Ex Parte Maier et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 13, 2016

12383702 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/383,702 0312612009 26822 7590 04/15/2016 Hackler, Daghighian & Martino 433 North Camden Drive, Fourth Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90210 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Uli Maier 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. 3900-TWEL 7828 EXAMINER BUGG, GEORGE A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2682 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/15/2016 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): marc@martinopatentlaw.com jcf@hdmiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ULI MAIER and MARK BRAUN Appeal2014-007694 Application 12/383,702 1 Technology Center 2600 Before THU A. DANG, LARRY J. HUME, and JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges. HUME, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is HUF HULSBECK & FURST GMBH & CO. KG, a German company. App. Br. 3. Appeal2014-007694 Application 12/383,702 STATEMENT OF THE CASE2 The Invention Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention relates to a tire pressure monitoring system. Title. Exemplary Claim Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added to contested limitations): 1. A tire pressure monitoring system comprising: a wheel electronic installable in a pneumatic tire, the electronic comprising a battery as power source, a pressure sensor for measuring of tire pressure or pressure change, and a transmitter for transmitting pressure data; a receiver for receiving pressure data; a control unit for evaluating the pressure data; a serial bus system interconnecting the control unit and the receiver for enabling the control unit to interrogate the receiver and receive pressure data from the receiver; and a data transfer line, separate from the serial bus system, for connecting the receiver with the control unit, the receiver being configured for sending to the control unit critical pressure data via the data transfer line in an unrequested manner. 2 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed May 7, 2014); Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed June 29, 2014); Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed June 2, 2014); Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Oct. 23, 2013); and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed Mar. 26, 2009). 2 Appeal2014-007694 Application 12/383,702 Prior Art The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Rupp et al. ("Rupp") us 5,768,162 June 16, 1998 Hardman et al. ("Hardman") US 2002/0075145 Al June 20, 2002 Losey et al. ("Losey") US 2002/0095253 Al July 18, 2002 Schulze et al. ("Schulze") US 2005/0110623 Al May 26, 2005 Katrak et al. ("Katrak") US 7,917,270 B2 Mar.29,2011 Rejections on Appeal RI. Claims 1--4 and 7-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Hardman and Rupp. Ans. 2. R2. Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Hardman, Rupp, and Shulze. Ans. 6. R3. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Hardman, Rupp, and Losey. Id. R4. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Hardman, Rupp, Losey, and Katrak. Ans. 7. CLAIM GROUPING Based on Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 11-15), we decide the appeal of obviousness Rejection RI of claims 1--4 and 7-10 on the basis of representative claim 1. 3 Appeal2014-007694 Application 12/383,702 Remaining claims 5, 6, 11, and 12 in rejections R2 through R4, not argued separately, stand or fall with independent claim 1 from which they depend. ISSUE Appellants argue (App. Br. 11-15; Reply Br. 2--4) the Examiner's rejection of claim 1under35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Hardman and Rupp is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches or suggests a tire pressure monitoring system that includes both "a serial bus system interconnecting the control unit and the receiver for enabling the control unit to interrogate the receiver and receive pressure data from the receiver," and "a data transfer line, separate from the serial bus system, for connecting the receiver with the control unit, the receiver being configured for sending to the control unit critical pressure data via the data transfer line in an unrequested manner," as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments that Appellants could have made, but chose not to make in the Briefs, and we deem any such arguments waived. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We disagree with Appellants' arguments with respect to claims 1-12, and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer in 4 Appeal2014-007694 Application 12/383,702 response to Appellants' arguments. We incorporate such findings, reasons, and rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise noted. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows. Appellants generally argue " [a] serial bus system contains a 'master' and an unspecified number of 'slaves.' The 'slaves' send data only in response to a request from the 'master.' Thus the words 'serial bus system' define a specific way in how data is requested and then sent." App. Br. 12. Further, Appellants allege, in their invention, "a second structure and method of communication utilizes a data transfer line connected in parallel to the serial bus directly between the receiver and the control unit. The data transfer line is configured to automatically send data to the control unit in the case of a critical pressure occurrence." App. Br. 12-13. With respect to claim 1, Appellants specifically contend: Hardman discloses the use of a single link . . . [and] never suggests that a first link can work by requesting information while a second link can work by automatically sending information. Hardman never teaches, suggests or implies that two different types of link structures and two different methods of operation be used. App. Br. 13. Further, Appellants argue: "Rupp merely discloses that a data bus recorder could be connected to several data buses to record data traffic of several buses. Thereby Rupp is disclosing two links of the same type and is not disclosing two different links of differing types." Id. We first note, "[i]n the patentability context, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretations ... limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 5 Appeal2014-007694 Application 12/383,702 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). Any special meaning assigned to a term "must be sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the field of the invention." Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("A patentee may act as its own lexicographer and assign to a term a unique definition that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning; however, a patentee must clearly express that intent in the written description."). Absent an express intent to impart a novel meaning to a claim term, the words take on the ordinary and customary meanings attributed to them by those of ordinary skill in the art. Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). In addition, the predecessor to our reviewing court guides, "one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where ... the rejections are based on combinations of references." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner finds, and we agree, Hardman teaches or suggests a tire monitoring system that measures tire data and transmits "said data in response to an interrogation request, an alert, or automatically on a period[ic] basis. Hardman also provides a system that can perform autonomous transmission to the remote reader/transceiver when a specified alarm condition occurs. Thus, Hardman provides a system with two different modes of signaling." Ans. 10 (citing Hardman i-fi-121-31 ). 6 Appeal2014-007694 Application 12/383,702 The Examiner then relies upon "Rupp to show two different communication links that are buses .... Information can be sent through each bus." Id. (citing Rupp Fig. 1, elements 36 and 38). "Thus, broadly and reasonably interpreted, the Appellant[ s'] serial bus system and data transfer line are interpreted to be the same thing [, i.e.,] interpreted to be communication links to transfer data. Rupp discloses two buses." Ans. 11. With respect to Appellants' argument concerning the purported differences in the claimed "serial bus system" and "data transfer line," the Examiner finds the serial bus system and data transfer line are "the same thing," and provides a definition for a "serial bus" from an online dictionary in support of that finding. Ans. 11. 3 The Examiner further finds "Appellant has not been clear in the prosecution to distinguish clearly the differences between a data line and a bus system line. Therefore, [the] broadest reasonable interpretation of a system bus line would include the data line as explained above." Ans. 12. We note Appellants have not cited to a definition of "a data transfer line" that sends "data ... in an unrequested manner" in the Specification that would preclude the Examiner's broader reading. 4 Accordingly, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings and suggestions of the cited prior art combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 1, nor do we find error in the Examiner's 3 Citing http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/serial+bus. 4 We find Hardman's disclosure of a signaling mode on a data bus initiated when a "specified alarm condition occurs" teaches or at least suggests the contested "data transfer line," as discussed, supra. 7 Appeal2014-007694 Application 12/383,702 resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, and grouped claims 2--4 and 7-10 which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra. Â§ 103(a) Rejections R2-R4 of Claims 5, 6, 11, and 12 In view of the lack of any substantive or separate arguments directed to obviousness Rejections R2 through R4 of claims 5, 6, 11, and 12 under Â§ 103, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims. We deem arguments not made waived. REPLY BRIEF To the extent Appellants may advance new arguments in the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2--4) not in response to a shift in the Examiner's position in the Answer, we note arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised in the Appeal Brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner's Answer will not be considered except for good cause (see 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.41(b)(2)), which Appellants have not shown. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err with respect to obviousness Rejections RI through R4 of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) over the cited prior art combinations of record, and we sustain the rejections. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-12. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 8