Ex Parte Basak et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2016

12748808 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/748,808 03/29/2010 Jayanta Basak IN920100003US1
(790.055)
5962
89885 7590 11/30/2016
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
EXAMINER
MISIASZEK, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3625
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAYANT A BASAK and
DEVASENAPATHI P. SEETHARAMAKRISHNAN
Appeal 2014-006870
Application 12/748,808
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and KENNETH
G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1-20 which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2014-006870
Application 12/748,808
THE INVENTION
The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method for electric
vehicles to buy and sell energy from each other directly (Spec., para. 7).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A method comprising:
utilizing a processor to execute computer code configured to
perform the steps of:
ascertaining an electric energy imbalance in a vehicle at least
partly powered by electric power; and
performing the following steps directly with respect to one or
more other vehicles at least partly powered by electric power:
broadcasting the imbalance to one or more other vehicles;
said broadcasting comprising broadcasting an opening price for
energy to redress the imbalance;
listening for one or more bids from the one or more other
vehicles;
deciding on whether to accept a bid from another vehicle; and
collecting identifying information from a vehicle from which a
bid is accepted.
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed
to non-statutory subject matter.
2. Claims 1-7, 10-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Kamen et al. (US 2011/0025267 Al; Feb. 3,
2011).
3. Claims 8, 9, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kamen and Haller et al. (US 2009/0030828 Al; Jan. 29,
2009).
2
Appeal 2014-006870
Application 12/748,808
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence1.
ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been maintained (Ans. 2, 3).
The Appellants have not provided any arguments in regards to this rejection
in the Appeal Brief and therefore, accordingly, this rejection is summarily
affirmed.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Appellants have argued that the rejection of claim 1 is improper
because the rejection does not disclose a “vehicle-to-vehicle” market for
providing electric charges to vehicles and instead uses third party specially
designated charging vehicles for that purpose (App. Br. 14, 15).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection is proper
(Ans. 3, 4, 7, 8).
We agree with the Examiner. Here, despite the Appellants arguments,
the claims do not specifically exclude a third party “charging vehicle” from
being used as the “vehicle[s] at least partly powered by electric power”.
Thus, Kamen’s charging vehicle 104 at para. 33 meets the argued claim
limitation. Regardless, Kamen at Figures 6, 12, and paragraphs 60-64 and
1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
3
Appeal 2014-006870
Application 12/748,808
114 describe other embodiments in which a charging vehicle does not have
to be used and instead other sources including a different “electric vehicle”
may be used (see para. 114 and Fig. 12). For this reason the rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is sustained. The Appellants have
provided the same arguments for the rejected claims 2-19 and the rejection
of these claims is sustained for the same reasons given above.
With regards to claim 20 the Appellants argue that the rejection fails
to disclose the claim limitation for “a localization system to assist in locating
the vehicle for which an electric energy imbalance is ascertained with
respect to a least one of the one or more other vehicles” (App. Br. 15).
Here, the Appellants has provided what the claim recites without any
additional argument. A statement that merely points out what a claim recites
will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim. 37
C.F.R. 41.37(o)(l). Regardless, the rejection cites to Kamen at para. 36 to
disclose this claimed feature and this portion discloses the use of a GPS
receiver to determine vehicle location which would serve as the claimed
“localization system to assist in locating the vehicle” and meet the cited
claim limitation. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 20 is affirmed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejections section above.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 affirmed.
4
Appeal 2014-006870
Application 12/748,808
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
5