Ex Parte Grilliot et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 18, 201612485491 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation