Ex Parte Grimm et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 27, 201211281350 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 27, 2012) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation