Ex Parte Grimm et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 27, 2012

11281350 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 27, 2012)

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.
11/281,350 11/17/2005 Ulrich Grimm A-4278 2895
24131 7590 07/30/2012
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
P O BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480
EXAMINER
HINZE, LEO T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2854
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ULRICH GRIMM, CARSTEN HUSCHLE, and
THOMAS WOLF
____________________

Appeal 2011-006065
Application 11/281,350
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before KARL D. EASTHOM, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.

ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Braune (US 6,778,092 B2, issued August 17, 2004) and of claim 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Braune. (Examiner’s Answer, dated
October 13, 2010, “Ans.” 3-7.)
We sustain the above rejections.
Appellants’ arguments center around whether the prior art discloses
the limitation “acting on the state of the hazardous area of the machine with
the machine control system only if, in the current operating state, there is an
acute risk to the object in the hazardous area.” (App. Br. 6-14.)
Appeal 2011-006065
Application 11/281,350

2
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments based on the findings
of fact, conclusions of law, and rebuttals to Appellants’ arguments expressed
by the Examiner in the Answer. (Ans. 7-16.) We further note, for emphasis
only, that we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that Braune’s safe
region would not be considered a “hazardous area,” as recited in the claims.
In this regard, Appellants’ Specification does not provide an express
definition of “hazardous area.” Appellants also do not direct our attention to
sufficient evidence from which to conclude that the plain meaning of
“hazardous area” would necessarily exclude the regions and boundaries
disclosed by Braune. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (during examination of a patent application, pending
claims are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
Specification). Regardless of the nomenclature used by Braune, Braune’s
safety region is part of the overall monitoring region, which inherently is
monitored for potentially hazardous activity or risks, at the boundary and
throughout the region. (Col. 1, ll. 15-20, 28-41, Col. 2, ll. 8-18; Fig. 2.)
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Braun discloses a hazardous area as
recited in the claims.
In light of the above, the Examiner correctly found that Braune’s
apparatus makes a determination as to whether there is an acute risk to an
object (i.e., materials-handling truck) in a hazardous area based on the
operating state of the machine. (Col. 4, ll. 34-41; Col 7, ll. 2-7; Ans. 9-10.)
Appeal 2011-006065
Application 11/281,350

3
Accordingly, the decision of the Examiner 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).

AFFIRMED

cu