Ex Parte Wellman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 27, 2017

12871001 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 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.
12/871,001 08/30/2010 Timothy A. Wellman CRN 361 P4A 1954
29673 7590 10/31/2017
STEVENS & SHOWALTER LLP
7019 CORPORATE WAY
DAYTON, OH 45459-4238
EXAMINER
LUDWIG, PETER L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3687
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2017 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):
PTO@sspatlaw.com
ssllp@speakeasy.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIMOTHY A. WELLMAN and DEAN E. WINNER
Appeal 2015-008013
Application 12/871,0011
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Timothy A. Wellman et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35
U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1—7 and 22—32. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 The Appellants identify Crown Equipment Corporation as the real party
interest. App. Br. 4.
Appeal 2015-008013
Application 12/871,001
THE INVENTION
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method comprising:
obtaining data by an information master of an industrial
vehicle, wherein the information master is a component of the
industrial vehicle, and the information master obtains the data
by communicating across a vehicle network bus of the
industrial vehicle with at least one other component of the
industrial vehicle;
storing industrial vehicle information, which is based
upon the obtained data, in a memory device that is accessible to
the information master, wherein the industrial vehicle
information is stored according to a mapping specified by a
data object model; and
repeatedly performing by the information master, a
cyclically recurring operation including:
extracting at least a portion of the industrial
vehicle information stored in the memory device
according to the mapping specified by the data object
model as broadcast information;
generating at least one broadcast message
representing the extracted broadcast information; and
transmitting the generated at least one broadcast
message on the vehicle network bus;
wherein the entire contents of the broadcast information
are repeatedly transmitted across the vehicle network bus in a
cyclically recurring manner.
2
Appeal 2015-008013
Application 12/871,001
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Lewis
Underbrink
Oesterling
Wellman
US 2003/0109271 A1
US 6,714,158 B1
US 2008/0027604 A1
US 2008/0154691 A1
June 12, 2003
Mar. 30, 2004
Jan. 31, 2008
June 26, 2008
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as being indefinite.
2. Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing
to comply with the written description requirement.
3. Claims 1—7 and 22—32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement.
4. Claims 1—7 and 25—32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Oesterling, Wellman, and Lewis.
5. Claims 22—24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Oesterling, Wellman, Lewis, and Underbrink.
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement?
3
Appeal 2015-008013
Application 12/871,001
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1—7 and 22—32 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1—7 and 25—32 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oesterling, Wellman, and
Lewis?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 22—24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oesterling, Wellman, Lewis, and
Underbrink?
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as being indefinite.
The Appellants state that the “rejection of these claims is not being
challenged in this appeal.” App. Br. 7. Accordingly, it is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing
to comply with the written description requirement.
According to the Examiner,
[cjlaim 31 recites “a device connected to the vehicle network
bus must receive each of the plurality of broadcast messages in order
to reconstruct the entirety of the broadcast information.'1'’ (emphasis
added to indicate new matter). The examiner cannot find the
italicized language in Applicant’s original Specification associated
with this application. The examiner refers Applicant to |0074 of
Applicant's Published Specification, where Applicant states “In this
regard, a recipient such as the information linking device 38 may have
to listen for multiple instances of the created and transmitted message
in order to reconstruct the entirety of the data set corresponding to the
4
Appeal 2015-008013
Application 12/871,001
designated broadcast information.” The examiner has focused on the
use of “may” in the Specification and “must” in the claims. See also
10083 of published specification.
Ans. 3.
However, as the Appellants explain, the Specification precedes said
disclosure by disclosing that
the designated broadcast information, that is to be transmitted may be
too large to transmit uninterrupted, either sequentially or serially
without consuming too much bandwidth on the vehicle bus. As such,
data multiplexing, etc., may be utilized to reduce each broadcast
message to a manageable amount of data.
Spec. 172; see also Reply Br. 4.
We agree that
[i]n view of the disclosure in the specification, one skilled in
the art should understand that the broadcast information may, or may
not be transmitted in an uninterrupted manner (e.g., depending upon
the size of the broadcast information). One skilled in the art would
then readily understand that in the case where the broadcast
information is transmitted as a plurality of messages, a recipient must
receive each of those messages in order to recreate the complete
broadcast information. Claim 31 is directed precisely to this scenario.
Reply Br. 4. In other words, and consistent with giving the claim the
broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification,
when the designated broadcast information that is to be transmitted is too
large to transmit uninterrupted, data multiplexing is utilized to reduce each
broadcast message to a manageable amount of data. In that situation
involving data multiplexing, the recipient must receive each of the reduced
broadcast messages to reconstruct the entirety of the designated broadcast
information.
5
Appeal 2015-008013
Application 12/871,001
For the foregoing reason, the Appellants have shown adequate written
descriptive support for the claim limitation at issue.
