Ex Parte Roberts

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 6, 2017

13195403 (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.
13/195,403 08/01/2011 Christopher I. Roberts 87354.21500 1857
7590
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
WASHINGTON SQUARE, SUITE 1100
1050 CONNECTICUT AVE. N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20036-5304
EXAMINER
INGRAM, THOMAS P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/08/2017 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):
eofficemonitor@bakerlaw.com
edervis @bakerlaw.com
patents @ bakerlaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER I. ROBERTS
Appeal 2016-003570
Application 13/195,40s1
Technology Center 3600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, AMBER L. HAGY, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8—12, 14, 16, 18—23, and 26—30. Claims 3, 5,
7, 13, 15, 17, 24, and 25 are canceled. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies Bosch Automotive Service Solutions Inc. as the real
party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-003570
Application 13/195,403
Invention
Appellant discloses a “diagnostic tool that includes components that
allow the diagnostic tool to record data while the vehicle is driven in order to
capture data for intermittent faults.” Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is
representative:
1. A diagnostic tool for diagnosing a vehicle in various
environments, comprising:
a processor to control functions of the diagnostic tool and
retrieves diagnostic data from the vehicle;
a first memory that stores a software to operate the diagnostic
tool and the retrieved diagnostic data, the first memory
communicates with the processor and stores diagnostic data in a
circular buffer;
a connector interface that connects the diagnostic tool to a data
link connector in the vehicle, the connector interface
communicates with the processor;
serial communication interfaces that allow the diagnostic tool to
communicate with the vehicle in at least one communication
protocol, the serial communication interfaces communicate
with the processor;
a power management unit that detects changes in the diagnostic
tool’s external environment and manages the diagnostic tool in
various power states depending on the diagnostic tool’s
external environment;
a trigger button that causes the processor to retrieve the
diagnostic data, the trigger button when pressed by a user will
also cause the diagnostic tool to change from a lower power
state to a higher power state if the diagnostic tool is in the lower
power state;
a capacitor to provide power to the diagnostic tool; and
2
Appeal 2016-003570
Application 13/195,403
a capacitor charger configured to charge the capacitor at a
constant power, wherein the first memory transfers diagnostic
data to a second memory when a trigger event occurs, and
wherein the diagnostic data includes unsolicited data that is
outside predetermined ranges and has been filtered by a
preconfigured filter.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 9—12, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over McGee et al. (US 2009/0140575 Al;
published June 4, 2009), Inoue (US 2005/0216775 Al; published Sept. 29,
2005), Lipscomb et al. (US 2008/0103656 Al; published May 1, 2008),
Johnson et al. (US 2007/0097636 Al; published May 3, 2007), and Thurston
(US 2007/0008011 Al; published Jan. 11, 2007). Final Act. 3-8.
The Examiner rejects claims 4, 6, 8, 14, 16, 18, 21—23, 26, 28, and 30
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over McGee, Inoue,
Lipscomb, Johnson, Thurston, and Kilmurray et al. (US 2010/0127857 Al;
published May 27, 2010).2 Final Act. 8—15.
The Examiner rejects claims 27 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over McGee, Inoue, Lipscomb, Johnson, Thurston, and
Witkowski (US 5,885,098; issued Mar. 23, 1999). Final Act. 15—16.
ANALYSIS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings of facts
and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this
2 The Examiner also lists claim 25 as being rejected by these references
(Final Act. 11) and articulates a rejection of claim 25 {id. at 14—15).
However, Appellant canceled claim 25 (Amend. 8—9 (Nov. 5, 2014)) before
the Final Action (Dec. 29, 2014). This minor error does not affect the
Decision. We merely note the error to clarity the record.
3
Appeal 2016-003570
Application 13/195,403
appeal was taken. We have considered Appellant’s arguments, but do not
find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner finds
Inoue’s use of a thermal value to determine, lower, maintain, or raise a clock
speed teaches or suggests a power management unit that manages the
diagnostic tool in various power states depending on the diagnostic tool’s
environment. Final Act. 4 (citing Inoue 116). The Examiner further finds
Johnson’s use of air temperature measurements teaches or suggests detecting
changes in the diagnostic tool’s external environment. Final Act. 4 (citing
Johnson Fig. 1); see also Johnson 122. Thus, the Examiner concludes the
combination of Inoue and Johnson renders obvious a power management
unit that detects changes in the diagnostic tool’s external environment and
manages the diagnostic tool in various power states depending on the
diagnostic tool’s external environment, as recited in claim 1.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in relying on Inoue in
combination with Johnson because Inoue also teaches “using sensors a
distance from a hot spot to measure the ambient temperature may function
too slowly or unreliably to prevent over heating [sic].” App. Br. 10 (citing
Inoue 1 6). Appellant argues that Johnson, in contrast, “teaches using such a
feedback system of using remote sensors to measure the ambient
temperature function.” App. Br. 10 (citing Johnson Abstract). Thus,
Appellant argues that Inoue teaches away from the Examiner’s proffered
combination with Johnson. App. Br. 10.
We are not persuaded of error. The Examiner correctly notes that
Inoue merely warns that a feedback approach to avoiding overheating that
relies on temperature sensors placed a distance from a hot spot may function
4
Appeal 2016-003570
Application 13/195,403
too slowly. Ans. 3 (citing Inoue 16). We agree that this word of caution
falls short of discrediting the use of remote sensors altogether. Ans. 3.
