Ex Parte Trossen

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 16, 2008

10093080 (B.P.A.I. May. 16, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
___________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
___________

Ex parte ROLF TROSSEN
___________

Appeal 2007-2876
Application 10/093,080
Technology Center 3600
___________

Decided: May 16, 2008
___________

Before WILLIAM F. PATE, III, MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, and
ANTON W. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges.
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
Rolf Trossen (Appellant) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final
rejection of claims 1-26, the only claims pending in the application on appeal.
We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2007-2876
Application 10/093,080

The Appellant invented a way for managing information in transportation
systems in which detailed passenger information, traffic management and other
information is integrated and managed by a centralized system. (Specification 1:¶
0002).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary
claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some paragraphing
added].
1. A centralized information center, comprising:
[1] a plurality of source information inputs;
[2] a central processor,
configured to receive information from the source information
inputs;
[3] a memory coupled to the processor;
[4] a program running on the central processor and the program
organizing information,
prioritizing information and
generating information flows,
selected information flows being provided
to a central office for a transportation system, and
to a transportation vehicle; and
[5] the plurality of source information inputs includes
vehicle related information,
operations-related information, and
external service provider information.

This appeal arises from the Examiner’s Final Rejection, mailed November 16,
2005. The Appellant filed an Appeal Brief in support of the appeal on April 13,
2

Appeal 2007-2876
Application 10/093,080

2006. An Examiner’s Answer to the Appeal Brief was mailed on November 2,
2006. A Reply Brief was filed on December 28, 2006.
1
2
3
4
PRIOR ART
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Herz US 6,571,279 B1 May 27, 2003
REJECTION 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Claims 1-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Herz.
ISSUES
The issue pertinent to this appeal is whether the Appellants have sustained
their burden of showing that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-26 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Herz.
The pertinent issue turns on whether Herz describes source information
including operations-related information.
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Claim Construction
01. The disclosure contains no lexicographic definition of “operations-
related information.”
3

Appeal 2007-2876
Application 10/093,080

02. The ordinary and customary meaning of “operation” as a noun is the
act or process of functioning.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

1
Herz
03. Herz is directed to a Location Enhanced Information Delivery System
(LEIA) which customizes the information that is displayed to an
information recipient based on optimizing a match between information
purveyors, such as advertisers, and the information recipients who are
local to an information delivery system. The LEIA presents the
information most suited to the real current audience, as measured by
location information systems, rather than to a static predicted audience
(Herz 1:38-54).
04. Herz describes such vehicle related information as vehicle location.
Herz describes such external service provider information as
advertisements. Herz describes such operations related information as
direction of movement, speed of movement, and the predicted location
of the automobile using the speed vector as calculated through
triangulation of its location from two server beacons (Herz 5:62 – 6:7).

1 American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed. 2000).
4

Appeal 2007-2876
Application 10/093,080

PRINCIPLES OF LAW 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Claim Construction
During examination of a patent application, pending claims are given
their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In
re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969); In re Am. Acad. of Sci.
Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not
read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed.
Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted “in view of the specification” without
importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily).
Although a patent applicant is entitled to be his or her own lexicographer of
patent claim terms, in ex parte prosecution it must be within limits. In re Corr,
347 F.2d 578, 580 (CCPA 1965). The applicant must do so by placing such
definitions in the Specification with sufficient clarity to provide a person of
ordinary skill in the art with clear and precise notice of the meaning that is to be
construed. See also In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (although
an inventor is free to define the specific terms used to describe the invention, this
must be done with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision; where an
inventor chooses to give terms uncommon meanings, the inventor must set out any
uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure so as to give
one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change).
Anticipation
"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim
is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference."
5

Appeal 2007-2876
Application 10/093,080

Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir.
1987). "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically
or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or
compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v.
3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001). "The identical invention must be
shown in as complete detail as is contained in the ... claim." Richardson v. Suzuki
Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The elements must be arranged
as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of
terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Herz.
The Appellant argues these claims as a group.
Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of the group.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c(1)(vii) (2006).
The Examiner found that Herz anticipated claim 1. In particular, the Examiner
found that Herz described vehicle related information as vehicle location;
operations related information as the predicted location of an auto, and external
service provider information as advertiser information (Answer 3-4).
The Appellant contends that Herz fails to describe operations related
information. The Appellant cites examples of operations related information from
the Specification, such as break down information, to support the argument. The
Appellant then argues that Herz’s anticipated location information is vehicle
related, not operations related information (Br. 8). The Appellant further contends
6

Appeal 2007-2876
Application 10/093,080

that knowing a vehicle’s location is not the same as knowing its operating status
(Br. 9).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
We disagree. First, we must construe the limitation “operations-related
information.” The Specification provides no lexicographic definition of
operations-related information (FF 01). Although the Specification provides
examples, we do not import limitations from the Specification into the claims. E-
Pass Techs., 343 F.3d at 1369. The ordinary and customary meaning of
“operation” as a noun is the act or process of functioning (FF 02). Thus, we
construe operations-related information as information that is related in some
manner to the act or process of functioning. The limitation of operations-related
information in claim 1 is unconstrained as to what operations have such
information input.
Before reaching the issue of whether Herz describes operations-related
information, we initially find that the Examiner was correct in finding that Herz
describes the other two sources of information, viz. vehicle related and external
service provider information (FF 03 & 04). These findings are not contested by the
Appellant.
Therefore the issue is whether Herz describes information that is related in
some manner to the act or process of functioning. The Examiner found that Herz
describes computing an anticipated location of a vehicle based on vehicle related
information. Such a computation is a derivation from the parameters of the
functioning of the vehicle, and therefore is necessarily related in some manner to
the act or process of functioning of the vehicle. Nothing in claim 1 precludes
information being both vehicle related and operations related, so long as one item
7

Appeal 2007-2876
Application 10/093,080

of information may be characterized as vehicle related, and a different item may be
characterized as operations related.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
We further find that Herz’s vehicle direction and speed are similarly
operations-related information (FF 04). The argument that knowing a vehicle
location is not the same as knowing its operating status is moot because Herz
describes operations-related information beyond vehicle location. Thus, we find
that Herz describes operations related information.
The Appellant has not sustained its burden of showing that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Herz.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Appellant has not sustained its burden of showing that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as unpatentable over the prior
art.
On this record, the Appellant are not entitled to a patent containing claims 1-
26.
DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows:
• The rejection of claims 1-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Herz
is sustained.
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).

8

Appeal 2007-2876
Application 10/093,080

AFFIRMED 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

JRG
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
170 WOOD AVENUE SOUTH
Attn: VDO Transition Docketing Services
ISELIN, NJ 08830

9