Bauckman, Mark J. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 30, 2019

15665754 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2019)

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.
15/665,754 08/01/2017 Mark J. Bauckman 061222-1056671 2745
23370 7590 10/30/2019
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
MAILSTOP: IP DOCKETING - 22
1100 PEACHTREE STREET
SUITE 2800
ATLANTA, GA 30309
EXAMINER
EUSTAQUIO, CAL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/30/2019 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):
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MARK J. BAUCKMAN, EUGENE KEITH McQUEEN,
and TAWNY JEAN COTHRAN
____________

Appeal 2019-000420
Application 15/665,754
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JOHN A. EVANS, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 26–36. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Zodiac Pool
Systems, LLC. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2019-000420
Application 15/665,754

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention establishes communications with equipment
and devices for retrofitting or otherwise furnishing to pool and spa
equipment communication capabilities via radio frequency signals or
otherwise. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 26 is illustrative:
26. A method of determining whether a strainer of a
component of a pool- or spa-water circulation system is clogged
with debris, comprising:
a. mechanically connecting to the component a first
device including a first pressure sensor and a first electronic
transmitter;
b. electronically transmitting pressure values obtained by
the first pressure sensor to a first location remote from the
component; and
c. evaluating the transmitted pressure values to determine
whether the strainer of the component is clogged with debris.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 26–35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Stiles, Jr. (US 2010/0092308 A1; published Apr. 15,
2010) (“Stiles”), Spiegel (US 6,651,454 B1; issued Nov. 25, 2003), and
Hamza (US 2006/0201556 A1; published Sept. 14, 2006). Final Act. 2–7.2
The Examiner rejected claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Stiles, Spiegel, Hamza, and Wien (US 2011/0025511 A1;
published Feb. 3, 2011). Final Act. 7–10.
THE REJECTION OVER STILES, SPIEGEL, AND HAMZA

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed June
12, 2018 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed July 23, 2018 (“Appeal
Br.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 29, 2018 (“Ans.”); and (4)
the Reply Brief filed September 17, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2019-000420
Application 15/665,754

3
Regarding independent claim 26, the Examiner finds that Stiles’
system determines whether a strainer of a component of a pool- or spa-water
circulation system is clogged with debris by electronically transmitting and
evaluating pressure values obtained by a pressure sensor. Final Act. 2–3.
Although the Examiner acknowledges that Stiles does not transmit the
pressure values to a remote location, the Examiner nonetheless takes Official
Notice that this feature is well known in the art, and that transmitting Stiles’
pressure values to a remote location would have been obvious. Final Act. 3–
4. The Examiner also acknowledges that although Stiles does not
mechanically connect the recited first device to the component, the
Examiner cites (1) Hamza’s drain plug and pool port, and (2) Spiegel’s pool
pump with multiple ports that allows for different plumbing configurations
for teaching this feature. Final Act. 4–5. Based on these collective
teachings, the Examiner concludes that the claim would have been obvious.
Final Act. 2–5.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reliance on Stiles is misplaced
because, among other things, Stiles does not sense pressure values, let alone
transmit and evaluate those values to determine that the component’s
strainer is clogged with debris as claimed. Appeal Br. 9–12; Reply Br. 4–6,
8–10. According to Appellant, Stiles measures a pump motor’s power
consumption to infer filter clogging—a process that is said to not evaluate
transmitted pressure values obtained from a pressure sensor as claimed. See
id.

Appeal 2019-000420
Application 15/665,754

4
ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 26 by finding
that Stiles, Spiegel, and Hamza collectively would have taught or suggested
evaluating electronically-transmitted pressure values obtained from a
pressure sensor to determine that a pool- or spa-water circulation system
component’s strainer is clogged with debris?

ANALYSIS
On this record, we find the Examiner’s reliance on Stiles problematic.
As noted in the Abstract, Stiles operates a safety vacuum release system
(SVRS) by measuring a pump motor’s power consumption necessary to
pump water and overcome losses. If controller 16 detects an obstructed
inlet, the controller can quickly shut the pump down. Stiles ¶ 22; Figs. 1,
3A. In some embodiments, this detection is based only on the motor’s
power consumption (e.g., the power needed to rotate the motor’s shaft), and
without any additional inputs—including pressure. Id. Stiles’ controller can
also detect a blocked inlet based on (1) actual power consumption; (2)
current power consumption; (3) relative power consumption; (4) a dynamic
counter; and/or (5) an absolute counter, the latter two counters both tied to
power consumption. See id. ¶¶ 37–48.
The clear import of this discussion is that Stiles’ system evaluates
power consumption—not pressure—to determine clogging. That Stiles’
paragraph 22 emphasizes that no additional inputs—including pressure—are
needed to achieve this end only underscores the fact that detected power
consumption—not pressure—is the key factor in Stiles’ clogging
determination. Id. ¶ 22.
Appeal 2019-000420
Application 15/665,754

5
We reach this conclusion despite the fact that Stiles’ power-
consumption-based clogging determination involves a “pressure problem” as
the Examiner indicates and Appellant acknowledges. See Final Act. 3; Ans.
4; Reply Br. 4 (acknowledging that Stiles seeks to resolve a “pressure
problem”). Although detecting an elevated motor power consumption
would indicate a water flow blockage and, therefore, a corresponding change
in pressure due to this blockage, to say that this these power consumption
values are somehow equivalent to pressure values obtained by a pressure
sensor as the Examiner apparently does here strains reasonable limits on this
record, particularly when construing this limitation in light of the
Specification. See Spec. 7 (noting that devices 26A and 26B include
pressure gauges that sense and measure pressures at ports 18 and 22); see
also id. at 8 (“If device 26A senses a rapid rise in vacuum (i.e. a rapid
pressure decrease), for example, the strainer basket may be clogged with
debris, inhibiting adequate water flow to the impeller.”) (emphasis added).
As the Federal Circuit has emphasized, the broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the Specification is not whether the Specification
precludes some broad reading of the claim term adopted by the Examiner.
See In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Nor is
the broadest reasonable interpretation simply one that is not inconsistent
with the Specification. Id. at 1383. Rather, it is an interpretation that
corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the
Specification, that is, an interpretation consistent with the Specification. Id.
(citing In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259–60 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).
Therefore, to interpret the recited pressure values obtained by a
pressure sensor as somehow reading on Stiles’ detected motor power
Appeal 2019-000420
Application 15/665,754

6
consumption values as the Examiner apparently does here is inconsistent
with the Specification and, therefore, untenable on this record. The
Examiner’s reliance on Stiles in this regard is, therefore, problematic on this
record, and neither Spiegel nor Hamza cures this deficiency.
Accordingly, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 26, and dependent claims 27–35 for similar reasons.
Because this issue is dispositive regarding our reversing the Examiner’s
rejection of these claims, we need not address Appellant’s other associated
arguments.

THE REJECTION OVER STILES, SPIEGEL, HAMZA, AND WIEN
For the foregoing reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 36 given the Examiner’s problematic reliance
on Stiles for teaching the recited pressure sensor and pressure value
limitations. See Final Act. 7–9; Ans. 10–14.
We reach this conclusion emphasizing that the Examiner cites Wien
for a very limited purpose, namely merely to show that transmitting data
wirelessly is known in the art, and that it would have been obvious to
provide such wireless transmission in Stiles to extend transmission range.
Final Act. 10; Ans. 12, 18. This limited reliance on Wien does not cure
Stiles’ deficiencies regarding the recited pressure values, let alone two such
values from first and second pressure sensors, respectively, as claim 36
requires.
We do note, however, that Wien teaches a pressure sensor that
measures a pipe’s internal pressure. As Wien explains, when the measured
pressure (1) falls below the reference pressure when an outlet is opened, and
Appeal 2019-000420
Application 15/665,754

7
(2) does not return to the reference pressure within a certain time period, the
system assumes that involuntary consumption or a leak has occurred, and
emits an alert. See Wien, Abstract; ¶¶ 40–41.
That is, when measured pressure is below the reference pressure, the
system effectively determines that water is flowing and, therefore, not
obstructed. See id. Ordinarily skilled artisans could therefore reasonably
infer from this correlation that when sensed pressure is at or above the
reference pressure, water flow is obstructed.
To the extent that Wien’s pressure-based water-flow determination
could detect obstructions due to debris clogging as recited in the independent
claims when considered in light of Stiles, the Examiner did not articulate
such a rationale, nor will we speculate in that regard here in the first instance
on appeal. We, therefore, leave that determination to the Examiner to
consider after this opinion. What we can say, however, is that the
Examiner’s articulated basis for the rejection is untenable on this record.
Therefore, on the record before us, we are persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 36.

Appeal 2019-000420
Application 15/665,754

8
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)
/Basis
Affirmed Reversed
26–35 103 Stiles,
Spiegel,
Hamza
26–35
36 103 Stiles,
Spiegel,
Hamza,
Wien
36
Overall
Outcome
26–36

REVERSED