FreePoint Technologies Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 23, 2021

2020003896 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2021)

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.
15/707,140 09/18/2017 Paul HOGENDOORN 67631-001 PUS2 7668
26096 7590 09/23/2021
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
PAN, YUHUI R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2116
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2021 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):
cgolaw@yahoo.com
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PAUL HOGENDOORN and SOPHEAR NET
____________________

Appeal 2020 -003896
Application 15/707,1401
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, MARC S. HOFF, and
JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellant’s invention is a system for monitoring a plurality of events
in a manufacturing facility. Each monitoring device obtains data regarding a
selected one of the events. A reporting device receives the data obtained by
the monitoring devices and provides a report regarding the monitored events.

1 “Appellant” herein refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant states that the real party in interest is Freepoint Technologies, Inc.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003896
Application 15/707,140

2
Information in the report is dynamically updated to provide a real-time
indication of the characteristics of the monitored events. Abstract.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A system for monitoring a plurality of events in a
manufacturing facility, the system comprising:
a plurality of monitoring devices, each of the monitoring
devices obtains data regarding a selected one of the events; and
a reporting device that receives the data obtained by the
monitoring devices and provides a report regarding the
monitored events, the report including information regarding at
least one characteristic of each of the monitored events, the
information in the report being dynamically updated to provide
a real time indication of the characteristics of the monitored
events, the real time indications being presented in respective
cells of the report,
wherein:
a first set of the cells provides at least one indication of a
machine or equipment involved in at least one of the monitored
events,
a second set of the cells provides an indication of a status
of a machine or equipment having an indication in the first set
of the cells,
a third set of the cells provides an indication of a total run
time for a machine or equipment having an indication in the
first set of cells,
a fourth set of the cells provides an indication of a
number of cycles performed by a machine or equipment having
an indication in the first set of cells,
at least one of the monitoring devices includes a housing
mounted in a selected location relative to a selected machine,
the at least one of the monitoring devices includes a
memory and a processor in the housing,
the at least one of the monitoring devices includes a
plurality of user-defined inputs embedded in the memory or the
processor,
Appeal 2020-003896
Application 15/707,140

3
the user-defined inputs configure the at least one of the
monitoring devices to obtain selected information regarding
operation of the selected machine,
the at least one of the monitoring devices providing a
real-time, dynamically updated output to an individual machine
operator of the selected machine regarding current operation of
the selected machine.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
Pokorny US 2003/0150908 A1 Aug. 14, 2003
Carle US 2003/0212499 A1 Nov. 13, 2003
Catoen US 2011/0106288 A1 May 5, 2011

Claims 1–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Pokorny, Carle, and Catoen.

Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed Jan. 2, 2020), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Apr.
28, 2020), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Feb. 28, 2020) for
their respective details.
ISSUE
Would the person having ordinary skill in the art have been motivated
to combine Pokorny, Carle, and Catoen to obtain the claimed monitoring
devices, at least one of the devices including a housing mounted in a
selected location relative to a selected machine, a memory and processor in
the housing, a plurality of user-defined inputs embedded in said memory, the
user-defined input configuring the at least one of the monitoring devices to
obtain selected information regarding operation of the selected machine?
Appeal 2020-003896
Application 15/707,140

4
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Where the claimed subject matter involves more than the simple
substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a
known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement, a holding
of obviousness must be based on “an apparent reason to combine the known
elements in the fashion claimed.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007). That is, “there must be some articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”
Id. (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Such reasoning
can be based on interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of
demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace, and
the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in
the art. Id. at 416–19.

ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, a plurality of monitoring
devices; at least one of the monitoring devices including a housing, in which
a memory and processor are mounted, a plurality of user-defined inputs
embedded in said memory; the user-defined inputs configuring at least one
monitoring device to obtain selected information; the at least one monitoring
device providing a real-time, dynamically updated output to an individual
machine operator regarding current operation.
The Examiner finds that Pokorny teaches the system for monitoring
events in a manufacturing facility, but does not teach the various structural
details of the claimed monitoring devices. The Examiner finds that Carle
teaches the structural details claimed. Final Act. 5–6.
Appeal 2020-003896
Application 15/707,140

5
Appellant argues that the person of ordinary skill in the art would not
have been motivated to modify Pokorny in view of Carle to obtain the
“greater modularity and ease of data communication” touted in Carle
because Pokorny itself teaches a modular device. Appeal Br. 5–6, citing
Carle ¶ 6. Since Pokorny is already scaleable for use in multiple locations
without the teachings of Carle, argues Appellant, there would be no need to
modify Pokorny, and no benefit to having done so. Appeal Br. 6–7.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. We agree with the
Examiner that given Pokorny’s silence concerning the structure of its
monitoring device, the person having ordinary skill would in fact have
motivation to modify Pokorny in view of the structural teachings of Carle.
Ans. 3–4. We determine that the person having ordinary skill in the art,
considering the teachings of Pokorny and Carle in their entirety, would have
been motivated to improve Pokorny so as to include monitoring devices
having memory and processor in a housing mounted proximate to a
machine, in order to obtain selected operation regarding operation of said
machine and providing real-time output to a machine operator, as taught by
Carle but missing from Pokorny. Final Act. 4.
Because Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner
erred, we will sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 1–18.
CONCLUSION
The person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated
to combine Pokorny, Carle, and Catoen to obtain the claimed monitoring
devices, at least one of the devices including a housing mounted in a
selected location relative to a selected machine, a memory and processor in
the housing, a plurality of user-defined inputs embedded in said memory, the
Appeal 2020-003896
Application 15/707,140

6
user-defined input configuring the at least one of the monitoring devices to
obtain selected information regarding operation of the selected machine.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–18 103 Pokorny, Carle,
Catoen
1–18

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–18 is affirmed.
No time period for taking subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED