Darron Kirby. Lacey

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 2, 2020

2019000195 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 2020)

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.
14/574,802 12/18/2014 DARRON KIRBY LACEY 14-CWD-766 8573
101730 7590 07/02/2020
ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC
EATON CORPORATION
600 GRANT STREET
44TH FLOOR
PITTSBURGH, PA 15219
EXAMINER
PENDLETON, DIONNE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2020 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):
ipmail@eckertseamans.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DARRON KIRBY LACEY

____________

Appeal 2019-000195
Application 14/574,802
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before NORMAN H. BEAMER, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2019-000195
Application 14/574,802

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final rejection of claims 1, 3–9, 11–14, and 16–18, which are all pending
claims. Appeal Br. 12–14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
A. The Invention
Appellant’s invention is directed to “a sensor including a sensing unit
structured to sense a condition, a wireless transmitter structured to output a
wireless signal in response to the sensing unit sensing the condition, and a
battery structured to provide power to operate the sensing unit and the
wireless transmitter.” Abstract. Independent claim 1 is representative and
reproduced below:
1. A sensor system comprising:
a sensor including:
a sensing unit structured to sense a condition;
a wireless transmitter structured to output a
wireless signal in response to the sensing unit sensing the
condition; and
a battery structured to provide power to
operate the sensing unit and the wireless transmitter; and
a control unit including a wireless receiver
structured to receive the wireless signal from the sensor,
wherein the control unit is structured to electrically
connect a power source and an electric device in response
to receiving the wireless signal from the sensor, and
wherein the condition is motion in a room.
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims Appendix).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Eaton Corporation as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-000195
Application 14/574,802

3
B. The Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 4, 6–9, and 16–18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Damman (US 2015/0230059 A1; Aug. 13, 2015)
and Skotty (US 2016/0027262 A1; Jan. 28, 2016). Final Act. 6.
The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Damman, Skotty, and Rouse (US 2013/0341053 A1; Dec. 26, 2013).
Final Act. 11.
The Examiner rejects claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Damman, Skotty, and Gilson (US 2015/0266450 A1; Sept. 24, 2015).
Final Act. 12.
The Examiner rejects claims 11 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Damman, Skotty, and Fisher (US 2014/0266586 A1;
Sept. 18, 2014). Final Act. 13.
The Examiner rejects claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Damman, Skotty, and Rothkopf (US 2015/0022324 A1; Jan. 22, 2015).
Final Act. 13.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
A. Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 4, 6–9, and 16–18
Appellant argues that “[b]oth of the rationales provided in the
Examiner’s answer fail to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”
Reply Br. 2. Particularly, Appellant argues that “one having ordinary skill in
the art could not rationally find that Skotty teaches the usefulness of
providing electrical power to a light source based on motion detected by the
Appeal 2019-000195
Application 14/574,802

4
device 100 of Damman,” because “[t]he device 100 of Damman and the
traditional motion sensors 45 of Skotty detect different types of motion and
are used in fundamentally different applications.” Reply Br. 2. Appellant
contends “the combination simply makes no sense,” and
if the Examiner’s intent with the proposed combination is to
deter a thief, it would be more practical to tum on the lights in
response to the thief approaching the area, as the motion sensor
45 of Skotty already does, rather than waiting to detect if the
thief chooses to move a specific unauthorized object.

Reply Br. 3.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that
[w]hile Damman is indeed concerned with detecting
unauthorized movement of [a television set within a room], the
Examiner is relying upon the structural components of the
Damman device and is not merely limited to the intended use of
the Damman system. The Damman prior art recognizes a need
for sensing motion of an object within a room, and wirelessly
transmitting data related thereto, to an external receiver (see
[identifier] 301 in [F]ig. 2).

Ans. 6–7 (emphasis in original). The Examiner further finds, and we agree,
that
Skotty teaches that it is useful to provide electrical power to a
light source when motion is detected. For example, the
combination of the Damman prior art and the Skotty prior art
would yield a system wherein the detection of unauthorized
movement of an object within a room, would cause the light
fixtures within a room to be illuminated.

Ans. 7; see, e.g., Skotty ¶ 110. The Examiner’s findings are further
confirmed by Damman, in which Damman’s device is “placed on a liquor
Appeal 2019-000195
Application 14/574,802

5
cabinet door” so that “the owner of the house could then go to work leaving
teenagers at home.” Damman ¶ 61. Such a device naturally pairs with the
“broad functionality” envisioned by Skotty, in which “control unit 20 can be
capable of collecting and processing images from the camera 30,
controlling lighting of the light source units 50, reacting to events such as
ambient light levels, motion or information transmitted to the device.”
Skotty ¶ 110 (emphasis added). One skilled in the art would consider
Daman’s and Skotty’s teachings as combinable to document and identify a
perpetrator involved in the theft or unauthorized consumption of alcohol
from an open liquor cabinet.
Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of independent
claim 1, as well all dependent claims not argued separately. See Appeal
Br. 10.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 4,
6–9, 16–
18
103 Damman, Skotty 1, 3, 4,
6–9, 16–
18

5 103 Damman, Skotty,
Rouse
5
12 103 Damman, Skotty,
Gilson
12
11, 14 103 Damman, Skotty,
Fisher
11, 14
13 103 Damman, Skotty,
Rothkopf
13
Appeal 2019-000195
Application 14/574,802

6

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).
AFFIRMED

Overall
Outcome
1, 3–9,
11–14,
16–18