The rejection of claims 1—7 and 22—32 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
According to the Examiner
[t]o be clear, Applicant’s specification never states that “the
entire contents of the broadcast information are repeatedly transmitted
across the vehicle network bus ... 7' Thus, this amended feature has
been determined to include new matter. The examiner refers
Applicant to 10066 of Applicant’s Published Specification. Here,
Applicant states the following: “For example, the information master
of the industrial vehicle may repeatedly perform a cyclical operation
that includes extracting at least a portion of the information stored in
the memory designated as broadcast information by the information
master, generating a broadcast message containing the extracted
broadcast information and transmitting the generated broadcast
message on the industrial vehicle network bus. In this regard, the
entire contents of the designated broadcast information are eventually
transmitted on the industrial vehicle network bus, typically across a
plurality of transmitted broadcast messages.'1'’ (emphasis added).
There is no support for “the entire contents of the broadcast
information are repeatedly transmitted across the . . . bus . . . .”
Ans. 4.
The entire clause at issue is “wherein the entire contents of the
broadcast information are repeatedly transmitted across the
vehicle network bus in a cyclically recurring manner.” App. Br. 35, Claims
App’x (Claim 1). The Specification must provide adequate written
descriptive support for said claim limitation.
Figure 6 of the Specification “is a flow chart illustrating a method of
dynamically generating industrial vehicle information for distribution on an
6
Appeal 2015-008013
Application 12/871,001
industrial vehicle network bus.” Spec. 112. The Appellants point out that
Figure 6 contains box “108” indicating information stored in memory is
designated as broadcast information and box “110” with the words
“REPEATEDLY TRANSMIT BROADCAST INFORMATION.” With
respect to box “110,” the Specification further discloses that
the information master of the industrial vehicle internally transmits a
cyclical recurring vehicle information message that encodes,
encapsulates or otherwise includes a collection of parameters/data that
represents or otherwise characterizes industrial vehicle information at
110.
Spec. 1 66; see also Reply Br. 6—7. We agree with the Appellants that the
Specification discloses “the process is a cyclical recurring process, [and
thereby] the broadcast information is repeatedly transmitted across the
vehicle network bus.” Reply Br. 8.
Accordingly, there is adequate written descriptive support for the
claim limitation “the entire contents of the broadcast information are
repeatedly transmitted across the vehicle network bus.”
The rejection of claims 1—7 and 25—32 under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Oesterling, Wellman, and Lewis.
The Examiner found that “[Oesterling] fails to explicitly disclose . . .
wherein the broadcast is sent in a ‘cyclically recurring manner.’” Final
Act. 7. Lewis is relied upon as evidence that said limitation “cyclically
recurring manner” is disclosed in the prior art.
Lewis teaches at e.g. abstract, 11467, 476 that it was old and well
known in the message infrastructure art to include the ability to
transfer messages over a network bus in a recurring or continuous
manner in order to include the ability to establish messages that are
7
Appeal 2015-008013
Application 12/871,001
sent out automatic based on a predetermined setting of the message.
In particular, the abstract of Lewis discloses sending messages from
one device (or processor) over a bus to another connected device (or
processor). |0467 teaches that messages can be established as
“recurring messages based on time interval.” See also 10476.
Final Act. 8.
The difficulty with Lewis is that it is directed to recurring messages in
the context of a webpage (“the ‘send a message’ web page appearing on the
web interface may include [a field for]... recurring messages” (Lewis, para.
467)), which is different than what is being claimed. Consistent with giving
sole independent claim 1 the broadest reasonable interpretation when read in
light of the Specification (see, e.g., para. 66, discussed above), claim 1 calls
for “repeatedly performing by [an] information master . . . , a cyclically
recurring operation” — as the Appellants have argued (see App. Br. 27).
Without more by way of additional evidence or reason — of which there is
an insufficiency, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have reached an
information master repeatedly performing a cyclically recurring operation as
claimed given a webpage with a field for recurring messages, as Lewis
discloses.
For that reason, a prima facie case of obviousness for the claimed
subject matter has not been made out in the first instance by a preponderance
of the evidence. The rejection of claim 1 is not sustained. We reach the
same conclusion for the rejection of the claims depending from claim 1.
8
Appeal 2015-008013
Application 12/871,001
The rejection of claims 22—24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Oesterling, Wellman, Lewis, and Underbrink.
In light of our not sustaining the rejection of independent claim 1 and
the maintaining of the reliance on Lewis as disclosing “cyclically recurring
manner” as claimed, the rejection of claims 22—24, which depend from claim
1, is also not sustained.
CONCLUSIONS
The rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1—7 and 22—32 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement is
reversed.
The rejection of claims 1—7 and 25—32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Oesterling, Wellman, and Lewis is reversed.
The rejection of claims 22—24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Oesterling, Wellman, Lewis, and Underbrink is reversed.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—7 and 22—32 is
affirmed-in-part.
9
Appeal 2015-008013
Application 12/871,001
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-IN-PART
10