Ex parte TOGASHI

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 31, 2001

08439082 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 2001)

Application for patent filed May 11, 1995, entitled1
"Keyless Security System," which claims the foreign filing
priority benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119 of Japanese Application
6-106848, filed May 20, 1994.
- 1 -
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and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte KAZUYUKI TOGASHI

Appeal No. 1998-2933
Application 08/439,0821

ON BRIEF

Before BARRETT, FLEMING, and LEVY, Administrative Patent
Judges.
BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 1998-2933
Application 08/439,082
- 2 -
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 8-21.
We reverse but enter a new ground of rejection.
BACKGROUND
The disclosed invention relates to a keyless security
system for a vehicle in which a vehicle-mounted receiver unit
is switched from a power-saving periodic activation mode to a
continuous activation mode when valid control signals are
transmitted from a portable transmitter unit. The admitted
prior art system, figures 7 and 8, utilizes a complicated and
costly electric field detector to detect transmitted signals
and switch to the continuous active mode. The invention uses
idling information (either a plurality of bits of only logical
one or logical zero or a plurality of Manchester code signals)
preceding the data information, which idling information is
detected to indicate the transmitted remote control signal and
allows elimination of the electric field detector.
Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A keyless security system for a vehicle, the keyless
security system comprising:
a portable transmitter for transmitting a
predetermined remote control signal which contains idling
information, wherein said idling information is composed
Appeal No. 1998-2933
Application 08/439,082
The Examiner's Answer cites Nicholas et al.2
(Nicholas), U.S. Patent 5,193,210, issued March 9, 1993, as
one of the references relied upon in the rejection of the
claims on appeal. However, we find no mention of Nicholas in
the statement of the rejection in either the Final Rejection
or the Examiner's Answer and, thus, it will not be considered.
- 3 -
of a plurality of digital bits comprising only one of
logical one and logical zero information; and
a signal receiver for receiving said remote control
signal, said signal receiver including:
a signal processing unit for processing said
received remote control signal; and
a control unit for controlling a receptive state
of said signal receiver in response to the processed
remote control signal, and for monitoring the active
condition of at least one sensor mounted on said
vehicle;
wherein said control unit detects a transmission
of said remote control signal from said portable
transmitter by identifying the idling information
supplied from said signal processing unit.
The Examiner's rejection relies on the admitted prior art
(APA), specifically, Appellant's figures 7 and 8, described in
the Background of the Invention (specification, pages 1-8),
and the comparison of the prior art to the present invention
(specification, page 17, lines 6-22, and page 18, lines
22-25), and the following prior art:2
Appeal No. 1998-2933
Application 08/439,082
The statement of the rejection in the Examiner's3
Answer refers to claims 1, 2, 4-12, and 14-20 (Examiner's
Answer, p. 4). This is presumed to be a careless error
because it includes canceled claim 7, and does not include
claim 21. We rely on the statement of the rejection in the
Final Rejection.
- 4 -
Stouffer 5,049,867 September 17,
1991
Suman et al. (Suman) 5,278,547 January 11,
1994
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-12, and 14-21 stand rejected under3
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the APA and
Suman. The Examiner finds that Suman discloses a start bit
and unique code before the control signal and concludes that
this would have suggested the desirability of using idling
information in addition to control information in the APA
system (Final Rejection, p. 3). The Examiner states that
"[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would have readily
recognized using a plurality of bits instead of only one start
bit as in Suman because if a plurality of bits are used the
detection of the activation of the system would be ensured"
(Final Rejection, p. 3).
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the APA and Suman, further in view of
Appeal No. 1998-2933
Application 08/439,082
- 5 -
Stouffer. Stouffer is applied as showing that a Manchester
code was well known in the prior art.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 8) (pages
referred to as "FR__") and the Examiner's Answer (Paper
No. 16) (pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the
Examiner's position, and to the Brief (Paper No. 15) (pages
referred to as "Br__") and the Reply Brief (Paper No. 17)
(pages referred to as "RBr__") for a statement of Appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
The dependent claims have been argued to stand or fall
together with their respective independent claims (Br5). The
Examiner states that Applicant has not addressed claims 6, 11,
and 21 in detail, but traverses the rejection for reasons
similar to those provided with respect to claim 1; therefore,
the Examiner does not address Appellant's comments regarding
claims 6, 11, and 21 (EA13). Because of the differences in
claim scope among independent claims 1, 6, 11, and 21, they
cannot stand together, so we address them separately.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5
Appeal No. 1998-2933
Application 08/439,082
- 6 -
Claim 1 recites "a control unit for controlling a
receptive state of said signal receiver in response to the
processed remote control signal," but does not recite that the
receptive state is between active/inactive
(continuous/standby) modes. The APA discloses switching
between continuous/standby modes in response to a detected
electric field of the remote control signal. Claim 1 recites
that the receptive state is controlled "in response to the
processed remote control signal," which does not require
control in response to identifying the idling information.
Claim 1 does not exclude use of an electric field detector
(compare claim 11) and so the "processed remote control
signal" could be the signal processed by the electric field
detector in the APA. While the control unit detects a
transmission "by identifying the idling information," it is
not recited how this detection is used, if at all, to control
the signal receiver except that it is inferred to be part of
the processing of the remote control signal. In fact, claim 1
does not specify that the idling information precedes the data
information so that it could be used to change the receptive
state for receiving the data information; compare claim 6
Appeal No. 1998-2933
Application 08/439,082
- 7 -
which recites (1) the idling information precedes the data
information, and (2) the control unit and signal receiver are
placed in a continuously activated condition when the control
unit detects the idling information. Claim 1 is very broad
and does not recite that identification of the idling
information controls a receptive state of the signal receiver.
The differences between the subject matter of claim 1 and the
APA are that (1) the APA does not use "idling information
. . . composed of a plurality of digital bits, and (2) claim 1
requires detecting transmission of the remote control signal
by "identifying the idling information," not by detecting an
electric field strength of the data information as in the APA.
In the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner analogizes the
start bit in Suman with the claimed idling information and
states that "one skilled in the art would have readily
recognized that the start bit is used to start the receiver
which in turn basically provides the same function as the
claimed idling information" (EA10-11). Appellant replies that
this is a naked assertion that fails to point to any
suggestion or motivation in the references or in the knowledge
Appeal No. 1998-2933
Application 08/439,082
- 8 -
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art
(RBr2).
Appeal No. 1998-2933
Application 08/439,082
A "start bit" is defined as a "[s]ynonym for start4
signal," IBM Dictionary of Computing (George McDaniel ed.,
McGraw-Hill, Inc. 10th ed. 1993), and a "start signal" is
defined as follows, id.:
(1) In a start-stop transmission, a signal at the
beginning of a character that prepares the receiving
device for reception of the code elements. (I) (2) A
signal to a receiving mechanism to get ready to receive
data or perform a function. (A) (3) Synonymous with start
bit, start element.
An "idle character" is defined as "(1) A character5
transmitted on a telecommunication line that is not intended
to represent data and does not result in an output operation
at the accepting terminal," IBM Dictionary of Computing.
- 9 -
We agree with the Examiner that it would have been
obvious to add a start bit to the transmitted data in the APA4
in view of Suman, but do not find support for the conclusion
that the start bit performs the same function as the idling
information. Since a start bit performs a control function,5
it is not clear that a start bit can technically be considered
an idle character. However, assuming a start bit is an idle
character, just because the start bit is at the front of the
data information does not imply that Suman performs the
function of identifying the bits to detect a transmission.
The problem is that Suman could use an electric field detector
as in the APA; we just do not know enough about Suman's
Appeal No. 1998-2933
Application 08/439,082
- 10 -
operation. That is, even if a start bit were added preceding
the data information in the APA in view of Suman, the APA
would still use the electric field detector to detect the
transmission, not the start bit, absent some suggestion in
Suman or the knowledge in the art to modify the APA to
identify the idling information to detect a transmission.
Thus, we conclude that the combination of the APA and Suman
does not suggest the limitation that "said control unit
detects a transmission of said remote control signal from said
portable transmitter by identifying the idling information"
(emphasis added).
Claim 1 also requires "a plurality of digital bits." The
Examiner states that "[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would
have readily recognized [the obviousness of] using a plurality
of bits instead of only one start bit as in Suman because if a
plurality of bits are used the detection of the activation of
the system would be ensured" (FR3).
Appellant argues that it would not have been obvious to
modify the start bit of Suman to include a plurality of start
bits. It is argued that the system of Suman is always active,
so there is no need to increase the number of start bits to
Appeal No. 1998-2933
Application 08/439,082
- 11 -
ensure the activation of the system (Br9). We do not find
where the Examiner addresses this argument. We find no
express or implied teaching in Suman to use additional start
bits or that additional start bits would ensure the activation
of the system. It does not appear that the system in Suman is
"activated" in any way by the start bit and, thus, there is no
suggestion that adding bits will ensure activation. The
Examiner has not pointed to any knowledge in the art that
increasing the number of start bits is desirable or necessary.
Appellant also argues that there is no other motivation
to increase the number of start bits because this would
unnecessarily increase the amount of information processed by
the receiver (Br9). The Examiner states that this argument is
not persuasive because the amount of additional processing
time is negligible to the user (EA11-12). Even if the amount
of additional processing time is negligible, this does not
amount to a positive teaching of increasing the number of
start bits.
Because the combination of the APA and Suman does not
suggest "idling information . . . composed of a plurality of
digital bits" or that "said control unit detects a
Appeal No. 1998-2933
Application 08/439,082
- 12 -
transmission of said remote control signal from said portable
transmitter by identifying the idling information," the
Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 is
reversed.
Claims 6 and 8-10
Claim 6 does not recite that the idling information
comprises a plurality of digital bits.
Claim 6 recites that "said control unit detects a
transmission of said remote control signal from the remote
control unit by identifying the supplied idling information"
(emphasis added) which is similar to the limitation discussed
in connection with claim 1 which is missing from the
combination of the APA and Suman.
In addition, claim 6 recites that "said control unit and
said signal receiver are placed in a continuously activated
condition when said control unit detects the idling
information of the received remote control signal," which
requires taking specific action upon detection of the idling
information. Suman does not disclose what action is taken
upon detection of the start bit and, therefore, does not
Appeal No. 1998-2933
Application 08/439,082
- 13 -
suggest modifying the APA to place the signal receiver in a
continuously active condition based on detection of the start
bit.
Because the combination of the APA and Suman does not
suggest that "said control unit detects a transmission of said
remote control signal from the remote control unit by
identifying the supplied idling information" or that "said
control unit and said signal receiver are placed in a
continuously activated condition when said control unit
detects the idling information of the received remote control
signal," the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness. The rejection of claims 6 and 8-10 is
reversed.
Appeal No. 1998-2933
Application 08/439,082
- 14 -
Claims 11-20
Claim 11 does not recite that the idling information
comprises a plurality of digital bits.
Claim 11 recites that "said control unit detects a
transmission of said remote control signal by identifying said
idling information" (emphasis added) which is similar to the
limitation discussed in connection with claim 1 which is
missing from the combination of the APA and Suman.
In addition, claim 11 recites "wherein the signal
processing unit does not include an electric field detector."
The Examiner concludes that this would have been obvious
because "the skilled artisan would have readily recognized
that it is not necessary for the prior art system to include
an electric field detector if the detection is based on
detecting the idling information, i.e. start bits" (EA6).
However, the Examiner has not established that Suman performs
detection of transmission based on identifying the start bit,
so as to provide the necessary motivation to eliminate the
electric field detector in the APA.
Because the combination of the APA and Suman does not
suggest that "said control unit detects a transmission of said
Appeal No. 1998-2933
Application 08/439,082
- 15 -
remote control signal by identifying said idling information"
or "wherein the signal processing unit does not include an
electric field detector," the Examiner has failed to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness. The rejection of
claims 11-20 is reversed.
Claim 21
Claim 21 does not recite that the idling information
comprises a plurality of digital bits.
Claim 21 recites "wherein, in response to the presence of
said idling information in one of the successive plurality of
reception signals, said control unit continuously generates
said control signal such that the data information of the
received remote control signal is transmitted from the signal
processing unit to the control unit." We do not find a
suggestion in Suman to continuously generate a control based
on the presence of idling information. Accordingly, we
conclude the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness. The rejection of claim 21 is reversed.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION PURSUANT TO 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
Appeal No. 1998-2933
Application 08/439,082
- 16 -
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter which Appellant regards as his
invention. Claim 11 recites that "said control unit and said
signal receiver are continuously placed in the activated
condition when said control unit detects an electric field of
the received remote control signal" which is inconsistent with
the later recitation that "the signal processing unit does not
include an electric field detector" as well as with
Appellant's description of what he regards as his invention.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 8-21 are
reversed.
A new ground of rejection has been entered against
claims 11-20 pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant
to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)(amended effective Dec. 1, 1997, by final
rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53,131, 53,197 (Oct. 10, 1997), 1203
Off. Gaz. Pat. & Trademark Office 63, 122 (Oct. 21, 1997)).
37 CFR § 1.196(b) provides that, "A new ground of rejection
Appeal No. 1998-2933
Application 08/439,082
- 17 -
shall not be considered final for purposes of judicial
review."
37 CFR § 1.196(b) also provides that the appellant,
WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise
one of the following two options with respect to the new
ground of rejection to avoid termination of proceedings
(§ 1.197(c)) as to the rejected claims:
(1) Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or a showing of facts relating to
the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the
application will be remanded to the examiner. . . .
(2) Request that the application be reheard
under § 1.197(b) by the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences upon the same record. . . .
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
REVERSED - 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1998-2933
Application 08/439,082
- 18 -
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1998-2933
Application 08/439,082
- 19 -
James P. Naughton
BRINKS, HOFER, GILSON & LIONE
P.O. Box 10395
Chicago, IL 60610