Ex Parte Wempen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 25, 2017

13274477 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 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.
13/274,477 10/17/2011 Paul Wempen 87355.10822 2256
7590 05/30/2017
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
WASHINGTON SQUARE, SUITE 1100
1050 CONNECTICUT AVE. N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20036-5304
EXAMINER
CHEN, SHELLEY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/30/2017 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 PAUL WEMPEN
Appeal 2015-006809
Application 13/274,477
Technology Center 3600
Before JAMES P. CALVE, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Paul Wempen (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—11.1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant submits the real party in interest is BOSCH SERVICE
SOLUTIONS LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-006809
Application 13/274,477
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A method of operating a diagnostic tool for a vehicle,
comprising the steps of:
communicating with the vehicle in a communication
protocol with a signal translator of the diagnostic tool;
determining an error with a configuration or operation of
the diagnostic tool with a processor of the diagnostic tool;
determining an error with the communicating with the
vehicle over a vehicle interface by the diagnostic tool with the
processor of the diagnostic tool;
indicating one of the error with the configuration or
operation of the diagnostic tool and the error with the
communicating with the vehicle by the diagnostic tool with the
processor; and
displaying, with a display of the diagnostic tool,
additional information regarding the error with the
configuration of the diagnostic tool, wherein the additional
information comprises at least one of the following: vehicle
system configuration information, cable choice information,
multiplex configuration information, processor configuration
information, communication transmit status information and
communication receive status information.
REJECTION
Claims 1—11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sasaki (US 6,134,488, issued Oct. 17, 2000) and Cousin (US
2007/0288794 Al, published Dec. 13, 2007).
2
Appeal 2015-006809
Application 13/274,477
DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Sasaki discloses most of the limitations of
claim 1 except for “determining an error with the communicating with the
vehicle over a vehicle interface by the diagnostic tool.” Final Act. 3^4. The
Examiner finds that Cousin discloses this limitation. Id. at 4 (citing Cousin
^Hf 25, 60). The Examiner alternatively finds that the limitation “displaying
additional information regarding the error comprising at least one of the
following: vehicle system configuration information” is disclosed by Cousin
at paragraphs 44 and 45 as well as Sasaki. Id. at 3^4. The Examiner
concludes it would have been obvious to modify Sasaki with Cousin “to
improve the reliability of the diagnostic system by enabling the user to
understand and correct errors in communication with the vehicle, with
predictable results.” Id.
Appellant contends that the Examiner improperly interprets the recited
“vehicle system configuration information.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant argues
that the Examiner uses this incorrect interpretation to read the limitation
“displaying additional information regarding the error comprising at least
one of the following: vehicle configuration information” on Figures 6 A—6E
of Sasaki. Id. at 7—8. Appellant argues that because Sasaki shuts down after
a self-diagnosis reveals an error (steps SI07 and SI 19), it does not “disclose
at least displaying error information including at least one of vehicle system
configuration information.” Id. at 8. Appellant next contends that Cousin
does not disclose “determining an error with the communicating with the
vehicle over a vehicle interface by the diagnostic tool.” Id. at 9. In support
of this contention, Appellant argues that paragraph 25 of Cousin “relates to a
disconnected connector in the car rather than an error with the
3
Appeal 2015-006809
Application 13/274,477
communicating with the vehicle over vehicle interface by the diagnostic
tool.” Id. at 10. Appellant also argues that paragraph 60 of Cousin discloses
the “result of a confirmation test of an ECU on the vehicle [which] is not the
same as an error with the communication of the vehicle.” Id.
The Examiner responds that the numbers shown in Sasaki’s Figures
6A—6E “represent components/systems of the vehicle” and “could be
interpreted as vehicle system configuration information, because information
is displayed showing which components/systems are part of the vehicle (i.e.
configuration of the vehicle system).” Ans. 3. The Examiner also maintains
that Cousin discloses detecting a communication error between an ECU,
which is part of the vehicle, and the diagnostic tool. Id. at 7—8.
Sasaki discloses a display of the diagnosis of various items in a
vehicle. Sasaki, Figs. 6A—6E. The item numbers refer to various systems or
functions in the vehicle such as exhaust gas recirculator, variable valve
timing, switch systems, etc. Sasaki, 5:8—31, 6:19—36.
Cousin discloses a “diagnostic client application (120) connected to a
car having a symptom of failure.” Cousin 144. Diagnostic application 120
“automatically identifies the vehicle configuration (300) by reading the
vehicle identification number . . . and then generating a list of all the
electronic control units (ECU) which are the controllers of the vehicle.” Id.
The system builds “a precise image of the vehicle configuration.'1'’ Id.
(emphasis added). The system also determines “a communication error with
the ECU.” Id. 160 (emphasis added).
We first address Appellant’s contention that the Examiner has not
correctly interpreted the recited “vehicle system configuration information.”
Box 212 in Appellant’s Figure 4 provides an illustration of vehicle system
4
Appeal 2015-006809
Application 13/274,477
configuration information, which includes manufacturer, year, carline,
series, system, engine size, and transmission type. Spec. 140, Fig. 4.
Appellant does not direct us to any part of the Specification indicating that
vehicle system configuration information is limited to the specific items
shown in box 212 of Appellant’s Figure 4. Consequently, Appellant does
not persuasively apprise us of error in the Examiner’s finding that the recited
“vehicle system configuration information” reads on the item numbers
displayed in Sasaki’s Figures 6A—6E, which represent components or
systems of a vehicle. We note that Appellant does not address the
Examiner’s alternate finding that this claim limitation reads on Cousin’s
disclosure in paragraphs 44 and 45. See Final Act. 4; Appeal Br. at 9—10.2
We determine the Examiner’s finding that Cousin alternatively discloses this
limitation is supported by the disclosure in paragraphs 44 and 45 of Cousin.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that because Sasaki
shuts down after a self-diagnosis, it does not “disclose at least displaying
error information including at least one of vehicle system configuration
information.” See Appeal Br. 8. Appellant’s argument does not accurately
describe the displaying limitation of claim 1 and hence is not commensurate
with the scope of claim 1. Claim 1 does not require displaying error
information but rather displaying “additional information regarding the error
with the configuration of the diagnostic tool.” Therefore, there is no
requirement in the claim for displaying error information as argued by
Appellant.
2 Appellant belatedly attempts to dispute the Examiner’s finding regarding
Cousin. See Reply Br. 4.
5
Appeal 2015-006809
Application 13/274,477
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Cousin does not
disclose determining an error with the communication with the vehicle
because “a confirmation test of an ECU on the vehicle is not the same as an
error with the communication of the vehicle.” Appeal Br. 10. As noted
above, paragraph 60 of Cousin plainly states that it determines a
“communication error with the ECU.” Consequently, the Examiner’s
finding in this regard is supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Appellant, thus, fails to persuasively apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s factual findings or rationale, quoted above, for the combination
of Sasaki and Cousin, which we determine to be reasonable and supported
by a rational underpinning. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416 (2007) (“[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results.”). We, thus, sustain the rejection of claim 1. Claims 2—11 depend
from claim 1. Appeal Br. 13—15 (Claims App.). Appellant relies on the
same arguments as claim 1 for the patentability of these claims. We sustain
the rejection of claims 2—11 for the same reasons as claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—11 is affirmed.
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
6