Ex Parte Nollet

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 26, 2018

13502482 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/502,482 04/17/2012
60601 7590 07/26/2018
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C.
4000 Legato Road
Suite 310
Fairfax, VA 22033
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michel Nollet
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.
4005/0464PUS 1 4263
EXAMINER
LU,ZHIYU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/26/2018 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHEL NOLLET
Appeal2018-001550
Application 13/502,482 1
Technology Center 2600
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 11-14, and 19, which constitute all of
the claims pending in this application. Claims 2, 3, 6, 10, and 15-18 have
been cancelled. Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Sagem Defense Securite as the real party in interest.
Br. 2.
Appeal2018-001550
Application 13/502,482
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed to "a method of
conveying data between two electronic apparatuses carried or worn by at
least one user" and "a set of at least two apparatuses for implementing the
method." Spec. 1: 5-9. 2
Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitations italicized, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system comprising:
a first apparatus and a second apparatus that are secured
to a garment, each of which includes an electrical signal
processor unit connected to a first electrically conductive plate
and a second electrically conductive plate, the first electrically
conductive plate of the first apparatus and the first electrically
conductive plate of the second apparatus being arranged to
establish a first connection, the second electrically conductive
plate of the first apparatus and the second electrically conductive
plate of the second apparatus being arranged to establish a
second connection, the first connection and the second
connection forming a circuit for transmitting data, the first plate
of the first apparatus and the first plate of the second apparatus
facing an inside surface of the garment, the second plate of the
first apparatus and the second plate of the second apparatus
being arranged to be fastened substantially facing and in the
vicinity of the skin of an user, the first connection making use of
at least one external capacitive coupling and the second
connection making use of a conduction coupling with the skin of
the user and/of the garment, the electrical signal processor units
of the first and second apparatuses being arranged:
from one of the first apparatus and the second apparatus,
to introduce a signal into the circuit for transmitting an electrical
signal, which signal corresponds to data for transmission, such
2 We refer to the Specification filed Apr. 17, 2012 ("Spec."); Final Office
Action mailed Dec. 5, 2016 ("Final Act."); Appeal Brief filed June 1, 2017
("Br."); and Examiner's Answer mailed Oct. 4, 2017 ("Ans.").
2
Appeal2018-001550
Application 13/502,482
that the signal passes in the form of a field in the first connection;
and in the other of one of the first apparatus and the second
apparatus, to receive the signal and process it in order to recover
the data.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Doi et al.
(hereinafter "Doi")
US 2002/0030585 Al
Fukumoto et al. US 2006/0153109 Al
(hereinafter "Fukumoto")
Soar
Tanaka
US 2011/0031928 Al
US 2011/0175879 Al
REJECTIONS
Mar. 14, 2002
July 13, 2006
Feb. 10,2011
July 21, 2011
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 13, 14, and 19 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Tanaka, Fukumoto, and Soar.
Ans. 2.
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Tanaka, Fukumoto, Soar, and Doi. Ans. 7.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant. We
are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments regarding the pending claims,
and, instead we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken (Final Act. 4--9), and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the
Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' arguments (Ans. 8-12). We
3
Appeal2018-001550
Application 13/502,482
incorporate such findings, reasons, and rebuttals herein by reference unless
otherwise noted. However, we highlight and address specific findings and
arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellant argues Fukumoto's conductive plates "are used for only one
connection," and that Fukumoto does not teach the plates being arranged to
establish a second connection as claimed. App. Br. 9. Specifically,
Appellant argues Fukumoto shows only "a single electrostatic connection
and need not even contact the human body at both ends." App. Br. 10
( citing Fukumoto Fig. 14 ).
We agree with the Examiner's interpretation that the claimed "first
connection and the second connection forming a circuit for transmitting
data" requires the electrically conductive plates form connection "for at least
one data transmission link ( either a single data transmission link or two
separate data transmission links)." Ans. 9-10. We agree with the Examiner
that the claim does not require what Appellant argues is missing, "excluding
two connections forming a circuit for two separate data transmission links,
excluding floor or air for return path, excluding having one connection for
power transmission." Ans. 9. As such, the claimed electrically conductive
plates establishing a second connection and the connections forming a
circuit for transmitting data does not preclude plates establishing
connections that communicate over the human body.
As cited by the Examiner (Ans. 4), Fukumoto teaches "TRX 1-TRX4
performs electric field communications" and the "human body HB functions
as a bus for communications among I/0 device, storage device, and gateway
apparatus." Fukumoto ,r 258.
4
Appeal2018-001550
Application 13/502,482
Figure 17 of Fukumoto is reproduced below:
~
\~
WAN
Fukumoto Figure 1 7 "shows generally a third example of communication"
and depicts a layout example for communications among electric field
apparatus TRX1-TRX4 in accordance with Appellant's claim 1. See
Fukumoto ,r 152. Figure 17, supported by Paragraph 258, shows conductive
plates for each of the apparatuses TRX1-TRX4 in the vicinity of the human
body and forming multiple connections through the human body through
which to communicate.
Appellant has not responded to the Examiner's findings pertaining to
Figure 17 of Fukumoto, or otherwise persuasively argued why Fukumoto's
apparatuses, via electrodes, communicating over connections through the
human body does not teach the claimed "the second electrically conductive
5
Appeal2018-001550
Application 13/502,482
plate of the first apparatus and the second electrically conductive plate of
the second apparatus being arranged to establish a second connection, the
first connection and the second connection forming a circuit for transmitting
data." Because Appellant does not address the reasoning relied on by the
Examiner and, thus, does not adequately address the rejection on appeal, we
are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072,
107 5 (BP AI 2010) (precedential) ("If an appellant fails to present arguments
on a particular issue - or, more broadly, on a particular rejection-the
Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested
aspects of the rejection."). Instead, we agree with the Examiner in finding
the above combination teaches this disputed element. 3
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, along
with the rejections of dependent claims 4, 5, 7-9, 11-14, and 19, which are
not argued separately.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's decisions rejecting
claims 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 11-14, and 19.
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
3 Additionally, we note that Claim 1 recites "the second connection making
use of a conduction coupling with the skin of the user and/of the garment"
( emphasis added), which contains a typographical error. Guidance from the
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure provides that Appellant "has an
opportunity and a duty to amend ambiguous claims to clearly and precisely
define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention." MPEP 2173.02.
6