Ex Parte Douglas

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2018

12279224 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/279,224 08/13/2008 Alexander Ulrich Douglas
24737 7590 01/02/2019
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2006P00156WOUS 9445
EXAMINER
PIZIALI, ANDREW T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1789
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/02/2019 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):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXANDER ULRICH DOUGLAS
Appeal2018-002576
Application 12/279,224
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Applicant ("Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Primary Examiner's final decision to reject claims 1, 6-8, and 17-26. 2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as "KONINKLIJKE
PHILIPS N.V." (Appeal Brief filed October 10, 2017 ("Appeal Br."), at 2
(not paginated)).
2 Appeal Br. 2-12; Reply Brief filed January 11, 2018 ("Reply Br."), at 1-
10; Final Office Action entered May 16, 2017 ("Final Act."), at 2-11;
Examiner's Answer entered November 17, 2017 ("Ans."), at 4--17.
Appeal 2018-002576
Application 12/279,224
I. BACKGROUND
In an earlier appeal in this application, we affirmed the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1 and 4--8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or (e) as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over two prior art patent publications. Ex parte Douglas, https://e-
foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrievePdf?system=BP AI&flNm=fd2013001 l 93-12-
30-2014-1_. Following further prosecution that included claim amendments,
the current appeal, in which the same references are relied on as evidence,
ensued.
The subject matter on appeal relates to a structure comprising a fabric
made of fibers on which electronic components are mounted (Specification
filed August 13, 2008 ("Spec.") 1, 11. 5--6). Representative claim 1 is
reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief with emphasis
added, as follows:
1. A structure comprising:
a fabric comprising a warp and weft of fibres, each of the
warp and weft comprising a combination of electrically
conducting fibres and electrically non-conducting fibres,
wherein a plurality of warp and wefts combine to
form a woven structure having a first and second side;
a plurality of electronic components mounted onto the
fibres on the first side, each electronic component connected to
at least one electrically conducting fibre;
at least one electrically conductive bridge component
connecting a pair of electrically conducting fibres; and
a plurality of end of line elements, wherein each of the
plurality of end of line elements is connected in parallel to a
discrete plurality of line elements, wherein there is no direct
connection between any of the discrete pluralities of line
elements,
wherein at least one line element is reconfigurable from a
first sensing functionality to a second sensing functionality,
2
Appeal 2018-002576
Application 12/279,224
wherein each of the plurality of end of line elements
is configured to:
assign a unique identification to each
connected line element, and
reconfigure each connected reconfigurable
line element.
(Appeal Br. 13 (not paginated)).
II. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, the Examiner maintains two rejections, as follows:
A. Claims 1, 6-8, and 17-26 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
obvious over Glaser et al. 3 ("Glaser '731 "); and
B. Claims 1, 6-8, and 17-26 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(e) as anticipated
by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over
Glaser '554.
(Ans. 4--17; Final Act. 2-11).
III. DISCUSSION
Because both rejections rely on Glaser '554 and are identical in
substance, we limit our discussion to Rejection B. We focus our review on
claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal.
The Examiner finds that Glaser '554 describes every limitation recited
in claim 1 or, in the alternative, would have rendered claim 1 's subject
matter obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (Ans. 7-8).
3 WO 2004/076731 Al, published September 10, 2004. The Examiner
relies on Glaser et al., US 2006/0035554 Al, published February 16, 2006
("Glaser '554"), as an English language translation (Ans. 4; Final Act. 3).
The Appellant does not object (Appeal Br. 3).
3
Appeal 2018-002576
Application 12/279,224
Specifically, with respect to the "each of the plurality of end of line elements
is connected in parallel to a discrete plurality of line elements" ( emphasis
added), limitation recited in claim 1, the Examiner finds that each of Glaser
'554's electronic components 1, 11, and 21 as shown in Figure 3
corresponds to the Appellant's "plurality of end of line elements" and each
group of Glaser '554's electronic components 2-5, 12-15, and 17-20 as
shown in the same figure corresponds to the Appellant's "discrete plurality
of line elements" (Ans. 7). The Examiner states that the Appellant admitted
that Glaser '554's electronic components are interconnected in a combined
parallel and series configuration, and, because claim 1 recites the open
transitory term "comprising," the series connections are not excluded by the
claim (Ans. 10) (referring to, e.g., Reply filed January 17, 2017 at 9 ("As
shown in Figure 3 of Glaser ['554] and explained above, the components are
interconnected in a combined parallel and series configuration.")). The
Examiner also finds, inter alia, that "[ n Jot even the Figures [ 1, 3, and 7] of
the current application show an electrical parallel connection between the
end of line elements and the line elements" (Ans. 12), noting that, instead,
the figures show the line elements to be connected in parallel (id.). The
Examiner concludes that even if Glaser '554 describes only series
connections, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious to use parallel connections because either connection method would
provide power to the microelectronic components, and it would have been
within the general skill of the ordinary worker in the art to select a known
connection method on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics
(id.).
4
Appeal 2018-002576
Application 12/279,224
Regarding the "at least one line element is reconfigurable from a first
sensing functionality to a second sensing functionality" limitation recited in
claim 1, the Examiner finds that "[ e Jach line element is capable of
reconfiguration, first sensing location (line element distance) and then
sensing pressure, heat, smoke, optics, and/or noise" (Ans. 7). In addition,
the Examiner finds that "[ e Jach of the plurality of end of line elements is
configured to assign a unique identification (location) to each connected line
element and reconfigure each connected reconfigurable line element (in
response to defective areas)" (id.). Furthermore, the Examiner finds that the
Appellant asserts "sense" means "detect" (id. at 15), and, in our previous
Decision, we "already ruled that the function of self-organization [ as
disclosed in Glaser '554J is a detection (sensing) function" (id.).
For the reasons given by the Appellant and below, the Examiner's
rejections are not well-founded. Regarding the "each of the plurality of end
of line elements is connected in parallel to a discrete plurality of line
elements" limitation recited in claim 1, the current Specification reasonably
informs one skilled in the relevant art that the "connected in parallel" phrase
refers to the type of connection as illustrated in Figure 3 in which "[tJhe
groups of line elements 12 are connected in parallel to their respective end of
line element[ s J 1 O" (Spec. 8, 11. 13-15 (bolding added); Drawings filed
August 13, 2008, Fig. 3). When the disputed claim limitation is read in light
of the Specification and Drawings, one skilled in the relevant art would
understand that the disputed claim limitation does not read on Glaser '554's
electronic components ( e.g., electronic components 1-5) that appear to be
coupled directly to each other (Glaser '554 ,r 31 and Fig. 3).
5
Appeal 2018-002576
Application 12/279,224
The Reply filed January 17, 201 7 ("Reply"), for example, does
contain a statement that the electronic components shown in Glaser '554's
Figure 3 "are interconnected in a combined parallel and series
configuration" (Reply 9). But we do not consider that statement to be an
admission that Glaser '554's electronic component 1, which the Examiner
considers to be an end of line element, is connected in parallel to electronic
components 2-5, which the Examiner considers to be the "discrete plurality
of line elements." In any event, the Appellant argues the opposite in this
appeal (Appeal Br. 5 ("Applicant respectfully submits that the
microelectronic modules shown in a line in Figure 3, such as elements 1-5,
are not connected in parallel."); bolding added).
Alternatively, the Examiner concludes that a person having ordinary
skill in the art would have found it obvious to select either an "in series" or
"in parallel" connection configuration in Glaser '554 (Ans. 12). That
conclusion, however, is not based on any facts but merely a conclusory
statement, which is insufficient as an articulated reason for modifying Glaser
'554 in the manner claimed. In re Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1381-82
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (conclusory statement by an expert on obviousness that the
modification would provide "additional information" held insufficient).
We also disagree with the Examiner that Glaser '554 describes the "at
least one line element is reconfigurable from a first sensing functionality to a
second sensing functionality" limitation recited in claim 1. Glaser '554
teaches that each microelectronic component is coupled to at least one
adjacent microelectronic component in order to facilitate exchange of
messages between the microelectronic components for the purpose of
determining a respective distance of a microelectronic component from a
6
Appeal 2018-002576
Application 12/279,224
reference position (Glaser '554 ,r 31 ). Although Glaser '554 further teaches
coupling at least one sensor to the microelectronic components, which may
be processor units (id. ,r 39), the communication function described for the
microelectronic components to determine a respective distance cannot
reasonably be considered a "sensing functionality" as that term would be
understood by one skilled in the relevant art in light of the Specification
(Spec. 1, 1. 5-3, 1. 4, and 7, 11. 29-31 ).
The Examiner states that, because the "Appellant asserts that 'sense'
means 'to detect[]" and we "already ruled [ in the prior Decision at page 4]
that [Glaser '554's] function of self-organization is a detection (sensing)
function," detecting a position as disclosed in Glaser '554 is a sensing
function (Ans. 15, emphasis omitted). For the reasons given by the
Appellant (Appeal Br. 8-9), the Examiner's construction is-in our view-
based on isolated statements that are taken out of context.
For these reasons, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejections.
IV. SUMMARY
The Examiner's final decision to reject claims 1, 6-8, and 17-26 is
reversed.
REVERSED
7