Ex Parte 6518878 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 16, 2013

90011706 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2013)

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.
90/011,706 05/23/2011 6518878 44439.5001 1010
30734 7590 05/16/2013
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
WASHINGTON SQUARE, SUITE 1100
1050 CONNECTICUT AVE. N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20036-5304
EXAMINER
BASEHOAR, ADAM L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/16/2013 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 WATCHGUARD ISLE, LLC
________________

Appeal 2013-005786
Reexamination Control No. 90/011,706
Patent 6,518,878 B1
1

Technology Center 3900
________________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, STANLEY M. WEINBERG, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.

CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
2

Patent 6,518,878 B1 (Skoff) is under reexamination. Appellant
appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(b) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-
20. Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1
The patent issued to Skoff on February 11, 2003.
2
Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellant’s arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective
details: the Request for Ex Parte Reexamination (Request) filed May 23,
2011; the Final Rejection (Fin. Rej.) mailed January 25, 2012; the Appeal
Brief (Br.) filed September 25, 2012; and the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.)
mailed November 15, 2012.
Appeal 2013-005786
Reexamination Control 90/011,706

2
The Examiner’s Answer refers to the Final Rejection, and the Final
Rejection incorporates from the Request for Ex Parte Reexamination.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Right ’530 (US 5,721,530; issued Feb. 24, 1998). Ans. 2; Fin.
Rej. 2-4; Request 18-25, Exhibit 9 attached to the Request.
3

Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Right ’530. Ans. 2; Fin. Rej. 4-6; Request 23-24, Exhibit 9.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Right
’530 and Maltby (US 5,777,550; issued July 7, 1998). Ans. 2; Fin. Rej. 6;
Request 26-27, Exhibit 10.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Right
’530 and Shere (US 6,392,538 B1; issued May 21, 2002; filed Nov. 13,
1996). Ans. 2; Fin. Rej. 6; Request 27-28, Exhibit 11.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Right ’530 and Golden (US 5,808,541; issued Sep. 15, 1998). Ans. 2; Fin.
Rej. 6-7; Request 28-30, Exhibit 12.
Claims 8-11 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Right ’530 and Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA). Ans.
2; Fin. Rej. 7-10; Request 31-36, Exhibit 13.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Right
’530, AAPA, Shere, and Golden. Ans. 2; Fin. Rej. 10-11; Request 36-39,
Exhibit 14.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Right
’530, AAPA, and Nykerk (US 5,117,217; issued May 26, 1992). Ans. 2; Fin.
Rej. 11-12; Request 39-42, Exhibit 15.

3
All of the reference Exhibits are attached to the Request.
Appeal 2013-005786
Reexamination Control 90/011,706

3
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to a warning system including a central
control unit (CCU) and a plurality of local units (LU) connected to the
central control unit (CCU). Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced
below:
1. A warning system, comprising:
a central control unit;
a plurality of local units connected to said central control unit;
each of said plurality of local units having a plurality of input trips
and a plurality of programmable responses thereto;
said plurality of programmable responses for each said local unit
tailorable to meet the needs of a particular location;
said plurality of input trips including a disconnect trip indicating that
said central control unit has failed; and,
said plurality of programmable responses including a warning output
signal sent from said local unit to said central control unit which indicates
the presence of a local emergency.

ANALYSIS
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 3, 7, 14, AND 17 BY RIGHT ’530
Claims 1, 3, and 7
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 1, that
Right ’530 describes all claim limitations. Ans. 2; Fin. Rej. 2; Request 18-
22, Exhibit 9 (the Examiner’s Answer refers to the Final Rejection, and the
Appeal 2013-005786
Reexamination Control 90/011,706

