Ex Parte Zerwekh et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 201311038665 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte WILLIAM D. ZERWEKH and TED R. MARTINEZ _____________ Appeal 2010-009602 Application 11/038,665 Technology Center 2600 ______________ Before ERIC B. CHEN, BRYAN F. MOORE, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-009602 Application 11/038,665 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-4, 7-10, 12-15, 17-24, 27-28, and 30-32. App. Br. 2. Claims 2, 5-6, 16, and 25-26 are canceled. Id. Claims 11 and 29 are allowed. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. INVENTION The invention is directed to a method and system for implementing an integrated vehicle detection and monitoring system. See Spec. ¶ [002]. Claim 1 is exemplary of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A method for implementing an integrated detection and monitoring system, comprising: concealing a first detector by placing the first detector into a first trailer to provide a first mobile detector; concealing a second detector by placing a second detector into a second trailer to provide a second mobile detector; transporting the first and second mobile detectors to a security checkpoint, and positioning the first and second mobile detectors on each side of a road, such that the first and second mobile detectors do not straddle or form an overhang over the road, wherein the first and second mobile detectors are configured to be deployed covertly and non-conspicuously at the security checkpoint for anti-terrorism monitoring the road; using the first and second mobile detectors to scan vehicles that pass by to detect levels of one or more designated materials, wherein the vehicles pass by in-between the first and second mobile detectors without entering an internal opening of either one of the first and second mobile detectors, if any material detected exceeds a threshold alarm level for one of the vehicles, storing the detected level of the material in a file that is associated with the vehicle, and wirelessly transmitting the file to a command center to notify authorities. Appeal 2010-009602 Application 11/038,665 3 REFERENCES Fraden US 5,019,804 May 28, 1991 Glier US 2002/0054210 A1 May 9, 2002 Le US 2004/0017887 A1 Jan. 29, 2004 Shannon US 2004/ 227530 A1 Nov. 18, 2004 Adams US 2004/ 256565 A1 Dec. 23, 2004 Guillebaud US 2006/0081782 A1 Apr. 20, 2006 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1, 3-4, 7-10, 12-14, 17-21, 23-24, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Le, Fraden, and Guillebaud. Ans. 3-7. Claims 15 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Le, Fraden, Guillebaud, and Glier. Ans. 7-8. Claim 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Le, Fraden, Guillebaud, and Adams. Ans. 8-9. Claims 30-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Le, Fraden, Guillebaud, and Shannon. Ans. 9-11. ISSUE 1. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Le and Fraden teach “concealing a second detector by placing a second detector into a second trailer to provide a second mobile detector … positioning the first and second mobile detectors on each side of Appeal 2010-009602 Application 11/038,665 4 a road, such that the first and second mobile detectors do not straddle or form an overhang over the road, wherein the first and second mobile detectors are configured to be deployed covertly and non-conspicuously at the security checkpoint for anti-terrorism monitoring the road;” as recited in claim 1? 1 ANALYSIS Appellants argue: When stating that Le does not expressly teach concealing a second detector by placing a second detector into a second trailer provide a second mobile detector, the Examiner simply states "Fraden discloses concealing a detector; wherein the detector is configured to be deployed covertly and not conspicuously. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above art/combination to teach ... ," and the Examiner then merely inserts Applicant's claim language for concealing a second detector. App. Br. 15. Further, Appellants argue, “Since Fraden does not teach, suggest or even include the word "trailer", it is unclear what component in Le the Examiner is construing as the ‘second trailer.’” App. Br. 16. We are persuaded by this argument. The Examiner states that: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above art/combination to teach concealing a second detector by placing a second detector into a second trailer to provide a second mobile detector; wherein the first and second mobile detectors are configured to be deployed covertly and non- conspicuously at the security checkpoint for antiterrorism 1 Appellants make additional arguments. App. Br. 16-20. We do not reach these additional issues since this issue is dispositive of this appeal. Appeal 2010-009602 Application 11/038,665 5 monitoring; and to conceal the power cable (e.g. bury or tape on the ground), to conceal or camouflage detectors and/or the power cable for security, aesthetics or other reasons. Ans. 13. Although we agree with the Examiner that Fraden provides a reason to conceal a detector (Ans. 4), we do not find that the specifics disclosed in Le for implementing the combination of two concealed detectors. For example, Le requires a radiation source on one side of the road. Le, Fig. 4; ¶ 50. The Examiner has not articulated how Le could be implemented with two radiation sources or why one would be motivated to do so. Concurrently, we do not find that the Examiner has provided an articulated reason with a rational underpinning for combining Le with Fraden to arrive at the claimed limitation. As such, we conclude that the Examiner's rationale for combining Le and Fraden essentially amounts to a conclusory statement. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (holding that “rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”). Because we conclude that the Examiner's proposed combination of Le with Fraden both lacks claimed elements and is unsupported by a rational underpinning, we cannot sustain the rejections of independent claims 1 and 17, nor the claims dependent therefrom. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Independent claim 32 contains essentially the same limitation discussed above, thus, we reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 32. Appeal 2010-009602 Application 11/038,665 6 DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3-4, 7-10, 12-15, 17-24, 27-28, and 30-32 is reversed. REVERSED ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation