Ex Parte Grilliot et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 18, 2016

12485491 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/485,491 06/16/2009
93730 7590 03/22/2016
HONEYWELL/WOOD PHILLIPS
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
William L. Grilliot
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.
H0023517/8364/l 08483/2800 3320
EXAMINER
LIEU, JULIE BICHNGOC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2684
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2016 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):
ksanderson@woodphillips.com
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
docketing@woodphillips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM L. GRILLIOT, MARY I. GRILLIOT, and
MICHAEL A. SCHUBERT
Appeal2014-006703
Application 12/485,491
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, and 11, which are all the
claims pending in this appeal. Claims 6 and 9 have been cancelled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Honeywell
International, Inc. App. Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed January 2, 2014
("App. Br."); Reply Brief filed May 27, 2014 ("Reply Br."); Examiner's
Answer mailed March 26, 2014 ("Ans."); Final Office Action mailed
November 7, 2013 ("Final Act."); and original Specification filed June 16,
2009 ("Spec.").
Appeal2014-006703
Application 12/485,491
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention relates to a wearable electronic device capable
of acquiring and transmitting physiological data. Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1 is the
only independent claim and is illustrative of Appellants' invention, as
reproduced below:
1. A communications system comprising:
a wearable, personal communications unit which
includes:
a housing, the housing has attachment elements which
engage a respective individual;
at least one transceiver carried by the housing;
control circuits in wireless communication with the
transceiver;
a plurality of physiological sensors coupled to the control
circuits; and
a graphical display and user interface coupled to the
control circuits,
wherein the control circuits receive physiological
information, associated with the individual, from at least one of
the physiological sensors, and determine when an alarm is
necessary based on the received physiological information,
wherein, based on a location of the unit in an ambient
region, the control circuits receive ambient information about
developing or dangerous conditions in the ambient region from
a plurality of ambient condition sensors in the ambient region
and in wireless communication with and displaced from, and
external to the unit, and
wherein the control circuits, responsive to outputs from
the physiological sensors or the ambient condition sensors, can
present the physiological information or the ambient
information on the graphical display to indicate an alarm
2
Appeal2014-006703
Application 12/485,491
indicating physiological condition, associated with the
individual, or an alarm indicating ambient condition
endangering the individual.
App. Br. 10 (Claims App'x) (disputed limitation in italics).
Kiff et al.
Tran
LeBoeuf et al.
Evidence Considered
US 2006/0071798 Al
US 2008/0004904 Al
US 8,157,730 B2
Examiner's Rejections
Apr. 6, 2006
Jan.3,2008
Apr. 17, 2012
(1) Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over LeBoeuf and Kiff. Final Act. 2--4.
(2) Claims 2-5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over LeBoeuf, Kiff, and Tran. Final Act. 4--
6.
Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants' arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether the Examiner's combination of LeBoeuf and Kiff teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation:
"based on a location of the unit in an ambient region, the control
circuits receive ambient information about developing or
dangerous conditions in the ambient region from a plurality of
ambient condition sensors in the ambient region and in wireless
communication with and displaced from, and external to the
unit"
'
as recited in Appellants' independent claim 1. App. Br. 3-8 (emphasis
added).
3
Appeal2014-006703
Application 12/485,491
ANALYSIS
In support of the rejection of independent claim 1, the Examiner finds
LeBoeuf discloses a wearable personal communication unit 10, shown in
Figure 1, equipped with all the claim elements including, for example: a
housing 18; at least one transceiver 14 carried by the housing 18; control
circuits 17 in wireless communication with the transceiver 14; physiological
sensors 11; ambient indication sensors (environment sensors) 12; a graphical
display and user interface 24 (shown in Figure 2), wherein the control
circuits 17 receive physiological information associated with an individual
from at least one of the physiological sensors 11 and ambient information
from the ambient indication sensors 12 and present the physiological
information or the ambient information as an alarm indicating physiological
condition associated with the individual or ambient condition endangering
the individual. Final Act. 3--4 (citing LeBoeuf 12:49---67, 17:25-55, 19:1-
20; Fig. 1).
LeBoeuf s Figure 1 is reproduced below with additional markings for
illustration.
FIG. l
i7
j
/
LeBoeufs Figure 1 shows a wearable unit 10.
4
Appeal2014-006703
Application 12/485,491
The Examiner acknowledges LeBoeufs ambient indication sensors 12
are located in an ambient region, but are internal to the wearable personal
communication unit 10, and are not external to the wearable personal
communication unit 10. Id. at 3. However, the Examiner takes the position
that "concept of monitoring the ambient environment of the general region
or area where the user is located [i.e., external to the monitoring device] to
determine if the surrounding condition may aggravate or cause undesirable
discomfort or danger to the wearer of the monitoring device" is well known
and would have been obvious to those skilled in the art as evidenced from
Kiff. Id. at 3--4 (citing Kiff i-f 11 ). The cited paragraph of Kiff describes the
use of one or more environmental temperature sensors and other types of
sensors external to a wearable device to monitor different types of activities.
Appellants argue LeBoeuf teaches away from Appellants' claimed
invention. App. Br. 5---6. In particular, Appellants argue, because LeBoeuf s
environment sensors 12 are internal, part of the wearable device 10, and
should always be part of the wearable device 10 (Reply Br. 4), LeBoeuf
teaches away from Appellants' claimed invention using ambient indication
(environmental) sensors that are external to the wearable device 10. Id. at 4-
5.
Appellants also argue there is no teaching or motivation to combine
the references. App. Br. 6-8. According to Appellants, the problem solved
by Appellants is that of collecting and displaying their own physiological
conditions and external threats to first responders in hazardous situations.
Because this problem is not recognized by LeBoeuf, Appellants argue there
5
Appeal2014-006703
Application 12/485,491
is no reason to combine LeBoeuf and Kiff to arrive at Appellants' claimed
invention.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. At the outset, we
note both LeBoeuf s disclosure and Appellants' claimed invention are
directed to a wearable device capable of receiving and transmitting
physiological data. "A reference may be said to teach away when a person
of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from
following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction
divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant." In re Gurley, 27
F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Mere description of an implementation in
the prior art that differs from Appellants' claimed invention, without more,
does not show that the prior art is "teaching away" from the invention
claimed. In re Fulton, 391F.3d1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("The prior
art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a
teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does
not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.").
Here, Appellants have not presented any evidence or arguments to
persuade us that using environmental sensors that are external to the
wearable device, as opposed to internal to the wearable device to monitor
environmental or ambient conditions as disclosed by LeBoeuf, would
disparage or otherwise discourage one of ordinary skill in the art from the
path described in Appellants' claimed invention. Thus, we do not find
LeBoeuf teaches away from Appellants' claimed invention.
Second, we recognize that the Examiner must articulate some
"reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion
of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). However,
6
Appeal2014-006703
Application 12/485,491
the reasoning need not appear in, or be expressly described by one or more
of the cited references. Instead, a reason to combine teachings from the
prior art "may be found in explicit or implicit teachings within the references
themselves, from the ordinary knowledge of those skilled in the art, or from
the nature of the problem to be solved." WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int'! Game
Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d
1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). "Under the correct [obviousness] analysis,
any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention
and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements
in the manner claimed." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420
(2007).
Here, the Examiner has demonstrated the motivation for a person of
ordinary skill in the art to achieve the claimed subject matter, i.e., the use of
ambient indication sensors in an ambient region and external to the wearable
device to further enhance the function of the wearable device. Final Act. 4.
Certainly, the modification of LeBoeufs wearable device 10 to locate the
ambient indication sensors external to the wearable device "would provide
more accurate measurement of environmental temperature external to the
wearer's skin and body than when incorporated into the device, which is laid
next to the wearer's skin." Ans. 7-8. Based on this record, we find the
Examiner has articulated a reason with rational underpinnings to support
combining the cited references and the conclusion of obviousness.
For the reasons set forth above, Appellants have not persuaded us of
Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of independent claim 1 and their respective dependent claims 2-5,
7, 8, 10, and 11, which Appellants do not argue separately. App. Br. 8.
7
Appeal2014-006703
Application 12/485,491
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, and 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-5, 7,
8, 10, and 11.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8