Ex Parte Stählin

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 13, 2019

14650408 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/650,408 06/08/2015 23122 7590 RATNERPRESTIA 2200 Renaissance Blvd Suite 350 King of Prussia, PA 19406 03/15/2019 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Ulrich Stiihlin 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. l 700Pl304 l WOUS 6801 EXAMINER WILTEY, NICHOLAS K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3669 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/15/2019 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): PCorrespondence@ratnerprestia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ULRICH ST AHLIN Appeal 2018-00663 5 Application 14/650,408 1 Technology Center 3600 Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. According to Appellant, "[t]he invention relates to a device ... for determining the location of a vehicle ... , said device having a position- 1 Appellant identifies "Continental Teves AG & Co. oHG" as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal2018-006635 Application 14/650,408 determining device." Specification, Abstract. Below, we reproduce independent claim 1 as illustrative of the appealed claims. 1. A device coupled to a vehicle data bus, for determining the location of a vehicle, the device comprising: a position-determining unit for determining a position that locates the vehicle, a first sensor for determining vehicle dynamics of the vehicle, a second sensor for determining the vehicle dynamics of the vehicle, and a filter unit for determining on the basis of the vehicle dynamics an error in the position of the vehicle, wherein the position-determining unit is directly connected to the filter unit via a first line dedicated to the position-determining unit, wherein the first sensor is directly connected to the filter unit via a second line dedicated to the first sensor, wherein the first line and the second line are both separate from the vehicle data bus, wherein the second sensor is connected to the filter unit via a shared vehicle data bus, and wherein the filter unit determines the error in the position of the vehicle based on vehicle dynamics determined by both the first sensor and the second sensor. REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART The Examiner rejects the claims as follows: I. Claims 1-3 and 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Lin (US 6,424,914 Bl, issued July 23, 2002) (hereinafter "Lin '914") and Lin (US 6,205,400 Bl, issued Mar. 20, 2001) (hereinafter "Lin '400"); 2 Appeal2018-006635 Application 14/650,408 II. Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Lin '914, Lin '400, and Hamza et al. (US 2011/0218733 Al, published Sept. 8, 2011) (hereinafter "Hamza"); III. Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Lin '914, Lin '400, and Liao et al. (US 2012/0147386 Al, published June 14, 2012) (hereinafter "Liao"); and IV. Claims 9--11 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable Lin '914, Lin '400, and Hashiba (US 2006/0142920 Al, published June 29, 2006). ANALYSIS Reiection I Based on our review of the record, including the Examiner's Final Office Action and Answer, and Appellant's Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, Appellant does not persuade us that the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 1- 3 and 6-8 as obvious based on Lin '914 and Lin '400. Thus, for the reasons set forth below, we sustain the rejection. In particular, in response to the Examiner's specific finding, in the Final Office Action, that Lin '914's electrical connections disclose both the claimed bus and dedicated lines (see, e.g., Final Action 4--5), Appellant argues that the Examiner errs because "[ n ]either of the references teach connecting sensors to a filter via [a] vehicle data bus," as claimed (Appeal Br. 3 (underlining and bold omitted)). More specifically, Appellant argues that Lin '914 "shows that the lines are all dedicated lines (not a vehicle data bus)." Id. (underlining omitted). Appellant's argument, without more, is unpersuasive. 3 Appeal2018-006635 Application 14/650,408 Specifically, Appellant does not point to anything in the claims or Specification demonstrating that the Examiner errs when stating that "[a]s Lin [']914 is directed to a vehicle as a whole[,] each dedicated line is being interpreted as a vehicle bus." Answer 6. For example, Appellant does not point to anything definitive in the Specification or claims distinguishing the claimed bus and dedicated line, thereby establishing that the Examiner erroneously finds that any of the electrical connections in Lin '914's Figure 12 disclose the claimed bus. Appellant also does not submit any other evidence, such as an affidavit, distinguishing the claimed bus from the dedicated line. Instead, as we state above, Appellant provides attorney argument, without a sufficient factual basis, that "one of ordinary skill would understand that each of the connections shown in ... Lin [']914 would be dedicated lines" rather than a vehicle bus. Appeal Br. 3. Appellant then argues that "[t]here is no teaching of using a combination of both dedicated lines and the vehicle data bus." Id. at 4 ( emphasis omitted). This argument is not persuasive because, for the reasons set forth above, the Examiner may properly characterize any of Lin '914's "lines" as either a dedicated line or a vehicle bus. Appellant further argues that "[ o ]ne of ordinary skill ... would not combine the systems from Lin [']400 and Lin [']914 to connect some sensors to the filter via dedicated lines, and connect other sensors to the filter via the common bus." Id. (emphasis omitted). We are not persuaded by this argument because, consistent with our above findings, Lin '914 itself may be understood as disclosing sensors connected via both dedicated lines as well as a bus. 4 Appeal2018-006635 Application 14/650,408 Appellant further argues that "[ e ]ven if the teachings were combined by one of ordinary skill ... , the sensors in Lin [']400 would still be connected to the filter using a common bus ... (not the vehicle data bus)." Id. ( emphasis omitted). This argument is not persuasive because the Examiner relies on Lin '914 to disclose the argued recitations. Answer 8-9. Regardless, for reasons similar to those set forth above, Appellant fails to point to anything in the claims or Specification establishing that the Examiner may not rely on Lin '400' s common bus to disclose the claimed vehicle bus. Restated, Appellant does not provide any factual basis to establish that there is a patentable difference between a common bus and a vehicle bus. Rei ections II-IV Appellant does not argue separately against the rejections of claims 4, 5, and 9-11. Thus, we sustain the rejections of these claims for the same reasons that we sustain claim 1 's rejection. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-11. 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 5