GOPLUG BAGS, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 18, 2021

2021001924 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 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.
15/974,031 05/08/2018 Joshua Seth Mark Cross C1917.10006US03 2690
97149 7590 05/18/2021
Maschoff Brennan
1389 Center Drive, Suite 300
Park City, UT 84098
EXAMINER
ROBBINS, JERRY D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/18/2021 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):
d@mabr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOSHUA SETH MARK CROSS
____________________

Appeal 2021-001924
Application 15/974,031
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellant1 filed a Request for Rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 on
April 28, 2021 (hereinafter “Request”), requesting that we reconsider our
Decision on Appeal of March 1, 2021 (hereinafter “Decision”). In the
Decision, we affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 5, 7
through 9, 14, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based upon Estes, and Brown;
claims 6, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based upon Estes, Brown, and
Ferrari; and claims 10 through 13, and 15 through 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
based upon Estes, Brown, Ferrari, and Carrasco-Slind. We designated our
affirmance of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 through

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2018). According to Appellant, GOPLUG BAGS, INC.
is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2021-001924
Application 15/974,031
2
13, 15 through 17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as a new grounds of
rejection. We have reconsidered our Decision in light of Appellant’s
Request for Rehearing and we have decided to modify the Decision with
respect to claim 8.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Appellant requests rehearing based on several points allegedly
misapprehended or overlooked in the Decision by the Board when it entered
a new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 against claims 4, 5, 7, 8,
and 11. Request 5–8. We will address each point in the order presented in
the Request.

First Point (claim 11)
Appellant’s first argued point is that the Board misstates the
requirements of claim 11 by stating it as “similarly recites a limitation of an
alert based upon changed location.” Request 5 (citing Decision 7–9).
Specifically, Appellant argues that:
Dependent claim 11 recites “communicat[ing] with the
portable power bank over the wireless network to present an
alert on the portable computing device when the portable
power bank is moved without a noticeable change in a
geographic position of the portable power bank.” (Emphasis
added). In other words, claim 11 presents an alert when the
portable power bank is moved (e.g., flipped over, rotated,
jostled, etc.) without the geographic position having any
noticeable change (e.g., the portable power bank is moved in
place without a noticeable change to the GPS coordinates of the
portable power bank).

Request 5. Thus, Appellant asserts:
Instead of requiring an alert “based upon changed location” as
misapprehended in the Decision, claim 11 requires the
opposite, namely, an alert “when the portable power bank is
Appeal 2021-001924
Application 15/974,031
3
moved without a noticeable change in a geographic position
of the portable power bank.” Further, all of the paragraphs
cited in the Decision (see Decision, pages 7-9) as providing
support for the new rejection of claim 11 (namely, Carrasco-
Slind, paragraph 47; and Ferrari, paragraphs 38, 51, 23, 47, and
49) each appear to teach a change in location of a bag or
luggage (e.g., a change in GPS coordinates of the bag or
luggage), rather than “the portable power bank [being] moved
without a noticeable change in a geographic position of the
portable power bank” as required by claim 11.

Request 5–6.
These arguments have not persuaded us to change the Decision. At
the outset, we note that Appellant’s Briefs presented several arguments
directed to groups of claims and while our decision addressed these
arguments as applied to different groups of claims, claim 11 was not selected
as a representative claim when considering the arguments directed to
geographic position. See Appeal Br. 7–16; Decision 6–7. Nonetheless, we
designated the rejection of claim 11 as a new rejection under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b) and as such we address Appellant’s arguments directed to claim
11 under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(3).
Appellant’s argument have not persuaded us of error in our Decision
as they are premised upon an overly narrow claim interpretation that is not
supported or compelled by Appellant’s Specification. Specifically, we
decline to interpret the claimed “without the geographic position having any
noticeable change” as being limited to being “flipped over, rotated, jostled”
or “the portable power bank is moved in place without a noticeable change
to the GPS coordinates of the portable power bank,” as argued by Appellant.
Request 5. Appellant’s Specification states
app 400 will present the user with an alert on a user interface of
the app 400 when a geographic position of the power bank
Appeal 2021-001924
Application 15/974,031
4
changes, and/or when the power bank is moved even slightly,
with or without a noticeable change in geographic position.
Also, the user interface of FIG. 41 may allow a user to select a
GPS tracking feature which tracks the geographical position of
the power bank in real-time as the power bank is moved.

Spec. ¶ 31. Appellant’s Specification provides no other discussion of an
alert or monitoring moment of the power bank. Thus, Appellant’s
Specification does not define “without a noticeable change in geographic
position” as being flipped, rotated, jostled or without change in GPS
coordinates, nor does Appellant’s Specification identify monitoring position
or movement by means other than GPS. Thus, in light of Appellant’s
Specification we consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
11 limitation of “is moved without a noticeable change in a geographic
position of the portable power bank” to include small movement that can be
observed using GPS. As identified in the Decision, Ferrari discusses using
GPS to locate and track the movement of a device. Decision 7–8 (citing
Ferrari ¶¶ 23, 38, 47, and 51). We also note that Ferrari discusses in
paragraph 47 that the device constantly monitors changes in location and
will transmit current location information “at any change in location” and
paragraph 49 discusses the device providing warning when the bag is
removed from a baggage carousel. These paragraphs also teach tracking and
alerting the user of small movement of the device. As such, Appellant’s
arguments on page 5 and 6 of the Request have not persuaded us of error in
the rejection claim 11 and we maintain our decision as to claim 11.

Second Point (claims 4, 5, 7, and 8)
Appellant’s second argued point is that the Decision, on page 9
and 10, misconstrued these claims as “claims 4, 5, 7, and 8 all require
Appeal 2021-001924
Application 15/974,031
5
turning power flow of an output ‘electrical receptacle’ to a state of
being ‘on’ or ‘off.’” Request 6. Appellant argues that paragraph 152
of Estes, cited in our decision
clearly refers to an input electrical receptacle for “input AC
power” where power is flowing into the solar panel “to charge
its batteries,” rather than an output electrical receptacle that
provides power from the internal battery (i.e., thus draining
power from the battery) as recited in claims 4, 5, 7, and 8.
Therefore, even if it is a fact that paragraph 152 of “Estes does
teach the portable computing device to communicate with the
portable power bank to turn power flow to one or more
electrical receptacles of the power banks on or off” as asserted
in the Decision (which Appellants do not concede), at best
paragraph 152 of Estes teaches turning the power flow on and
off to an input electrical receptacle (i.e., the input electrical
receptacle for “input AC Power” for charging the battery),
rather than an output electrical receptacle (for draining power
from the battery) as required by claims 4, 5, 7, and 8.
Accordingly, the Decision misapprehended the requirements of
claim claims 4, 5, 7, and 8 that the recited “electrical
receptacles” be output electrical receptacles, which are the
opposite of the input electrical receptacle taught in cited
paragraph 152 of Estes.

Request 6–7.
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us we
misapprehended the requirements of representative claim 4. Initially,
we note that Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, directed to
claim 4 were directed to the claim 4 requirements that an external
software application communicates with the power bank and perform
actions and not the specific of the actions. Appeal Br. 11–14. Claim 4
recites that the software instructions on the portable computing device
“communicate with the portable power bank over the wireless network
to turn power flow to the one or more electrical receptacles of the
Appeal 2021-001924
Application 15/974,031
6
portable power bank on or off.” Thus, claim 4 recites in the alternative
two actions (turn power flow on or turn power flow off) that can be
performed with the receptacle (recited in claim 1 as providing power
from the batteries). We note that Appellant has not contested our
affirmance of the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 where we concurred
with the Examiner’s finding that Estes teaches receptacles, items 390 in
Figure 3, which provide power from the solar panel, which includes a
battery (and is equated to the claimed power bank). Decision 5 (citing
Estes ¶¶ 84, 118, 185, Figs. 3, 11, 12B). Thus, it is uncontested that
Estes teaches receptacle that provides power from the solar panel, and
Appellant’s argument is only considered as to whether Estes teaches an
external software application which communicates with the solar panel
to control power flow from the solar panel. Appellant’s argument on
pages 6 and 7 of the Request is correct that paragraph 152 of Estes, in
that the sentence quoted on page 10 of our Decision, discusses
controlling AC power input to charge the batteries of the solar panel
not output from the solar panel. However, paragraph 152 of Estes also
states:
In another example, the client 710 may communicate with the
solar panel 730 via network 720 to instruct the solar panel 730
to operate off of the DC power provided by the internal
batteries included in the solar panel 730 during peak utility
hours. . . . The client 710 may then communicate with the solar
panel 730 to run off of its charged internal batteries during peak
hours when the grid is stressed.

