Ex Parte Reinold et al - Page 10


                Appeal 2006-0342                                                                                 
                Application 09/944,893                                                                           
                See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir.                              
                1991).  Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims                      
                as being unpatentable over Pogue in view of Daniels, and further in view of                      
                Wright for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to independent                          
                claim 1.                                                                                         
                                           Claims 1-7, 9-12, and 15                                              
                       We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7, 9-12, and 15                     
                as being unpatentable over Pogue in view of Tennenhouse.  Since                                  
                Appellants’ arguments with respect to this rejection have treated these                          
                claims as a single group which stand or fall together, we will select                            
                independent claim 1 as the representative claim for this rejection because it                    
                is the broadest independent claim.  See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).                      
                       In response to the new grounds of rejection, Appellants argue the                         
                Examiner has failed to establish a teaching, suggestion, or motivation that                      
                would lead an artisan to use an active network in a vehicle and, further, to                     
                encrypt data in a vehicle.  Appellants restate their argument that the                           
                Examiner has impermissibly relied upon hindsight in formulating the                              
                rejection (Reply Br. 3-4).                                                                       
                       With respect to this rejection, we find the cited Tennenhouse                             
                reference (included as an Appendix to the Brief) explicitly teaches an active                    
                network (See ¶3, “Active Networks”). We also find Appellants have                                
                specifically admitted in the Brief that such active networks are known in the                    
                art:                                                                                             




                                                       10                                                        

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013