the command signals and logic
means for producing a reply signal.
Caswell teaches a system wherein each of
the RF modems comprises a predetermined
serial number for properly tracking
information during data exchanges and
Rubin teaches a received message having
IDs of the transceiver and the intended
receiver. Therefore, the Nelson modem
system modified by Caswell and Rubin
would have provided at [sic] the claimed
subject mater [sic, matter] which [sic,
in which] a modem system for
broadcasting a replay [sic, reply]
signal that [sic] includes the serial
number of the receiving modem.
Appellant does not contradict the examiner's
application of Nelson. Therefore, the teaching by Nelson of "a
radio data link or a plurality of RF modems having means for
producing the command signals and logic means for producing a
reply signal" is not in dispute.
Rather, appellant makes three arguments:
1. Rubin does not teach broadcasting the serial number
of the transmitting RF modem.
Appeal No. 97-1384
Application 08/068,357
-5-
2. None of the references teaches broadcasting a reply
signal that includes the serial number of the receiving RF modem
3. None of the references teaches having a switch that
has a plurality of positions representing a plurality of ID
numbers.
With regard to the first argument, Appellant contends
[principal brief, page 5], pointing to column 5, lines 13-19 of
Rubin, that the identifier code indicated by the legend ID in
Rubin does not represent the sending transceiver but, rather the
identifier represents the user's preassigned identification
number.
While Rubin clearly does provide for a preassigned
identification number for the user, appellant appears to have
misinterpreted the language of Rubin at column 5, lines 6-10. We
can agree with appellant that the language "ID of the sender," at
column 7, line 12 of Rubin, in a vacuum, is not clear. Such
language could refer to the ID of a user or to the ID of a
sending, i.e., transmitting, unit. However, at column 5, lines
6-10, Rubin states:
The addition of an identifier code for
the intended recipient of the message to
be sent is indicated by legend TO. The
addition of an identifier of the
transceiver 20 sending the message is
also indicated by legend ID,
Appeal No. 97-1384
Application 08/068,357
-6-
Accordingly, Rubin clearly teaches that both the receiver and the
transmitter are, or may be, given identifier codes, or serial
numbers. Therefore, contrary to appellant's position, we view
Rubin as fairly suggesting the broadcasting of a serial number of
the transmitting RF modem.
Going on to appellant's second argument, appellant
argues that even if Rubin is interpreted (as we do) as
broadcasting the serial number of the sending transceiver, Rubin
does not teach producing a reply signal that includes the serial
number of the receiving transponder.
Again, we disagree with appellant. As the examiner
contends, when one takes the teachings of the references as a
whole, with Nelson teaching a general radio data link with logic
means for producing a reply signal, Caswell teaching that each RF
modem comprises a predetermined serial number and Rubin teaching
received messages having IDs of both the transmitter and the
intended receiver, the artisan would clearly have been led to
include, in the reply signal of Nelson, the serial number, or ID,
of the receiving transponder. Moreover, any reply signal from a
receiver, which is a transceiver acting in its receiver mode, may
fairly be considered as a signal from a transceiver acting in its
transmitter mode. As explained supra, Rubin fairly suggests the
Appeal No. 97-1384
Application 08/068,357
-7-
broadcasting of the sending transceiver ID, or serial number.
Therefore, when the receiver is sending a reply signal, it is
acting in a sending unit capacity and the art fairly suggests
including the sending unit ID in that signal. But the ID of this
sending unit, i.e., the transceiver in its transmitter mode, is
the ID of the receiver, i.e. the transceiver in its receiver
mode, since it is simply the ID of the transceiver regardless of
the mode of the transceiver. Accordingly, contrary to
appellant's position, the cited art does suggest producing a
reply signal that includes the serial number of the receiving
transponder.
When we come to appellant's third argument, regarding
the claimed "switch," we agree with appellant that the applied
references would not have suggested the claimed "switch being
selectable to a plurality of positions, each switch position
representing a predetermined ID number that identifies the remote
controllable system."
The examiner identifies the keyboard 50 in Rubin as
corresponding to the claimed switch and, in response to
appellant's argument that keyboard 50 is not used to change its
ID number, the examiner contends [supplemental answer, page 3]
Appeal No. 97-1384
Application 08/068,357
-8-
that such a "change" in ID number is not part of the claimed
subject matter.
The claim language clearly calls for the switch being
"selectable" to a plurality of positions and that each position
represents a predetermined ID number identifying the remote
controllable system. Therefore, the examiner must show that the
prior art suggests at least the capability of changing the ID
number of the remote controllable system by selecting one of a
plurality of switch positions.
Although Rubin suggests, at column 5, lines 6-10,
quoted supra, that the intended recipient has an identifier code,
and Rubin also suggests, at column 5, lines 43-45, that the
keyboard 50 may be used to identify the number of the intended
recipient, the examiner has failed to identify any portion of
Rubin, and we are unaware of any such portion, which indicates
that that number of the intended recipient is anything but fixed.
To assume that the identification number of the intended
recipient in Rubin is variable, or changeable, is to resort to
speculation. Speculation may not constitute the rationale for a
conclusion of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Accordingly, since claims 1, 3, 7, 8 and 13 include the
"switch" limitation, we will not sustain the rejection of these
Appeal No. 97-1384
Application 08/068,357
-9-
claims under 35 U.S.C. 103. We will, however, sustain the
rejection of claims 9, 11, 12 and 15, which do not include this
limitation, under 35 U.S.C. 103.
The examiner's decision is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ, Jr. )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
ERROL A. KRASS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JAMESON LEE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 97-1384
Application 08/068,357
-10-
David M. Masterson
Caterpillar Inc.
Patent Department, AB-6490
100 N.E. Adams Street
Peoria, IL 61629-6490