Ex Parte Davis

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 6, 2017

14199106 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2017)

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. 11123.1108US 7009 EXAMINER ZAMAN, FAISAL M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2185 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 14/199,106 03/06/2014 GERALD C. DAVIS 52558 7590 12/06/2017 PANASONIC AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEM COMPANY OF AMERICA 776 HWY 74 SOUTH c/o Panasonic Legal PEACHTREE CITY, GA 30269 12/06/2017 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 GERALD C. DAVIS1 Appeal 2017-007041 Application 14/199,106 Technology Center 2100 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1— 9, 14—17, and 21—27, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Panasonic Automotive Systems Company of America, Division of Panasonic Corporation of North America. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2017-007041 Application 14/199,106 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed storing and retrieving hardware system data in an automotive context. Spec. 11. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A hardware system data retrieval arrangement comprising: a printed circuit board including: a memory device storing historical information about the printed circuit board; a first connecting device connected to the memory device; a target system; and an analog switch interconnecting the target system and the first connecting device, the target system being configured to enable the analog switch; a second connecting device connected to the memory device; a computing device; and an electrical communication conduit interconnecting the computing device and the second connecting device, wherein the computing device is configured to retrieve the historical information from the memory device via the electrical communication conduit. REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 5—9, 14—17, 21, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Minami (US 2008/0177926 Al, July 24, 2008) and Ballard (US 2004/0268039 Al, Dec. 30, 2004). Ans. 2-6. Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Minami, Ballard, and Bryant-Rich (US 2010/0216341 Al, Aug. 26, 2010). Ans. 7. 2 Appeal 2017-007041 Application 14/199,106 Claims 22, 23, 26, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Minami, Ballard, and further Denen (US 5,400,267, Mar. 21, 1995). Ans. 7-9. APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS2 Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because Minami does not disclose “an analog switch interconnecting the target system and the first connecting device, the target system being configured to enable the analog switch,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 10-11. Specifically, Appellant argues “to interpret ‘interconnecting’ to be so broad as to encompass a mere physical connection would effectively render the word ‘interconnecting’ meaningless.” Id. at 11. See also Reply Br. 4—6. ANALYSIS We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusion that claim 1 is unpatentable over Minami and Ballard. Ans. 2—3. Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of error for the reasons stated by the Examiner. Id. at 9— 10. For emphasis, we note and agree with the Examiner’s finding that Minami’s switch (Fig. 4, ref. no 12) is “an analog switch” that interconnects “the target system and the first connecting device.” Ans. 3. 2 Appellant does not separately argue claims 2, 5—7, 14—17, 21, 24, and 25. App. Br. 10-11. Appellant argues the remaining claims based on arguments presented with respect to claim 1. Id. at 12—13. Accordingly, because our decision with respect to claim 1 is dispositive, we address claim 1 specifically and mention the remaining claims only in our ultimate decision. 3 Appeal 2017-007041 Application 14/199,106 DECISION We affirm, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—9, 14—17, and 21-27. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 4