VWGoA - Ex. 1012
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Petitioner
`
`1
`
`

`
`record at the address provided below:
`
`Clifford A. Ulrich, Esq.
`
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`
`One Broadway
`
`New York, NY l0004.
`
`Date: May 12, 2015
`
`Raymond A. Joao, Esq.
`122 Bellevue Place
`
`Yonkers, New York 10703
`
`Tel. (914) 969-2992
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Raymond A. Joao/
`Raymond A. Joao
`Reg. No. 35,907
`
`2
`
`

`
`REEXAM-6549130
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In Re Reexamination of: PATENT OF RAYMOND A. JOAO
`
`Patent No.: 6,549,130
`
`For: CONTROL APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR VEHICLES AND/OR FOR
`
`PREMISES
`
`Control No.: 90/013,301
`
`Issue Date: APRIL 15, 2003
`
`Examiner: MINH T. NGUYEN
`
`Group Art Unit: 3992
`
`Confirmation No.: 1082
`
`Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam
`Commissioner for Patents
`
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION
`
`Sir:
`
`This is a Supplemental Response To Office Action in response to the Office
`
`Action, mailed January 20, 2015,
`
`in the above-referenced Ex Parte Reexamination of
`
`Claim 48 of U.S. Patent No. 6,549,130 (the '130 Patent), wherein the Examiner rejected
`
`Claim 48 in View of prior art references.
`
`This Supplemental Response is being submitted in response to comments made
`
`during the Examiner Interview which took place on May 5, 2015, in the above-identified
`
`reexamination proceeding. During the above-referenced Examiner Interview, a question
`
`3
`
`

`
`was raised regarding whether, for an expired patent, the ordinary and customary meaning
`
`in light of the Specification and intrinsic evidence, of the words or phrases of a claim, is
`
`broader than the broadest reasonable interpretation of same. The Patent Owner
`
`respectfully submits that the ordinary and customary meaning in light of the Specification
`
`and intrinsic evidence, for the words or phrases of a claim in an expired patent, is narrower
`
`than the broadest reasonable interpretation of same.
`
`This Supplemental Response To Office Action serves as a supplement to the
`
`Response To Office Action filed on March 18, 2015 in the above-identified reexamination
`
`proceeding. The Patent Owner further hereby incorporates by reference herein, as if to
`
`fully restate herein, the subject matter and arguments of and provided in the Response To
`
`Office Action filed on March 18, 2015.
`
`1. The Claim Construction Standard:
`
`The Patent Owner respectfully notes that U.S. Patent No. 6,549,130 is expired,
`
`that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,549,130 are thus not subject to amendment in this
`
`reexamination proceeding and, as a result, the words and phrases of Claim 48 should be
`
`given their ordinary and customary meaning. See MPEP §2258(I)(G). The pertinent
`
`portion of MPEP §2258(I)(G) provides:
`
`In a reexamination proceeding involving claims of an expired patent, claim
`construction pursuant to the principle set forth by the court in Phillips v. A WH
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (words of
`a claim “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the
`invention) should be applied since the expired claim are not subject to
`amendment.
`
`During the Examiner Interview of May 5, 2015, a question was raised regarding
`
`4
`
`

`
`whether the ordinary and customary meaning, in light of the Specification and the intrinsic
`
`evidence, is broader than the broadest reasonable interpretation. Upon hearing this, it was
`
`the Patent Owner's understanding that a construction broader than the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation was being applied in the above-identified reexamination proceeding which
`
`was the subject of that Interview. The Patent Owner immediately offered its response that
`
`the ordinary and customary meaning is narrower than the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation.
`
`Since it is imperative that the correct claim construction standard be applied in
`
`reexamination proceedings involving expired patents, the Patent Owner submits the
`
`following remarks for entry into the record in the above-identified reexamination
`
`proceeding.
`
`II. The Claim Construction Issues Regarding Ramono, Kniffin, Ryoichi, and
`Pagliaroliz
`
`With regards to the claim construction issues regarding the rejection of Claim
`
`48 in view of Ramono, the Patent Owner respectfully submits that any construction by the
`
`Examiner for "first control device" which would allow the alarm unit or system, or any
`
`component of same, of Ramono to serve as the "first control device" of Claim 48 would be
`
`inconsistent with, and would contradict, the Specification and the intrinsic evidence of the
`
`‘I30 Patent. Thus, any such construction would not be an appropriate construction for the
`
`ordinary and customary meaning of "first control device" in light of the Specification and
`
`the intrinsic evidence.
`
`With regards to the claim construction issues regarding the rejection of Claim
`
`48 in view of Kniffin, the Patent Owner respectfully submits that any construction by the
`
`5
`
`

`
`Examiner for "first control device" which would allow the key, the lock, or the access
`
`control device, or any component of same, of Kniffin to serve as the "first control device"
`
`of Claim 48 would be inconsistent with, and would contradict, the Specification and the
`
`intrinsic evidence of the 'l30 Patent. Thus, any such construction would not be an
`
`appropriate construction for the ordinary and customary meaning of "first control device"
`
`in light of the Specification and the intrinsic evidence.
`
`With regards to the claim construction issues regarding the rejection of Claim
`
`48 in view of Ryoichi, the Patent Owner respectfully submits that any construction by the
`
`Examiner for "second control device" which would allow the fixed radio station St of
`
`Ryoichi to serve as the "second control device" of Claim 48 would be inconsistent with,
`
`and would contradict, the Specification and the intrinsic evidence of the 'l30 Patent. Thus,
`
`any such construction would not be an appropriate construction for the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of "second control device" in light of the Specification and the
`
`intrinsic evidence.
`
`Lastly, with regards to the claim construction issues regarding the rejection of
`
`Claim 48 in view of Pagliaroli, the Patent Owner respectfully submits that any construction
`
`by the Examiner for "second control device" which would allow the mobile telephone
`
`signal transmitter 46 of Pagliaroli to serve as the "second control device" of Claim 48
`
`would be inconsistent with, and would contradict, the Specification and the intrinsic
`
`evidence of the 'l30 Patent. Thus, any such construction would not be an appropriate
`
`construction for the ordinary and customary meaning of "second control device" in light of
`
`the Specification and the intrinsic evidence.
`
`6
`
`

`
`IIA. Any Construction For "first control device" Which Would Allow The
`Alarm Unit Or System, Or Any Portion Of Same, Of Ramono To Serve As
`The "first control device" Of Claim 1 Would Be Erroneous:
`
`The Patent Owner respectfully submits that any construction for the "first
`
`control device" of Claim 48 which would allow the alarm unit or system, or any portion or
`
`component of same, of Ramono to serve as the "first control device" of Claim 48 would be
`
`contrary to, and contradict, the Specification and the intrinsic evidence of the 'l30 Patent
`
`and, thus, would be erroneous.
`
`The "first control device" of Claim 48, in at least one exemplary embodiment,
`
`can, for example, be identified as being the CPU 4 of Figs. 1, SA, SB, 9, HA, llB, l2, l3,
`
`14, 1S, and 16.
`
`In each and every exemplary instance, the CPU 4 (which can serve as the
`
`"first control device" of Claim 48) is a separate entity and is separate and apart fiom any of
`
`the identified vehicle equipment systems ll. For example, regarding at least each of Figs.
`
`1, SA, SB, 9, HA, and llB, the CPU 4 is shown as being separate and apart from each of
`
`the vehicle ignition system 7, the vehicle fuel pump system 9, and the various vehicle
`
`equipment systems ll and, therefore, the CPU 4 is not a component of any of the vehicle
`
`ignition system 7, the vehicle fuel pump system 9, or any of the various vehicle equipment
`
`systems 11.
`
`It
`
`is further important to note that the vehicle equipment systems ll are
`
`identified as including a wide range of devices ranging from simple components (such, as
`
`for example, a headlight) to systems having a number of components (such as,
`
`for
`
`example, a vehicle anti-theft system or an alarm). See, for example, the 'l30 Patent at Col.
`
`22, line 28 to C01. 2S, line 11 which discloses at least some of the vehicle equipment
`
`systems ll identified as such in the 'l30 Patent.
`
`7
`
`

