ENERGY CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 1, 2021

2019005343 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 1, 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.
15/344,570 11/06/2016 Matt Horton 3791-005U 5155
29973 7590 01/01/2021
Shutts & Bowen LLP
ATTN: STEVEN M. GREENBERG, ESQ.
525 Okeechobee Blvd
Suite 1100
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
EXAMINER
MORTELL, JOHN F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/01/2021 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
patents@shutts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MATT HORTON and RICHARD COMBS
____________
Appeal 2019-005343
Application 15/344,570
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as ENERGY
CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-005343
Application 15/344,570

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosure relates to an “automated material safety data
management method [that] includes creating in memory of an environmental
control data processing system a listing of different materials stored in a
geographic location managed by the environmental control data processing
system.” Abstract. Claims 1, 6, and 11 are independent; claim 1 is
reproduced below for reference (with emphases added):
1. An automated material safety data management method
comprising:
creating in memory of an environmental control data
processing system a listing of different materials stored in
different geographic locations managed by the environmental
control data processing system;
monitoring one or more sensors disposed in the
geographic locations; and,
responding to an environmental condition sensed by one
of the monitored sensors by: determining one of the geographic
locations for the one of the monitored sensors;
retrieving a list of ones of the materials at the one of the
geographic locations;
querying a data store of safety data sheets with the ones
of the materials in the list and receiving in response to the
querying different safety data sheets, each for corresponding
one of the ones of the materials at the one of the geographic
locations;
parsing each of the different safety data sheets to identify
one or more environmental limits specified in one or more of
the different safety data sheets;
comparing the one or more environmental limits to the
environmental condition sensed by one of the monitored
sensors; and,
on condition that any of the environmental limits are
determined to have been exceeded by the environmental
Appeal 2019-005343
Application 15/344,570

3
condition, transmitting a notification to an operator of the
environmental control data processing system.

The Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9–12, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Masterlark (US 2014/0344002 A1; Nov.
20, 2014), Fromme (US 2004/0031335 A1; Feb. 9, 2004), and Cabrera (US
2010/0298683 A1; Nov. 25, 2010). Final Act. 2.

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). We disagree
with Appellant that the Examiner erred and adopt as our own the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner, to the extent consistent with our
analysis below. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellant argues that Fromme only teaches that “the ESU
[Environmental Sensor Unit] (block 504) would require material type and
volume prior to sending alarms to the host” (Reply Br. 6, citing Fromme
¶ 285), which “is a far cry from the claimed, ‘comparing the one or more
environmental limits to the environmental condition sensed by one of the
monitored sensors’.” Reply Br. 6.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs. Although Appellant quotes
the entire paragraph of Fromme cited by the Examiner, Appellant focuses
narrowly on one sentence and ignores the remainder of the paragraph and
the additional context that was previously provided by the Examiner. The
Examiner finds, and we agree, the following:
Appeal 2019-005343
Application 15/344,570

4
Fromme further teaches that the ESU monitors the material
conditions inside the bin for changing gas and ambient levels,
etc., and sets alarms as required to the host computer ([¶ 285];
FIG. 5: 504). In this process, the software of the host computer
communicates with each individual unit (GSU [Gimbaled
(Scanning) Sensor Unit], ISU [In-Flow Sensor Unit], and ESU)
to integrate information so that, for example, the ESU would
learn the material type and volume prior to sending an alarm ([¶
285]; FIG. 5: 504: “data is crosschecked against known
material material/volume type information to validate nominal
and alarm conditions”). This cross-checking process indicates
that the system queries the safety data information embodied by
the display screens depicted in FIG. 4C and FIG. 4F (see
above).

Ans. 6. Fromme teaches the ISU “recognizes, measures & qualifies
material” in which “spectral data is compared to [a] material database.”
Fromme Fig. 5 element 503 (text reproduced in lower case). Fromme
further teaches that the ESU “detects gas concentration changes to monitor
bulk condition” and “data is cross-checked against known material volume
information to validate nominal and alarm conditions.” Fromme Fig. 5
element 504 (text reproduced in lower case).
Fromme teaches the ISU determines the material (which itself is an
environmental condition), the material information is passed to the ESU, the
ESU detects a gas concentration (necessary to complete the determination of
the environmental condition) which is then cross-checked (in order to
determine the applicable environment limit), and the gas concentration is
compared to the applicable normal and alarm conditions. Fromme Fig. 5.
Fromme’s interactions among the ISU and ESU teaches the claimed
“comparing the one or more environmental limits to the environmental
condition sensed by one of the monitored sensors.”
Appeal 2019-005343
Application 15/344,570

5
Appellant further contends
the combination of Masterlark, Fromme, and Cabrera cannot
account for the claimed,
responding to an environmental condition
sensed by one of the monitored sensors by:
. . .
querying a data store of safety data sheets with
ones of the materials in the list and receiving in response to the
querying different safety data sheets, each for corresponding
one of the ones of the materials at the one of geographic
locations,

(Reply Br. 9), because
the timing of the querying and parsing of the SDS [safety data
sheet] which necessarily follows that of the sensing of the
environmental condition is critical in that in each of Masterlark,
Fromme and Cabrera, anything remotely mappable to the SDS
of Appellants’ claims is processed before the sensing of an
environmental condition.

Reply Br. 7–8.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs. In claim 1, the step of
“responding to an environment condition sensed” activates a set of
“determining,” “retrieving,” “querying,” “parsing,” and “comparing” steps,
in which the “querying” step introduces the “data store of safety data
sheets.” Fromme appears to refer to a different order, in which at the outset
the GSU has a “dust-insensitive sensor” that “monitors bin fill” and also
“knows dust level,” which includes a “time stamp,” and further uses a
“rangefinder” that “reports bulk volume.” Fromme Fig. 5 element 502 (text
reproduced in lower case). We find no explicit definition of the claimed
“environmental condition” in the present Specification, which presents only
non-limiting examples of “time, temperature, pressure and humidity.” Spec.
Appeal 2019-005343
Application 15/344,570

6
¶ 20. Thus, Fromme’s system provides measurements of dust level, time,
and bulk volume, which we find corresponds reasonably to the claimed
environmental condition[s], prior to any consideration of materials and their
corresponding environmental limits that would trigger an alarm.
Further, Appellant’s argument regarding the ordering of steps does not
persuade us of non-obviousness. See In re Hampel, 162 F.2d 483, 485–6
(CCPA 1947)(“There is nothing in the instant record which indicates that the
particular order of steps produces results differing in any way from those
which would be brought about if another order of steps were followed.”); see
also MPEP § 2144.04 (IV)(C). Here, Appellant not shown differing results.
We also note that the combined teachings of the references establishes an
automated determination of material type via measurement (made in
Fromme’s ESU; see above and Fromme Fig. 5), whereas Appellant’s
claimed method requires using a listing that is not necessarily linked to
measurements.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1, independent claims 6 and 11 which recite similar
limitations, as well as the rejection of the claims dependent thereon.

DECISION SUMMARY

Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis

Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–7, 9–
12, 14, 15
103 Masterlark,
Fromme, Cabrera
1, 2, 4–7,
9–12, 14,
15

Appeal 2019-005343
Application 15/344,570

7
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