Ex Parte Belady

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 21, 2012

11259847 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 21, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte CHRISTIAN L. BELADY

Appeal 2009-013810
Application 11/259,847
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
CARL W WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-013810
Application 11/259,847

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1, 2, 5 through 9, 12 through 17, 20 through 25, 28 through 32, 35
through 40, 43 through 47, and 50 through 63.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention involves a floor tile for use in ventilation systems. The
floor tile contains plural openings and includes at least one air parameter
sensor. See Specification pages 1 and 2 and Figures 1 and 2. Claim 1 is
representative of the invention and reproduced below:

1. A device comprising:
a floor tile body, wherein said floor tile body includes a
plurality of openings between an upper surface and a lower surface of
said floor tile body;
an air parameter sensor, mechanically coupled with said floor
tile body, configured to measure a parameter of air flowing through at
least one of said openings;
control electronics, electrically coupled with said air parameter
sensor, configured to convert an electrical output of said air parameter
sensor to an air parameter datum; and
a display, mechanically coupled and embedded within said
floor tile body, electrically coupled with said control electronics, and
configured to display said air parameter datum.

REFERENCES
Comer US 5,461,368 Oct. 24, 1995
Bash US 2004/0020226 A1 Feb. 5, 2004
Nair US 6,881,142 B1 Apr. 19, 2005
Bash US 2005/0187664 A1 Aug. 25, 2005
Fujiwara US 2005/0188760 A1 Sep. 1, 2005
Kates US 2006/0071089 A1 Apr. 6, 2006
Appeal 2009-013810
Application 11/259,847

3

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 32, 35, 36, 37, 39, 56, 58, 59, and
62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nair in view of
Kates. Answer 4-7.1
The Examiner has rejected claims 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 38, 40, 43, 44, 45, and
46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nair in view of
Kates and Bash’ 226. Answer 7-9.
The Examiner has rejected claims 9, 12, 13, 14, 47, 50, 51, 52, and 60
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nair in view of Kates
and Fujiwara. Answer 9-11.
The Examiner has rejected claims 15 and 53 and under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nair in view of Kates, Fujiwara, and
Bash’ 226. Answer 11-12.
The Examiner has rejected claims 16 and 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nair in view of Kates, Fujiwara, and Bash’ 664.
Answer 12-13.
The Examiner has rejected claims 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 55, and 61 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nair in view of Kates and
Bash’ 664. Answer 13-15.
The Examiner has rejected claims 25, 28, 29, 30, 57, and 63 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nair in view of Kates and
Comer. Answer 15-17.

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
May 4, 2009.
Appeal 2009-013810
Application 11/259,847

4

ISSUES
Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs2address each rejection. These
arguments present us with three issues:
a) did the Examiner err in finding that the combined disclosures of
Nair and Kates teach a sensor to measure a parameter of air
flowing through the floor tile as recited in the independent claims?
b) did the Examiner provide a rational reason as to why the skilled
artisan would combine the references?
c) Did the Examiner err in finding that the skilled artisan would place
the air flow sensor within one of the openings in the floor tile?

Appellant presents arguments directed to issues (a) and (b) with respect to
each of the rejections. Br 12-19. Appellant’s arguments directed to issue (c)
are presented with respect to claims 14, 17, 22, 30, 37, 45, and 52. Br. 15,
16, and 18.

ANALYSIS
Issue a):
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusion the Examiner erred in finding the combined disclosures of Nair
and Kates teach a sensor to measure a parameter of air flowing through the
floor tile as recited in the independent claims. Appellant argues that the

2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated March 27,
2009, and Reply Brief dated July 1, 2009.
Appeal 2009-013810
Application 11/259,847

5

sensors in Nair are proximate the tiles and their positioning does not allow
them to measure a parameter of air flowing through a passageway in the tile.
Brief 12. In response the Examiner agrees but finds that the sensor of Nair
senses the air that flows through and out of the tile, and that this meets the
claims as the claims do not recite measuring only air that flows through the
opening and no other surrounding air. Answer 18-19. We concur with the
Examiner. We further note that even if the claim were so limited, as
discussed infra, with respect to claims 14, 17, 22, 30, 37, 45, and 52, the
Examiner has demonstrated that it is obvious to include the sensor within an
opening and as such has shown it obvious to measure air only flowing
through one opening. Further, we note Kates, in paragraph 48, discusses a
method of measuring a parameter of only air flowing through the tile. Thus,
Appellant’s arguments directed to the first issue have not persuaded us of
error as we find ample evidence to support the Examiner’s finding that Nair
teaches a sensor to measure a parameter of air flowing through the floor tile
as recited in the independent claims.

Issue b):
We have reviewed the Examiners’ rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusion the Examiner erred by not providing a rational reason as to why
the skilled artisan would combine the references. Appellant argues that the
Examiner’s explanation as to why the skilled artisan would combine the
references is conclusory. The Examiner finds that Nair teaches an indicator
light but does not identify that it is embedded in the tile and displays the air
parameter datum. Answer 20. Further, the Examiner finds that Kates
Appeal 2009-013810
Application 11/259,847

6

teaches a floor vent which include an embedded display. Answer 20-21.
The Examiner concludes that putting the display with the datum on the tile
allows for visual inspection to aid in the location of malfunctions. Answer
21. We concur with the Examiner and consider the Examiner to have
provided a rational reason to modify the teachings of Nair. Thus, Appellant
has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred by not providing a rational
reason as to why the skilled artisan would combine the references.

Issue c):
We have reviewed the Examiners’ rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusion the Examiner erred in finding that the skilled artisan would place
the air flow sensor within one of the openings in the floor tile. The
Examiner states:
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made would find it an obvious design choice to place an air parameter
sensor at any position where air may flow through in the air flow path
as depicted in Fig. 1 of Nair which also trivializes the placement of
the air parameter sensors by placing it atop (182) as well as below
(184) the fan 172 in the air flow path illustrated by the arrows. Thus,
the placement of the sensors anywhere in the path of the airflow path
would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in
the art. Basically, there appears to be no criticality to placing the
sensors within the passageways of Appellant's invention. Placing the
sensors anywhere in the airflow allows the sensors to capture airflow
data. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill could easily physically adapt
the system so as to place the sensors within the passageways. Thus,
because of the reasons given above, one of ordinary skill in the art
would find it an obvious design choice to play the sensors within the
passageways to sense airflow data.

Appeal 2009-013810
Application 11/259,847

7

Answer 22. We concur with the Examiner’s finding. Further, we
additionally note this finding is further supported by Kates, and as discussed
supra, paragraph 48 of Kates discussed an embodiment where the fan
(which is in an opening of the floor tile) is used to measure a parameter of
the air flow. Thus, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in finding that the skilled artisan would place the air flow
sensor within one of the openings in the floor tile.

SUMMARY
Appellant’s arguments directed to the three issues discussed above
have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 5
through 9, 12 through 17, 20 through 25, 28 through 32, 35 through 40, 43
through 47, and 50 through 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 5 through 9, 12
through 17, 20 through 25, 28 through 32, 35 through 40, 43 through 47, and
50 through 63 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ELD