`
`Claim 48 of the 'l30 Patent includes the words or phrases "first control device"
`
`and "at least one of a vehicle system, a vehicle component, a vehicle device, a vehicle
`
`equipment, a vehicle equipment system, and a vehicle appliance".
`
`The Patent Owner submits that any construction or interpretation that would
`
`allow the alarm unit or system, or any component or portion of same, of Ramono to serve
`
`as the "first control device" of Claim 48 would contradict the Specification and the
`
`intrinsic evidence of the 'l30 Patent and, therefore, would contradict the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of the words "first control device" in light of the Specification and the
`
`intrinsic evidence.
`
`The Specification and the intrinsic evidence of the 'l30 Patent is clear and
`
`unequivocal that the "first control device" and the "at least one of a vehicle system, a
`
`vehicle component, a vehicle device, a vehicle equipment, a vehicle equipment system, and
`
`a vehicle appliance" are separate and distinct devices or entities. In fact, the 'l30 Patent, at
`
`Col. 22, lines 28-30 unequivocally provides that the CPU 4, which can serve as the "first
`
`control device" of Claim 48, "is also electrically connected and/or linked to at least one or
`
`more of a vehicle equigment system or systems 11. " (emphasis added).
`
`In this regard, any
`
`construction for "first control device" which would allow for any of the expressly
`
`identified and defined vehicle equipment system or systems ll, or any component or
`
`portion of same, to serve as the "first control device" would be inconsistent with, and
`
`would contradict, the Specification and the intrinsic evidence of the 'l30 Patent, and thus
`
`would be erroneous.
`
`Further, any alarm unit or system, or any light, headlight, flasher, or any other
`
`vehicle system, vehicle component, vehicle device, vehicle equipment, vehicle equipment
`
`8
`
`

`
`system, or vehicle appliance, or any component or portion of same, of Ramono can only
`
`serve as a respective "at least one of a vehicle system, a vehicle component, a vehicle
`
`device, a vehicle equipment, a vehicle equipment system, and a vehicle appliance". Such a
`
`construction is consistent with, and supported by, the Specification and the intrinsic
`
`evidence of the ‘I30 Patent.
`
`The Specification and the intrinsic evidence of the 'l30 Patent expressly
`
`discloses a number of examples of the vehicle equipment system or systems 1 1, and,
`
`therefore, discloses examples of the respective "at least one of a vehicle system, a vehicle
`
`component, a vehicle device, a vehicle equipment, a vehicle equipment system, and a
`
`vehicle appliance" of Claim 48 as including at least: 1) an alarm; 2) a horn; 3) a vehicle
`
`external light system(s); 4) vehicle head lights; 5) tail lights or flashers; and 6) vehicle anti-
`
`theft systems, etc. See, for example, the 'l30 Patent, at Col 22, line 28 to Col. 23, line 2,
`
`which provides:
`
`"The CPU 4, in the preferred embodiment, is also electrically connected
`and/or linked to at least one or more of a vehicle equigment system or
`systems 11 . The vehicle equipment system or systems 11 are located externally
`from the apparatus 1 and may or may not be connected and/or linked to the
`CPU 4, via a vehicle equipment system or systems interface 12 which may or
`may not be required for each one of the variety or multitude of the vehicle
`equipment systems which may be utilized in conjunction with the apparatus.
`
`The vehicle equigment system or systems 11 may include a loud siren or
`alarm, which may be located in the passenger compartment of the motor
`vehicle and, which may produce a loud piercing sound so as to make it
`unbearable for an intruder to remain inside the motor vehicle passenger
`compartment. The vehicle equipment system 11 may also include an external
`siren or alarm, which may produce a loud piercing sound, which may be
`utilized to draw attention to the motor vehicle. The vehicle equipment system
`ll may also include a horn, which may blare continuously or intermittently, so
`as to also draw attention to the motor vehicle. The vehicle equipment system(s)
`11 may also include the vehicle external light systems(s), which may include
`the vehicle head lights, tail lights or flashers, which may be constantly
`illuminated or which may blink on and off repeatedly so as to draw attention to
`
`9
`
`

