Starkey, Glenn

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 19, 2019

13648931 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2019)

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.
13/648,931 10/10/2012 Glenn Starkey PC-109 2569
42419 7590 12/19/2019
PAULEY ERICKSON & KOTTIS
2800 WEST HIGGINS ROAD
SUITE 365
HOFFMAN ESTATES, IL 60169
EXAMINER
GRUN, ROBERT J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1744
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2019 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 GLENN STARKEY
Appeal 2019-000708
Application 13/648,931
Technology Center 1700
BEFORE BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–7, 10, 13, 14, 16, and 19–29. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Progressive
Components Int’l Corp. (Appeal Br. unnumbered 2).
Appeal 2019-000708
Application 13/648,931
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method for displaying process data from a
mold 50 in a press 34 comprising: mounting a monitor 20 directly to the
mold; mounting a transmitter 32 directly to an outer surface of the mold or
press; and communicating output data from the monitor via a wireless
transmission by the transmitter and over a network to a data processor 40
remotely located with respect to the monitor and the transmitter
(independent claim 1). The method may include the step of converting the
data in the data processor to a visual representation comprising a graph
(independent claim 20) or the step of using plural monitors and transmitters
as well as the step of using a 2-way communication device for
communicating data/information to and from a user via the data processor
(remaining independent claim 23). Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for displaying processed data from a mold in a
press, the method comprising:
mounting a monitor directly to the mold, and within a
pocket formed within the mold, and the monitor specifically
corresponding to the mold;
the monitor having a processor and an internal memory
connected to the processor;
mounting a transmitter directly to an outer surface of the
mold or the press, the transmitter in communication with the
monitor via a wired connection with the monitor;
the monitor recording data from the mold, the processor
converting the data from input data to output data;
communicating the output data via a wireless
transmission by the transmitter and over a network to a data
processor remotely located with respect to the
monitor and the transmitter;
the data processor calculating the output data into
processed data corresponding to operating parameters of the
mold; and
Appeal 2019-000708
Application 13/648,931
3
the data processor creating a graphical user interface
displaying the processed data as a desired result viewable at the
graphical user interface located remotely with respect to the
monitor, and the desired result comprising at least one of
operating information of the mold, maintenance information of
the mold, performance of the mold, activity of the mold,
drawings of the mold and/or set up information of the mold.

REJECTION
Claims 1, 3–7, 10, 13, 14, 16, and 19–29 are rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Starkey (WO 2004/051857 A2; June 17,
2004) in view of Osborne (US 6,272,398 B1; Aug. 7, 2001) and Waser (WO
2009/052641 A1; April 30, 2009, as translated via US 2010/0242616 A1;
Sept. 30, 2010) (Final Act. 2–6).2
OPINION
We sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection for the reasons given in the
Final Office Action, the Examiner’s Answer, and below.
In rejecting the independent claims, the Examiner finds that Starkey
discloses a method for displaying process data from a mold via a monitor
comprising the step of using a transmitter for wirelessly communicating
output data from the monitor to a data processor in the form of Starkey’s
readout device or computer system comprising a graphical user interface and
a 2-way communication device (Final Act. 2–3, 5 (see Starkey 4:7–25)). In
the event Starkey is considered to not disclose a graphical user interface, the