Estes ¶ 152. Thus, paragraph 152 of Estes, cited in the Decision, to
support our affirmance and new rejection of claim 4, also shows that an
external software application communicates with the power bank to
Appeal 2021-001924
Application 15/974,031
7
turn on power flow from the solar bank. We additionally note that,
Estes states that the client may remotely control the output power of the
solar panel (and its batteries) which further supports the affirmance of
claim 4. Estes ¶ 155. As such, Appellant’s arguments directed to claims
4, 5, 7, and 8 on pages 6 and 7 of the Request have not persuaded us of
error in the obviousness rejection of claims 4, 5, and 7 (Appellant
presents an additional argument directed to claim 8 which we address
infra). Accordingly, we maintain our decision as to the rejection claims
4, 5, and 7.

Third Point (claim 8)
Appellant’s third argued point also relates to claim 8 and asserts
“the Decision misapprehended the requirements of claim 8 that is
triggered by a ‘preset charge threshold.’” Request 7–8. Appellant
argues that the decision cites paragraphs 152 and 244 of Estes as
teaching a preset time and schedule but does not mention the preset
charge threshold as recited in claim 8. Request 7–8 (citing Decision
11, 12).
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us to change our decision
regarding claim 8. Initially, we note that Appellant’s arguments in the
Appeal Brief, grouped claims 5, 6, and 8 and were directed to the claim
limitations directed to performing actions in response to preset values.
Appeal Br. 15. We treated these claims as grouped together and
addressed the arguments as applied to claim 5 (which recites “a preset
schedule” and does not recite “a preset charge threshold”) which we
selected as representative of the group. Decision 11. As such, our
Decision did not address the limitations of claim 8 (which was grouped
Appeal 2021-001924
Application 15/974,031
8
with claim 5); nonetheless because our rejection of claim 8 was
designated as a new grounds of rejection, we now consider Appellant’s
new argument directed to claim 8. Claim 8 recites a limitation directed
to a portable computing device communicating with the portable power
bank over the wireless network, to turn off power flow to the one or
more electrical receptacles, once a charge percentage of the power bank
reaches or drops below a preset charge threshold. In the Final Action,
the Examiner cites to Estes as teaching this feature. Final Act. 7 (citing
Estes ¶ 224). We have reviewed the teachings of Estes cited by the
Examiner in the Final Action and the Answer and concur with
Appellant that the Examiner has not shown that the combination of
Estes and Brown teaches the disputed limitation. Accordingly, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 and change our decision
to reflect this.

CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, Appellant’s contentions have not
persuaded us to change our Decision with respect to the rejections of claims
1 through 7 and 9 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, however, Appellant has
persuaded us to change or Decision with respect to the rejection of claim 8.
Outcome of Decision on Rehearing:
Appeal 2021-001924
Application 15/974,031
9
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ 
Reference(s)/Basis Denied Granted
4, 5, 7, 8

103 Estes, Brown 4, 5, 7, 8
11 103 Estes, Brown,
Ferrari, Carrasco-
Slind
11
Overall
Outcome
4, 5, 7, 11 8

Final Outcome of Appeal after Rehearing:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ 
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7–9,
14, 18

103 Estes, Brown 1–5, 7, 9,
14, 18

8
6, 19, 20 103 Estes, Brown,
Ferrari
6, 19, 20
10–13, 15–
17
103 Estes, Brown,
Ferrari, Carrasco-
Slind
10–13, 15–
17

Overall
Outcome
1–7, 9–20 8

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

REQUEST FOR REHEARING GRANTED IN PART