`
`the motor vehicle.
`
`The vehicle equipment system(s) ll may also include a Qower door lock
`system, for securing the vehicle passenger compartment so as to prevent an
`entry thereunto or an exit therefrom. In addition, the vehicle equigment
`system(s) 11 may include a hood locking system, such as a mechanical hood
`locking system, for locking the vehicle hood so as to prevent an unauthorized
`access into the vehicle engine compartment so as to prevent any tampering with
`the apparatus 1 or with other systems and/or components of the motor vehicle.
`
`The vehicle equigment system (s) 11 may also include any one or more of the
`widely known vehicle anti-theft systems and may also include a vehicle
`recovery system or device, including a homing and/or a tracking device or
`system, each of which system(s) may be activated and/or controlled by the
`apparatus 1 of the present invention." (emphasis added)
`
`Further, Claim 49 of the 'l30 Patent is consistent with the above intrinsic
`
`evidence. Claim 49 of the 'l30 Patent recites:
`
`49. The apparatus of claim 48, wherein the at least one of a vehicle system, a
`vehicle comgonent, a vehicle device, a vehicle equigment, a vehicle
`equigment system, and a vehicle aggliance, is at least one of a siren, M
`alarm, a horn, a light system, head lights, tail lights, flashers, a Qower door
`lock system, a hood locking system, a mechanical hood locking system, M
`anti-theft system, a vehicle recovery system or device, a homing device or
`system, a tracking device or system, video recording equipment, photographing
`equipment, a video recording device, a camera, a still picture camera, audio
`recording equipment, an audio recording device, a microphone, a tape recorder,
`an intercom system or device, a two-way radio, a radio, a television, a
`navigational device, navigational equipment, fire extinguishing equipment, a
`radar device, radar equipment, emergency or distress signal equipment, a
`refrigerator, a stove, an air conditioner, an oven, a microwave oven, a lighting
`system, an electrical or electronically controlled dead bolt locking device for
`use on at least one of a door, a window, a hood, and a trunk, a wheel locking
`device or mechanism, a brake locking device or mechanism, hydraulic
`equipment, pneumatic equipment, a winch, a loading mechanism, and
`unloading mechanism, a cutting mechanism, a bailing mechanism, a gun, a
`weapon system, a self-defense system, an electronic warfare system, and a
`monitoring device for at least one of reading and monitoring at least one of a
`fuel supply, a water or coolant supply, an electrical generator or alternator
`operation, a battery charge level, an engine temperature level, and a vehicle
`operation. (emphasis added).
`
`In view of the Specification and the intrinsic evidence of the 'l30 Patent, it is
`
`10
`
`10
`
`