Appellant argues that “Inoue still discourages [placing a sensor a distance
from a hot spot] and thus teaches away from any sensors being located
remotely from a hotspot.” Reply Br. 3. However, Appellant does not
persuasively respond to the Examiner’s finding that Johnson “teaches using
sensors around the device to sense the ambient temperature of the device.”
Ans. 3 (emphasis added). That is, the Examiner’s findings, which have not
been persuasively rebutted, show that the combination of Inoue and Johnson
render obvious placing a sensor near a hot spot, rather than a distance from
the hot spot, thus obviating potential slowness.
Moreover, the feedback approach that Inoue warns may function too
slowly are complex heat management schemes that rely on turning fans on
or generating an alarm to cause a processing environment to begin a
shutdown when a particular or predefined temperature has been reached or
exceeded. Inoue 1 6. Appellant does not show that the alternative use of a
thermal value to lower, maintain, or raise a clock speed would function too
slowly to prevent overheating. See id. 116.
For these reasons, Appellant’s arguments do not show the Examiner
erred in concluding the combination of McGee, Inoue, Lipscomb, Johnson,
and Thurston renders obvious “a power management unit that detects
changes in the diagnostic tool’s external environment and manages the
diagnostic tool in various power states depending on the diagnostic tool’s
external environment,” as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner further finds that Lipscomb’s response to a function
key being pressed by a user to start recording diagnostic data—and storing
frames of diagnostic data—renders obvious wherein the first memory
5
Appeal 2016-003570
Application 13/195,403
transfers diagnostic data to a second memory when a trigger event occurs,
and wherein the diagnostic data includes unsolicited data that is outside
predetermined ranges and has been filtered by a preconfigured filter, as
recited in claim 1. Final Act. 5 (citing Lipscomb H 29—31).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because Lipscomb merely
“discloses that the scan tool will be collecting diagnostic data and storing it
on the internal memory of the scan tool before transferring it to the [compact
flash] card.” App. Br. 11. Appellant argues that Lipscomb saves recorded
frames to the compact flash cord “when a maximum amount of frames have
been recorded . . . and not when a trigger event occurs.” Id.
We agree with the Examiner that a reasonably broad interpretation of
the disputed recitation encompasses transferring diagnostic data to a second
memory as part of other triggered events, such as the maximum number of
frames having been recorded. Ans. 4. The Specification notes that a
“trigger event causes the microprocessor 210 to begin the process of
transferring the content of the circular buffer 220 into flash memory.” Spec.
135 (emphasis added); see also App. Br. 5. When this process begins, the
circular buffer in which data is stored no longer merely overwrites the oldest
data with the most recent data. Spec. 134. Rather, data that would be
overwritten is transferred to non-volatile memory such as flash memory 230.
Id. Received data can continue to be recorded in “circular buffer 220 while
the transfer to flash 230 memory process is in operation.” Id. 135. And, a
limit can be set on “post trigger data” to transfer to flash memory. Id. Thus,
the Specification provides at least one example of diagnostic data that is
transferred to a second memory when a trigger occurs as part of another
event (e.g., the oldest data in a circular buffer is about to be overwritten or
data is recorded during a post-trigger period). Therefore, Appellant’s
6
Appeal 2016-003570
Application 13/195,403
arguments are incommensurate with the scope of the claimed invention,
which does not preclude the claimed transfer from being part of other events
that have been triggered.
Appellant further argues the Examiner erred because the diagnostic
data including unsolicited data that is outside predetermined ranges and has
been filtered by a preconfigured filter is functional in that it can “capture any
issues hidden in the unsolicited data.” App. Br. 11. Appellant also argues
data that “includes unsolicited data . . . both has the limitation of being
outside of a predetermined range, and the limitation of having been
previously filtered by a filter” and therefore “the unsolicited data limitation
is functional.” Reply Br. 4. However, the data characteristics Appellant
identifies do not affect “the claim limitations providing] for merely
transferring and storing diagnostic data on a memory.” Ans. 5; see also
Adv. Act. 2 (May 27, 2015). Moreover, Appellant does not identify any
component of the claimed diagnostic tool that behaves differently because
the diagnostic data includes unsolicited data. The Specification provides
teachings regarding the transmission of unsolicited data and regarding use of
a “pre-configured filter [that] can be additionally applied to limit the amount
of data stored in the buffer.” Spec. 133. However, these teachings do not
show that the inclusion of unsolicited data that is outside predetermined
ranges and filtered by a preconfigured filter in diagnostic data has patentable
weight. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the inclusion of
“unsolicited data” in diagnostic data transferred from a first memory to a
second memory does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior
art.
For these reasons, Appellant’s arguments do not show the Examiner
erred in concluding the combination of McGee, Inoue, Lipscomb, Johnson,
7
Appeal 2016-003570
Application 13/195,403
and Thurston renders obvious “wherein the first memory transfers diagnostic
data to a second memory when a trigger event occurs, and wherein the
diagnostic data includes unsolicited data that is outside predetermined ranges
and has been filtered by a preconfigured filter,” as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1, and claims 2, 9-12, 19, and 20, which Appellant does not argue
separately. App. Br. 13. For these same reasons, we also sustain the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 4, 6, 8, 14, 16, 18, 21—
23, and 26—30.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8—12,
14, 16, 18-23, and 26-30.
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.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
8