2 The Examiner erroneously fails to include claim 21 in the statement of this
rejection (Final Act. 2). However, claim 21 is discussed in the rejection
body (id. at 4). Furthermore, Appellant does not present any arguments
specifically directed to this claim (see generally Appeal Br.). Under these
circumstances, the Examiner's error is harmless.
Appeal 2019-000708
Application 13/648,931
4
Examiner relies on Osborne for concluding that it would have been obvious
to provide Starkey with such a feature (id. at 3, 5). The Examiner relies on
Waser to support a conclusion that it would have been obvious to provide
Starkey with plural monitors and transmitters (id. at 3, 6 (citing Waser Abst.,
Fig. 1)).
Appellant argues that Starkey does not disclose a transmitter for
communicating monitor data via wireless transmission over a network to a
data processor remotely located with respect to the monitor and transmitter
as claimed (Appeal Br. unnumbered 12). According to Appellant, Starkey
uses short-range wireless protocols for communicating between devices set
adjacent to each other (id.).
In response, the Examiner points out that Appellant provides no basis
for asserting Starkey’s wireless communication is limited to short-range
wireless protocols such as Bluetooth® and that, in any case, such short-range
wireless protocols include personal area networks thereby satisfying the
network requirement of the claims (Ans. 8). The Examiner also points out
that Appellant’s apparent interpretation of the claim term “remote” is too
narrow and that the term is reasonably interpreted as encompassing
Starkey’s computer (i.e., data processor) because the computer is separate,
and therefore is remote, from the monitor and transmitter as claimed (id.).
We perceive convincing merit in the points made by the Examiner.
Appellant replies to these points by arguing that one of ordinary skill in the
art would not reasonably think Starkey discloses the network and remotely
located features recited in the claims (Reply Br. 2). However, Appellant
does not support this argument with any evidence such as citations to
Specification disclosures that distinguish these features from Starkey. On
the other hand, we observe that the Specification expressly teaches using
Appeal 2019-000708
Application 13/648,931
5
Bluetooth® technology “to wirelessly communicate information between
monitor 20, transmitter 32, and/or base station 30” (Spec. 12:17–19).
Appellant also argues that Starkey does not disclose a transmitter
mounted to the mold or press as required by independent claim 1 (Appeal
Br. unnumbered 13). This argument is unpersuasive because it fails to
address the Examiner’s reliance on Waser’s disclosure of monitors and
transmitters mounted on molds (Final Act. 3). Further, the argument is
undermined by the Examiner’s finding that one with ordinary skill in this art
would understand a transmitter to be an inherent part of the wireless
communication from Starkey’s monitor (Ans. 10–11).
Appellant’s unembellished argument that Starkey does not disclose
the base station requirement of various dependent claims (see, e.g., Appeal
Br. unnumbered 13) fails to address the Examiner’s express finding that
Starkey’s readout device or computer system constitutes a base station (Final
Act. 3, Ans. 11). For this reason, the argument lacks convincing merit.
We also are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that Starkey does
not disclose a visual representation comprising a graph as required by
independent claim 20 (Appeal Br. unnumbered 14). The Examiner
explicitly finds that Starkey discloses converting data into a visual
representation (Final Act. 4), and Appellant does not challenge this finding
(see generally Appeal Br.). One having ordinary skill in this art reasonably
would understand a visual representation to include a graph.
Appellant argues that the applied references would not have suggested
the plural monitors and transmitters required by independent claim 23 and
various dependent claims (see, e.g., Appeal Br. unnumbered 15). This
argument is not convincing because it fails to address the Examiner’s
Appeal 2019-000708
Application 13/648,931
6
reliance on Waser for concluding that it would have been obvious to provide
Starkey with plural monitors and transmitters (Final Act. 3, 6).
Appellant further argues that the 2-way communication device of
independent claim 23 distinguishes over the applied prior art (Appeal Br.
unnumbered 15). However, Starkey teaches that information may be added
to or retrieved from the memory/processor of Starkey’s counter/monitor via
the readout device or computer system (Starkey 4:7–25). This teaching
satisfies the 2-way communication device requirement of claim 23.
Appellant argues that the applied references would not have suggested
mounting transmitters directly to a top surface of a press as recited in claims
25 and 26 (Appeal Br. unnumbered 16). Appellant’s argument is
unpersuasive because it does not address the Examiner’s reliance on Waser’s
Abstract and Figure 1 (Final Act. 3, 6) which disclose a receiving module 9
(i.e., transmitter) mounted on a top surface of base plate 2 (i.e., press).
Based on the record before us, we see no distinction between the claimed
mounting of a transmitter directly to the top surface of a press and Waser’s
mounting of module 9 directly to the top surface of base plate 2.
For the reasons expressed above and given by the Examiner,
Appellant’s arguments fail to show error in the rejection of the claims before
us in this appeal.3

3 We emphasize that Appellant's arguments specifically address only the
claim limitations discussed in this opinion.
Appeal 2019-000708
Application 13/648,931
7
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–7, 10, 13, 14,
16, and 19–29.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–7, 10,
13, 14, 16,
19–29
103(a) Starkey, Osborne,
Waser
1, 3–7, 10,
13, 14, 16,
19–29

Overall
Outcome
1, 3–7, 10,
13, 14, 16,
19–29

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any 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