`
`clear that any ordinary and customary meaning for "first control device" which would
`
`allow for an "at least one of a vehicle system, a vehicle component, a vehicle device, a
`
`vehicle equipment, a vehicle equipment system, and a vehicle appliance", or any
`
`component or portion of same, to serve as the "first control device", would be inconsistent
`
`with, and would contradict, the Specification and the intrinsic evidence of the 'l30 Patent.
`
`The Examiner cannot, without contradicting the Specification and the
`
`intrinsic evidence, simply "break up" the alarm unit or system of Ramono into pieces so as
`
`to have the alarm unit or system serve as both the "first control device" and the "at least
`
`one of a vehicle system, a vehicle component, a vehicle device, a vehicle equipment, a
`
`vehicle equipment system, and a vehicle appliance" elements of Claim 48. Further, the
`
`Examiner cannot simply "break up" into pieces the alarm unit or system of Ramono so as
`
`to have a component or portion of same serve as the "first control device" to control
`
`another vehicle system, vehicle component, vehicle device, vehicle equipment, vehicle
`
`equipment system, or vehicle appliance.
`
`In this regard, the Examiner cannot properly assert that a component or portion
`
`of the alarm unit of system of Ramono can serve as the "first control device", such as to
`
`control a horn, a vehicle external light system(s), vehicle head lights, tail lights or flashers,
`
`or any other vehicle system, vehicle component, vehicle device, vehicle equipment, vehicle
`
`equipment system, or vehicle appliance, as all of the above listed entities are unequivocally
`
`disclosed in the Specification and the intrinsic evidence, as being an "at least one of a
`
`vehicle system, a vehicle component, a vehicle device, a vehicle equipment, a vehicle
`
`equipment system, and a vehicle appliance".
`
`As a result, any interpretation of the ordinary and customary meaning in light of
`
`11
`
`11
`
`

`
`the Specification and the intrinsic evidence for "first control device" which would allow
`
`the alarm unit of system, or any component or portion of same, of Ramono to serve as the
`
`"first control device", so as to control a light, a horn, or some other vehicle system, vehicle
`
`component, vehicle device, vehicle equipment, vehicle equipment system, or vehicle
`
`appliance, would be inconsistent with, and would contradict, the Specification and the
`
`intrinsic evidence of the ‘I30 Patent. Any such construction would be untenable and
`
`incorrect.
`
`In this regard, when the "first control device" and the "at least one of a vehicle
`
`system, a vehicle component, a vehicle device, a vehicle equipment, a vehicle equipment
`
`system, and a vehicle appliance" are given their ordinary and customary meanings, as is
`
`prescribed by MPEP §2258(I)(G), and when the intrinsic evidence of Claim 49 of the ‘I30
`
`Patent is properly considered, the vehicle alarm unit or system, or any component or
`
`portion of same, of Ramono, cannot serve as the "first control device" of Claim 48 of the
`
`‘I30 Patent.
`
`In view of the foregoing, the Patent Owner respectfully submits that Ramono
`
`does not disclose, teach, or suggest, the first control device of Claim 48 and, therefore, that
`
`Ramono does not disclose, teach, or suggest, the first control device which at least one of
`
`generates and transmits the first signal of Claim 48. In this regard, the Patent Owner
`
`further submits that Ramono does not disclose, teach, or suggest, the first signal of Claim
`
`48 "for at least one of activating, de-activating, disabling, and re-enabling, the at least one
`
`of a vehicle system, a vehicle component, a vehicle device, a vehicle equipment, a vehicle
`
`equipment system, and a vehicle appliance."
`
`In view of the foregoing, Ramono, in failing to disclose, teach, or suggest, the
`
`10
`
`12
`
`12
`
`

