Stephen David. Worthington et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 20, 2019

13015327 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 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.
13/015,327 01/27/2011 Stephen David Worthington H0027804 _5706-33800 2414
14941 7590 11/20/2019
HONEYWELL/WICK PHILLIPS
Honeywell International Inc
115 Tabor Road
PO Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
TERRELL, EMILY C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/20/2019 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):
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
wppatents@wickphillips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte STEPHEN DAVID WORTHINGTON, JERRY
WAYNE EVANS, and PATRICK GERARD HOGAN
____________________

Appeal 2018-001876
Application 13/015,327
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JAMES B. ARPIN, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 3–5 and 8–24, all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE and enter NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Honeywell
International, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-001876
Application 13/015,327

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention is directed to systems and methods for detecting,
generating, and reporting robust man-down alarms. Spec. ¶ 1. The system
includes a plurality of wireless detectors 110 communicating with central
station 140. Id. ¶¶ 22–24.
Each of detectors 110 includes gas sensor 210, microcontroller 230,
motion sensor 250, and radio 260, and sends data including gas alarms and
man-down alarms to central station 140. Id. ¶¶ 26–30, 37–43. When gas
detected by gas sensor 210 exceeds a threshold, microcontroller 230
instructs radio 260 to send a gas alarm to central station 140. Id. ¶¶ 28–29,
39–40. Similarly, when motion from motion sensor 250 is not detected for a
predetermined period of time, microcontroller 230 instructs radio 260 to
send a man-down alarm to central station 140. Id. ¶¶ 30, 41–42.
Central station 140 subsequently processes the data sent by detectors
110. Id. ¶¶ 44–45. For each detector, central station 140 determines
whether the data sent from that detector includes a gas alarm and/or a man-
down alarm. Id. ¶¶ 46–51. If the data includes a man-down alarm, central
station 140 can also determine whether the man-down alarm is a false alarm.
Id. ¶¶ 36, 52. To do this, central station 140 first determines whether the
data from the given detector includes a gas alarm. Id. ¶ 53. If it does, the
man-down alarm is not a false alarm. Id. ¶ 54. If it does not, central station
140 considers the data received from other detectors to determine whether
the man-down alarm received from the given detector is a false alarm. Id.
¶ 55 (“[I]f the method 600 determines that the alarm packet from the first
detector does not include a gas alarm . . . then a plurality of other detectors
Appeal 2018-001876
Application 13/015,327

3
in the vicinity of the first detector can be checked . . . .”) (emphasis added).
Thus, a man-down alarm received from a given detector can only be
identified as a false alarm if the data received from other detectors in the
vicinity of the given detector do not have gas alarms and do not have man-
down alarms. Id. ¶¶ 56–57.
Claim 9, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
9. A system comprising:
a detector comprising:
at least one gas sensor;
a motion sensor;
control circuitry, wherein the control circuitry is configured
to correlate information from the motion sensor with
information from the at least one gas sensor; and
two-way communications hardware; and
a central station in two-way communication with the detector,
wherein the control circuitry is configured to:
determine an alarm event based on a first signal received
from the at least one gas sensor when a predetermined
threshold of hazardous gas in an ambient atmosphere is
sensed;
transmit a gas alarm signal to the two-way communications
hardware during the alarm event;
determine a man-down event based on a second signal
received from the motion sensor when the motion sensor
does not detect movement for a predetermined period of
time, and
transmit a man-down alarm signal to the two-way
communications hardware during the man-down event,
wherein the two-way communications hardware is configured
to:
transmit the gas alarm signal and the man-down alarm
signal to the central station, and
Appeal 2018-001876
Application 13/015,327

4
wherein the central station is configured to correlate the second
signal from the motion sensor with the first signal from the
at least one gas sensor, and determine if the man-down
alarm signal is a false alarm based on the correlation of the
second signal with the first signal, wherein the false alarm is
indicative of a user of the detector not being unconscious or
incapacitated.
REFERENCES
The references relied on by the Examiner are:
Name Reference Date
Bieback US 6,121,881 Sept. 19, 2000
Zhou US 6,847,892 B2 Jan. 25, 2005
Campman US 7,538,666 B2 May 26, 2009
Johnson US 8,330,605 B2 Dec. 11, 2012
Montenero US 2010/0081411 A1 Apr. 1, 2010
REJECTIONS
Claims 3–5, 8–17, and 19–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Bieback, Campman, and Zhou. Final Act. 3–13.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bieback, Campman, Zhou, and Montenero. Id. at 13–16.
Claims 22–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bieback, Campman, Zhou, and Johnson. Id. at 16–18.
OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. Because we agree with at least one
of Appellant’s dispositive arguments, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections
of claims 3–5 and 8–24. However, because we also find at least one
limitation in claims 3–5 and 8–24 lacks written description support in the
Appeal 2018-001876
Application 13/015,327

5
Specification, we reject claims 3–5 and 8–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1 for
lack of written description, and designate the rejection a new ground of
rejection.
Obviousness of Claims 3–5 and 8–24
Claim 9 recites a system that includes a central station that receives a
first gas signal and a second motion/man-down signal from a detector, and
“correlate[s] the second signal from the motion sensor with the first signal
from the at least one gas sensor, and determine[s] if the man-down alarm
signal is a false alarm based on the correlation.” Appeal Br. 28. Claims 3–
5, 8, and 10–16 contain the same limitation by virtue of their dependence
from claim 9. Id. at 26–29; 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 5.
Claim 17 recites a method that includes receiving gas and motion
sensor signals from a remote location, “correlating the received gas sensor
signal and the received motion sensor signal; and determining that the man-
down alarm is a false alarm based on the correlating.” Appeal Br. 30.
Claims 18–24 contain the same limitation by virtue of their dependence from
claim 17. Id. at 30–32; 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 5.
In rejecting independent claims 9 and 17 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Bieback, Campman, and Zhou, the Examiner admits
that:
[t]he combination of Bieback and Campman does not explicitly
state the central station is configured to correlate the second
signal from the motion sensor with the first signal from the at
least one gas sensor, and determine if the man-down alarm signal
is a false alarm based on the correlation.
Appeal 2018-001876
Application 13/015,327

6
Final Act. 5. Rather, the Examiner finds Zhou teaches this limitation by
disclosing and describing a “privacy mode” feature. Id. at 5–6 (citing Zhou,
12:6–25).
Appellant argues that the portion of Zhou cited by the Examiner “only
teaches the generation of [a] ‘flag,’ which is used to prevent a false alarm,
and does not disclose any false alarm. In other words, the system of Zhou is
expressly set up to avoid ever generating a false alarm.” Appeal Br. 14. We
agree with Appellant.
Zhou discloses a device (e.g., device 100) that includes “a sensor for
determining or measuring a desired parameter, . . . a processor for
determining whether or not one or more alert conditions are satisfied and a
wireless transceiver for transmitting the measured parameter data and the
position data to a central station.” Zhou, 1:46–54. Zhou further discloses
incorporating a “privacy mode” into device 100, thereby allowing device
100 to “temporarily stop reporting information.” Id. at 12:6–7. When
device 100 is in privacy mode, a flag is set in a platform database (PD 300)
of the central station/ application service provider (ASP 200), that
“prevent[s] further polling of the [d]evice 100 by the ASP 200 and a false
alarm that the unit is not functioning properly.” Id. at 12:18–22. Thus,
Zhou’s privacy mode prevents central station/ASP 200 from polling device
100, thereby preventing central station/ASP 200 from generating a false
alarm indicating that device 100 is not functioning properly simply because
device 100 is not reporting information in response to the polling. Id.
Zhou’s privacy mode does not, as the Examiner contends, determine if a
man-down alarm is a false alarm based on the correlation of received gas
and motion sensor signals.
Appeal 2018-001876
Application 13/015,327

7
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 3–5 and 8–24.
New Grounds of Rejection for Claims 3–5, 8–17, and 19–22
Independent claims 9 and 17 recite a central station configured to
receive a first signal from a gas sensor in a remote detector and a second
signal (i.e., a man-down alarm) from a motion sensor in the same remote
detector, and to “correlate the second signal from the motion sensor with the
first signal from the at least one gas sensor, and determine if the man-down
alarm signal is a false alarm based on the correlation.” Appeal Br. 28, 30.
Appellant identifies Figure 5 of the Drawings and paragraphs 17, 19, and 44
through 51 of the Specification as providing written description support for
determining whether a man-down alarm is a false alarm according to the
claimed method. Id. at 9–10. We disagree.
Figure 5 of the Drawings is reproduced below.

Appeal 2018-001876
Application 13/015,327

8
Figure 5 is a “flow diagram of a method of tracking and monitoring alarm
signals.” Spec. ¶¶ 13, 44. The method involves a central station receiving an
alarm packet from a detector (520), and generating either a gas alarm (560),
a gas and man-down alarm (570), or a man-down alarm (580) depending
upon whether the received packet contains a gas alarm (530) and/or a man-
down alarm (540/550). Id. ¶¶ 44–51. Nothing in the description of Figure 5
regarding generating a man-down alarm either with (570) or without (580) a
gas alarm, discloses determining whether the man-down alarm is a false
alarm by correlating the man-down alarm with the gas alarm.
The Specification does disclose a method for determining whether a
man-down alarm received from a detector is a false alarm by correlating
“information from several sources,” including “from a motion sensor” and
“from a gas and/or temperature sensor.” Id. ¶ 17. This disclosure is
ambiguous, however, in that it fails to sufficiently describe whether the
information from the several sources that is correlated is obtained from the
same detector that issued the man-down alarm or from different detectors.
Id. This ambiguity is resolved in paragraph 19 of the Specification, which
discloses that:
[I]nformation from multiple detectors in the same area can be
correlated to determine the likelihood of a legitimate man-down
event occurring. When a plurality of detectors are in the same
area, when at least one of the detectors detect a lack of
movement for a predetermined period of time, and when all,
substantially all, a majority, or even one of the detectors detect
a high level of a hazardous gas, systems and methods in
accordance with the present invention can determine that a
legitimate man-down event is likely.
Appeal 2018-001876
Application 13/015,327

9
Id. ¶ 19 (emphasis added). This disclosure—i.e., that determining whether a
man-down alarm received from a first detector is a false alarm requires
correlating information received from the first detector with information
received from other detectors in the same area—is confirmed elsewhere in
the Specification. Specifically, this disclosure is confirmed in Figure 6,
which is reproduced below.

Appeal 2018-001876
Application 13/015,327

10
Figure 6 is a “flow diagram of a method of detecting for false alarms in
accordance with the present invention.” Id. ¶¶ 14, 52. When a central
station receives a man-down alarm (620), but not a gas alarm (630) from a
first detector, it checks (640) information received from “a plurality of other
detectors in the vicinity of the first detector.” Id. ¶¶ 53–55 (emphasis
added). If no gas alarms (650) or man-down alarms (660) are detected in the
information received from the other detectors, the man-down alarm received
from the first detector is determined to be a false alarm (670). Id. ¶¶ 56–57.
Thus, the Specification discloses that determining whether a man-down
alarm received from a first detector is a false alarm requires correlating the
man-down and gas alarms received from the first detector with the man-
down and gas alarms received from other detectors.
Independent claims 9 and 17, and dependent claims 3–5, 8, 10–16,
and 19–22, purport to claim an invention that determines whether a man-
down alarm received from a detector is a false alarm by correlating the man-
down alarm received from that detector with the gas alarm received from
that same detector. Appeal Br. 26–31. Specifically, claim 9 recites a system
comprising “a detector comprising: at least one gas sensor; [and] a motion
sensor,” and determining if a received man-down alarm is a false alarm by
“correlat[ing] the second signal from the motion sensor with the first signal
from the at least one gas sensor.” Appeal Br. 27 (claim 9) (emphasis
added). Similarly, claim 17 recites receiving “a gas sensor signal from a
detector” and “a motion sensor signal from the detector,” and determining if
a received man-down alarm is a false alarm by “correlating the received gas
sensor signal and the received motion sensor signal.” Id. at 30 (claim 17)
(Claims App’x) (emphasis added). Thus, the claims encompass systems and
Appeal 2018-001876
Application 13/015,327

11
methods that determine whether a detector’s man-down alarm is a false
alarm by considering only the gas sensor signal received from that detector
without considering gas sensor signals received from other detectors in the
vicinity. For the reasons discussed above, the written description provided
in the Specification does not clearly disclose such an invention. Rather, the
written description discloses determining whether a man-down alarm
received from a detector is a false alarm by correlating the man-down and
gas alarms received from that detector with man-down and gas alarms
received from other detectors in the vicinity. See Spec. ¶¶ 17, 19, 53–57,
Fig. 6.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we reject claims 3–5,
8–17, and 19–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1 for lack of written description.
See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
(finding the purpose of the written description requirement is to “convey
with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date
sought, [the applicant] was in possession of the invention,” where the
invention is “whatever is now claimed.”).
New Grounds of Rejection for Claims 3–5 and 8–16
Independent claim 9 requires a detector having at least one gas sensor,
a motion sensor, and control circuitry “configured to correlate information
from the motion sensor with information from the at least one gas sensor.”
Appeal Br. 27. Claims 3–5, 8, and 10–16 contain the same limitation by
virtue of their dependence from claim 9. Id. at 26–29; 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 5.
Appellant fails to identify any disclosure in the Specification or Drawings
that provides written description support indicating that the detector’s
Appeal 2018-001876
Application 13/015,327

12
control circuitry is configured to correlate information from the detector’s
motion sensor with information from the detector’s gas sensor. See Appeal
Br. 9. Nor do we find any.
The Specification describes the operation of the detector’s control
circuitry (i.e., microcontroller 230, Fig. 2) in paragraphs 29 and 30.
Specifically, microcontroller 230 “generate[s] a gas alarm signal” and
“transmit[s] the gas alarm signal to [a] radio module 260” whenever
microcontroller 230 receives a signal from gas sensor 210 that “indicates a
presence of a predetermined gas in the ambient atmosphere or indicates that
the amount of a hazardous gas in the ambient atmosphere has reached a
predetermined threshold.” Spec. ¶ 29. Microcontroller 230 also
“generate[s] a man-down signal” and “transmit[s] the man-down signal to
the radio module 260” whenever “[motion] sensor 250 determines that the
user has not moved for a predetermined period of time.” Id. ¶ 30. Nothing
in these, or any other, passages of the Specification indicates that
microcontroller 230 is “configured to correlate information from the motion
sensor with information from the at least one gas sensor” as recited in claims
3–5 and 8–16.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we reject claims 3–5
and 8–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1 for lack of written description. See Vas-
Cath, 935 F.2d at 1563–64.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 3–5, 8–17, and 19–21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bieback, Campman, and Zhou is reversed.
Appeal 2018-001876
Application 13/015,327

13
The rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bieback, Campman, Zhou, and Montenero is reversed.
The rejection of claims 22–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bieback, Campman, Zhou, and Johnson is reversed.
Claims 3–5, 8–17, and 19–22 stand newly rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 ¶ 1 for lack of written description.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed New
Ground
3–5, 8–17,
19–21
103(a) Bieback, Campman,
Zhou
3–5, 8–
17, 19–21

18 103(a) Bieback, Campman,
Zhou, Montenero
18
22–24 103(a) Bieback, Campman,
Zhou, Johnson
22–24
3–5, 8–17,
19–22
112 ¶ 1 Written Description 3–5, 8–17,
19–22
3–5, 8–16 112 ¶ 1 Written Description 3–5, 8–16
Overall
Outcome
3–5, 8–24 3–5, 8–17,
19–22
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Section 41.50(b) provides that “[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review.” Rather, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE
DECISION, Appellant must exercise one of the following two options with
respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as
to the rejected claims:
Appeal 2018-001876
Application 13/015,327

14
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or
both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the
prosecution will be remanded to the examiner. . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under
§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. . . .
Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1214.01.
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).

REVERSED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(B)