Ex Parte Takikita

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 1, 2016

12610656 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/610,656 11102/2009
23373 7590 06/03/2016
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20037
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mamoru TAKIKITA
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
Ql 15392 1899
EXAMINER
GIRMA, FEKADESELASS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/03/2016 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):
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
sughrue@sughrue.com
USPTO@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MAMORU TAKIKITA
Appeal2015-000510
Application 12/610,656
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL W. KIM, KAL YANK. DESHPANDE, and
JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges.
DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-000510
Application 12/610,656
STATEMENT OF CASE 1
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5-9. 2 We have jurisdiction over the
appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
INVENTION
Appellant's invention is directed to a car-charging system. Spec. 1 :6-
9.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claims 1 and 9, which are reproduced below:
1. A car-charging system, comprising:
a car to be charged;
a charge-accumulating device in the car;
a power-supplying device located outside the car and
including a power source and an authentication-managing
device; and
a DSRC (Dedicated Short Range Communication)
onboard device provided at the car,
wherein the charge-accumulating device is operable to be
charged through a power-supplying line from the power source
outside the car,
wherein authentication of the car is performed by means
of communication between the authentication-managing device
and DSRC onboard device, and
wherein said authentication-managing device and the
DSRC onboard device are operable to separately perform
1 Our decision makes reference to Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed
May 23, 2014), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed July 25, 2014)
and Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed September 10, 2013).
2 Claims 3 and 4 were canceled previously.
2
Appeal2015-000510
Application 12/610,656
authentication via both the power-supplying line and a DSRC
channel.
9. A car-charging system for a charge-accumulating device
in a car operable to be charged through a power-supplying line
from a power source outside the car comprising:
an authentication-managing device provided in a power
supplying device outside the car; and
a Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC)
onboard device provided in the car, the DSRC onboard device
communicating with the authentication-managing device,
wherein the DSRC onboard device is equipped with an
interface module connecting to an external device,
wherein authentication of the car is performed via
communication between the authentication-managing device and
the DSRC onboard device, and
wherein said authentication-managing device and the
DSRC onboard device are operable, through the interface
module, to separately perform authentication via both the
power-supplying line and a DSRC channel.
Shimizu
Graziano
Makino
REFERENCES
US 2009/0278492 Al
US 2010/0145885 Al
JP 10262303 A
REJECTIONS
Nov. 12, 20093
June 10, 20104
Sept. 29, 1998
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Shimizu and Graziano. Final Act. 2-9.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Shimizu, Graziano, and Makino. Final Act. 9.
3 Application filed on June 11, 2007.
4 Application filed December 5, 2008.
3
Appeal2015-000510
Application 12/610,656
ISSUES
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 6,
8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Shimizu and Graziano
turns on whether Graziano teaches, "said authentication-managing device
and the DSRC onboard device are operable to separately perform
authentication via both the power-supplying line and a DSRC channel," as
recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claim 9.
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Shimizu and Graziano turns on whether
Graziano teaches a "DSRC onboard device [that] is equipped with an
interface module," as recited in independent claim 9?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, and 9 rejected under 35 USC§ 103(a) as obvious over
Shimizu and Graziano
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8
Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, "said authentication-managing
device and the DSRC onboard device are operable to separately perform
authentication via both the power-supplying line and a DSRC channel."
Independent claim 9 recites a similar limitation.
Appellant argues that Graziano fails to teach this limitation because,
rather than performing authentication via a power-supplying line, only
vehicle identification data is transmitted via Graziano's power-supplying
line. Br. 7-9. We disagree with Appellant.
The Examiner finds that Graziano's car-charging system authenticates
the car being charged through the system's power line. Final Act. 4 (citing
Graziano i-f 60, Fig. 7); Ans. 3--4. Graziano manages authentication,
4
Appeal2015-000510
Application 12/610,656
authorization, and accounting of a car being charged via bi-directional
communication between the car and a Utility Service Center. Graziano i-f 60,
Fig. 7. The bi-directional communication or authentication may take place
via a communications network and/or the connected power line. Id.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Graziano's car-charging system
teaches the disputed limitation because the charging car may be
authenticated via the power-supplying line. See Final Act. 4; Ans. 3--4.
Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Graziano
teaches, "said authentication-managing device and the DSRC onboard
device are operable to separately perform authentication via both the power-
supplying line and a DSRC channel."
Appellant argues that claims 2, 5, 6, and 8 are patentable for the same
reasons as independent claim 1. Br. 10. As such, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of these claims for the reasons discussed above in our analysis of
claim 1.
Claim 9
Appellant argues that Graziano fails to teach the "DSRC onboard
device is equipped with an interface module," as recited in independent
claim 9 because Graziano' s DSRC onboard device is not equipped with an
interface module. See Br. 9--10. We agree with Appellant. The term
"equipped" is not defined expressly in the Specification. The plain and
ordinary meaning of "equipped" is to outfit or to supply with everything
needed. 5 Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term
5 See equip, Dictionary.com, available at
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/equip (last visited May 31, 2016)
5
Appeal2015-000510
Application 12/610,656
"equipped, in light of the Specification and within the context of the claims,
encompasses an onboard device that is supplied or outfitted with an interface
module.
The Examiner finds that Graziano' s utility interfaces that measure the
energy delivered to charging vehicles teach a "DSRC onboard device [that]
is equipped with an interface module." Final Act. 8 (citing Graziano i-fi-1 3 8-
39); Ans. 5---6 (citing Graziano i136). The utility interfaces are separate,
disparate parts of the "present day electric power delivery infrastructure,"
remote to the DSRC onboard device located within the car. See Graziano i1
38, Figs. 1, 2. We disagree with the Examiner that the DSRC onboard
device is "equipped" with the utility interfaces because the utility interfaces
are separate parts that are remote from the DSRC onboard device. Thus, the
Examiner has not shown, nor do we find, that Graziano teaches a "DSRC
onboard device [that] is equipped with an interface module," as recited in
independent claim 9.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 9.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 US.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Shimizu,
Graziano, and Makino
Claim 7 depends from independent claim 1 and is not argued
separately. Br. 10. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 7 for the same reasons discussed above in our analysis of claim 1.
("to furnish or provide with whatever is needed for use or for any
undertaking").
6
Appeal2015-000510
Application 12/610,656
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Shimizu and Graziano.
The Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Shimizu and Graziano.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Shimizu, Graziano, and Makino.
DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows:
• the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Shimizu and Graziano is affirmed.
• the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Shimizu and Graziano is reversed.
• the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Shimizu, Graziano, and Makino 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7