`
`recited first control device and the recited first signal of Claim 48 of the ‘I30 Patent, does
`
`not disclose, teach, or suggest, many of the specifically recited features of Claim 48 of the
`
`‘I30 Patent, which features are important and recited features of said Claim 48. In view of
`
`the foregoing, Ramono does not anticipate, or otherwise render obvious or unpatentable,
`
`Claim 48 of the ‘I30 Patent. In view of the above, the Patent Owner respectfully submits
`
`that Claim 48 of the ‘I30 Patent is patentable over Ramono.
`
`IIB. Any Construction For "first control device" Which Would Allow The
`Lock, Key, Or Access Control Device, Or Any Portion Of Same, Of Kniffin
`To Serve As The "first control device" Of Claim 48 Would Be
`
`Erroneousz
`
`The Patent Owner respectfully submits that any construction for the "first
`
`control device" of Claim 48 which would allow the lock, the key, or the access control
`
`device, or any portion or component of same, of Kniffin to serve as the "first control
`
`device" of Claim 48 would be contrary to, and would contradict, the Specification and the
`
`intrinsic evidence of the ‘I30 Patent and, thus, would be erroneous.
`
`As noted above, the "first control device" of Claim 48, in at least one exemplary
`
`embodiment, can, for example, be identified as being the CPU 4 of Figs. l, SA, SB, 9,
`
`HA, llB,
`
`l2,
`
`l3,
`
`l4, IS, and 16.
`
`In each and every exemplary instance, the CPU 4
`
`(which can serve as the "first control device" of Claim 48) is a separate entity and is
`
`separate and apart from any of the identified vehicle equipment systems ll. For example,
`
`regarding at least each of Figs. l, SA, SB, 9, HA, and llB, the CPU 4 is shown as being
`
`separate and apart from each of the vehicle ignition system 7, the vehicle fuel pump system
`
`9, and the various vehicle equipment systems ll and, therefore,
`
`the CPU 4 is not a
`
`ll
`
`13
`
`13
`
`

`
`component of any of the vehicle ignition system 7, the vehicle fuel pump system 9, or any
`
`of the various vehicle equipment systems II.
`
`It
`
`is further important to note that the vehicle equipment systems I I are
`
`identified as including a wide range of devices ranging from simple components (such as,
`
`for example, a power door lock) to systems having a number of components (such as, for
`
`example, a vehicle anti-theft system or an electrical or electronically controlled dead bolt
`
`locking device). See, for example, the ‘I30 Patent at Col. 22, line 28 to Col. 25, line II
`
`which discloses at least some of the vehicle equipment systems II identified as such in the
`
`‘I30 Patent.
`
`As noted above, Claim 48 of the ‘I30 Patent includes the words or phrases “first
`
`control device" and “at least one of a vehicle system, a vehicle component, a vehicle
`
`device, a vehicle equipment, a vehicle equipment system, and a vehicle appliance".
`
`The Patent Owner submits that any interpretation that would allow the lock, the
`
`key, or the access control device, or any component or portion of same, of Kniffin to serve
`
`as the “first control device" of Claim 48 would contradict the Specification and the
`
`intrinsic evidence of the ‘I30 Patent and, therefore, would contradict the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of the words “first control device" in light of the Specification and the
`
`intrinsic evidence.
`
`The Specification and the intrinsic evidence is clear and unequivocal that the
`
`“first control device" and the “at least one of a vehicle system, a vehicle component, a
`
`vehicle device, a vehicle equipment, a vehicle equipment system, and a vehicle appliance"
`
`are two separate and distinct devices or entities. In fact, and as noted above, the ‘I30
`
`Patent, at Col. 22, lines 28-30, unequivocally provides that the CPU 4, which can serve as
`
`I2
`
`14
`
`14
`
`

`
`the "first control device" of Claim 48, "is also electrically connected and/or linked to at
`
`least one or more of a vehicle equigment system or systems 11." (emphasis added).
`
`In
`
`this regard, any construction for "first control device" which would allow for any expressly
`
`identified and defined vehicle equipment system or systems ll, or any component or
`
`portion of same, to serve as the "first control device" would be inconsistent with, and
`
`would contradict, the Specification and the intrinsic evidence of the 'l30 Patent, and thus
`
`would be erroneous.
`
`Further, any lock, key, or access control device (such as, for example, any
`
`"electrical or electronically controlled dead bolt locking device for use on at least one of a
`
`door, a window, a hood, and a trunk", see Claim 49), or any other vehicle system, vehicle
`
`component, vehicle device, vehicle equipment, vehicle equipment system, or vehicle
`
`appliance, or any component or portion of same, of Kniffin can only serve as a respective
`
`"at least one of a vehicle system, a vehicle component, a vehicle device, a vehicle
`
`equipment, a vehicle equipment system, and a vehicle appliance". Such a construction is
`
`consistent with and supported by the Specification and the intrinsic evidence of the 'l30
`
`Patent.
`
`The Specification and intrinsic evidence of the 'l30 Patent expressly discloses a
`
`number of examples of the vehicle equipment system or systems ll and, therefore,
`
`discloses examples of the respective "at least one of a vehicle system, a vehicle
`
`component, a vehicle device, a vehicle equipment, a vehicle equipment system, and a
`
`vehicle appliance" of Claim 48 as including at least: l) a power door lock system; 2) a
`
`hood locking system, such as a mechanical hood locking system; 3) electrical and/or
`
`electronically controlled dead bolt locking devices for use on doors, windows, hood, trunk
`
`13
`
`15
`
`15
`
`

`
`and/or in conjunction with any other opening components and/or components for gaining
`
`access to various locations on and/or in the vehicle, etc. See, for example, the 'l30 Patent
`
`at Col 22, line 28 to Col. 23, line 2, which provides:
`
`"The CPU 4, in the preferred embodiment, is also electrically connected
`and/or linked to at least one or more of a vehicle equigment system or
`systems 11 . The vehicle equipment system or systems ll are located externally
`from the apparatus l and may or may not be connected and/or linked to the
`CPU 4, via a vehicle equipment system or systems interface l2 which may or
`may not be required for each one of the variety or multitude of the vehicle
`equipment systems which may be utilized in conjunction with the apparatus. .
`
`.
`
`The vehicle equigment system(s) 11 may also include a Qower door lock
`system, for securing the vehicle passenger compartment so as to prevent an
`entry thereunto or an exit therefrom. In addition, the vehicle equigment
`system(s) 11 may include a hood locking system, such as a mechanical hood
`locking system, for locking the vehicle hood so as to Qrevent an unauthorized
`access into the vehicle engine comgartment so as to Qrevent any tamgering
`with the aggaratus I or with other systems and/or comgonents of the motor
`vehicle.
`
`The vehicle equigment system (s) 11 may also include any one or more of the
`widely known vehicle anti-theft systems and may also include a vehicle
`recovery system or device, including a homing and/or a tracking device or
`system, each of which system(s) may be activated and/or controlled by the
`apparatus 1 of the present invention." (emphasis added).
`
`See, also, the 'l30 Patent, at Col. 24, lines 28-33, which provides:
`
`"The vehicle equigment system (s) 11 may also include electrical and/or
`electronically controlled dead bolt locking devices [or use on doors, windows,
`hood, trunk and/or in coniunction with any other ogening comgonents and/or
`comgonents for gaining access to various locations on and/or in the vehicle."
`(emphasis added).
`
`Further, Claim 49 of the 'l30 Patent is consistent with the above intrinsic
`
`evidence. Claim 49 of the 'l30 Patent recites:
`
`49. The apparatus of claim 48, wherein the at least one of a vehicle system, a
`vehicle comgonent, a vehicle device, a vehicle equigment, a vehicle
`equigment system, and a vehicle aggliance, is at least one of a siren, an
`alarm, a horn, a light system, head lights, tail lights, flashers, a Qower door
`lock system, a hood locking system, a mechanical hood locking system, an
`
`14
`
`16
`
`

`
`anti-theft system, a vehicle recovery system or device, a homing device or
`system, a tracking device or system, video recording equipment, photographing
`equipment, a video recording device, a camera, a still picture camera, audio
`recording equipment, an audio recording device, a microphone, a tape recorder,
`an intercom system or device, a two-way radio, a radio, a television, a
`navigational device, navigational equipment, fire extinguishing equipment, a
`radar device, radar equipment, emergency or distress signal equipment, a
`refrigerator, a stove, an air conditioner, an oven, a microwave oven, a lighting
`system, an electrical or electronically controlled dead bolt locking device [or
`use on at least one of a door, a window, a hood, and a trunk, a wheel locking
`device or mechanism, a brake locking device or mechanism, hydraulic
`equipment, pneumatic equipment, a winch, a loading mechanism, and
`unloading mechanism, a cutting mechanism, a bailing mechanism, a gun, a
`weapon system, a self-defense system, an electronic warfare system, and a
`monitoring device for at least one of reading and monitoring at least one of a
`fuel supply, a water or coolant supply, an electrical generator or alternator
`operation, a battery charge level, an engine temperature level, and a vehicle
`operation. (emphasis added).
`
`In view of the Specification and the intrinsic evidence of the 'l30 Patent, it is
`
`clear that any ordinary and customary meaning for "first control device" which would
`
`allow an "at least one of a vehicle system, a vehicle component, a vehicle device, a vehicle
`
`equipment, a vehicle equipment system, and a vehicle appliance", or any component or
`
`portion of same, to serve as a "first control device" would be inconsistent with, and would
`
`contradict, the Specification and the intrinsic evidence of the 'l30 Patent.
`
`The Examiner cannot, without contradicting the Specification and the intrinsic
`
`evidence, simply "break up" the lock, the key, or the access control device, of Kniffin, into
`
`pieces so as to have the lock, the key, or the access control device serve as both the "first
`
`control device" and the "at least one of a vehicle system, a vehicle component, a vehicle
`
`device, a vehicle equipment, a vehicle equipment system, and a vehicle appliance"
`
`elements of Claim 48. Further, the Examiner cannot simply "break up" into pieces the
`
`lock, the key, or access control device, so as to have a component or a portion of same
`
`15
`
`17
`
`17
`
`

`
`serve as the "first control device" to control another vehicle system, vehicle component,
`
`vehicle device, vehicle equipment, vehicle equipment system, or vehicle appliance.
`
`In this regard, the Examiner cannot assert that a component or portion of the
`
`lock, the key, or the access control device, of Kniffin can serve as the "first control
`
`device", such as to control any other vehicle system, vehicle component, vehicle device,
`
`vehicle equipment, vehicle equipment system, or vehicle appliance, as all of the same are
`
`unequivocally disclosed in the Specification and the intrinsic evidence as being an "at least
`
`one of a vehicle system, a vehicle component, a vehicle device, a vehicle equipment, a
`
`vehicle equipment system, and a vehicle appliance".
`
`As a result, any interpretation of the ordinary and customary meaning, in light
`
`of the Specification and the intrinsic evidence, which would allow the lock, the key, or the
`
`access control device, or any component or portion of same, of Kniffin to serve as the "first
`
`control device" of Claim 48 would be inconsistent with, and would contradict, the
`
`Specification and the intrinsic evidence of the 'l30 Patent. Any such construction would
`
`be untenable and incorrect.
`
`In this regard, when the "first control device" and the "at least one of a vehicle
`
`system, a vehicle component, a vehicle device, a vehicle equipment, a vehicle equipment
`
`system, and a vehicle appliance" are given their respective ordinary and customary
`
`meanings, as is prescribed by MPEP §2258(I)(G), and when the Specification and the
`
`intrinsic evidence of the 'l30 Patent is properly considered, the lock, the key, or the access
`
`control device, or any component or portion of same, of Kniffin, cannot serve as the "first
`
`control device" of Claim 48 of the 'l30 Patent.
`
`In view of the foregoing, the Patent Owner respectfully submits that Kniffin
`
`16
`
`18
`
`18
`
`

`
`does not disclose, teach, or suggest, the first control device of Claim 48 and, therefore, that
`
`Kniffin does not disclose, teach, or suggest, the first control device which at least one of
`
`generates and transmits the first signal of Claim 48. In this regard, the Patent Owner
`
`further submits that Kniffin does not disclose, teach, or suggest, the first signal of Claim 48
`
`"for at least one of activating, de-activating, disabling, and re-enabling, the at least one of a
`
`vehicle system, a vehicle component, a vehicle device, a vehicle equipment, a vehicle
`
`equipment system, and a vehicle applia