4
Final Rejection incorporates from the Request for Ex Parte Reexamination).
Right ’530 incorporates Right ’115 by reference. See Right ’530, col. 4, ll.
44-55 (incorporating U.S. application 08/441,792, which issued as Right
’115, by reference).
The Examiner relies on Right ’115’s personality modules for
describing the recited input trips and programmable responses. Request,
Exhibit 9, pp. 4-5 (citing Right ’115, Abstract, Col. 9, ll. 20-27).
Appellant argues Right ’530 and Right ’115 do not describe a local
unit having a plurality of input trips and a plurality of programmable
responses thereto, and do not describe the plurality of programmable
responses for each local unit tailorable to meet the needs of a particular
location. Br. 16-20. Appellant argues Right ’530 describes a single input
trip. Br. 18. Appellant argues Right ’530 describes a single response. Br. 18-
19. Appellant further argues Right 115’s personality code informs the
microcontroller and/or transponder unit to configure and communicate in a
particular way based on the personality code, and is not a response to an
input trip. Br. 20.
In response, the Examiner explains Skoff defines input trips to include
any number of sensor/transducer devices that detect an emergency or
abnormal condition, for example, a smoke detector, earthquake detector, or
heat sensor. Ans. 5 (citing Skoff, col. 4, ll. 45-52). The Examiner further
explains Right ’530 describes a plurality of sensors connected to the
modules 24, including smoke detectors, heat detectors, and communication
disruption detectors; thus, Right ’530 meets the recited plurality of input
trips. Ans. 5 (citing Right ’530, col. 3, ll. 24-31, 45-54; col. 5, ll. 1-20, 43-
63). We agree with the Examiner.
Appeal 2013-005786
Reexamination Control 90/011,706

5
The Examiner further explains Right ’530 describes normal
communications produced through the green LED circuitry for the sensed
normal or trouble mode, or the red LED circuitry for the sensed active
or alarm mode. Ans. 6-7 (citing Right ’530, col. 7, ll.1-4). The Examiner
further explains Right ’530 describes when the module is operating in stand-
alone mode, both of the green and red LED circuitry are driven
simultaneously. Thus, Right ’530 describes the recited plurality of
programmable responses. Ans. 7 (citing Right ’530, col. 7, ll.13-44). Again,
we agree with the Examiner.
Regarding Right 115’s personality code, the Examiner explains the
different personality codes can direct specific different programmed
responses. Ans. 8-9 (citing Right ’115, col. 10, ll. 44-60; col. 11, ll. 5-44).
Again, we agree with the Examiner.
We are not persuaded that Right ’530’s (col. 3, ll. 24-31, 45-54; col. 5,
ll. 1-20, 43-63) smoke detectors, heat detectors, and communication
disruption detectors do not describe the recited plurality of input trips.
Notably, this interpretation of “input trip” is consistent with Skoff (col. 4, ll.
45-52) which describes input trips as including any number of
sensor/transducer devices that detect an emergency or abnormal condition,
for example, a smoke detector, earthquake detector, or heat sensor.
Further, we are not persuaded that Right ’530’s (col. 7, ll. 1-4, 13-44)
responses including driving (i) the green LED, (ii) the red LED, or (iii) both
the green and red LEDs, together with Right ’115’s (col. 10, ll. 44-60; col.
11, ll. 5-44) personality code, which programs the responses as needed, does
not describe the recited plurality of programmable responses tailorable to
meet the needs of a particular location.
Appeal 2013-005786
Reexamination Control 90/011,706

6
We are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred in rejecting claim 1.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as claims
3 and 7, which are not argued separately with particularity.
Claims 14 and 17
Claim 14 depends from claim 1; claim 17 depends from claim 7. We
agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claims 14 and 17, that
Right ’530 describes all claim limitations. Ans. 2; Fin. Rej. 3-4.
Appellant argues claims 14 and 17 are allowable based on the
arguments for claims 1, 3, and 7. Br. 20. We find this argument unpersuasive
for reasons discussed with respect to claims 1, 3, and 7.
Appellant further argues claims 14 and 17 recite further structure
allowable in view of additional recitations. Br. 20-21.
An argument that merely points out what a claim recites is
unpersuasive. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e
hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more
substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim
elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not
found in the prior art.”).
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 14
and 17. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14 and 17.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 6 AND 16 OVER RIGHT ’530
Claim 6
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 6, that
Right ’530 teaches all claim limitations. Ans. 2; Fin. Rej. 4-5; Request 23-
24, Exhibit 9 (the Examiner’s Answer refers to the Final Rejection, and the
Appeal 2013-005786
Reexamination Control 90/011,706

7
Final Rejection incorporates from the Request for Ex Parte Reexamination).
The Examiner relies on Right ’530’s system for teaching all recited
limitations except for the noxious or poisonous gas detector. Fin. Rej. 4-5.
The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a noxious or poisonous
gas detector because the background of Right ’530 taught monitoring
environmental data such as smoke density or gas concentration near a fire
detector improved the accuracy of decision making; thus, the modification
would have provided the benefit of increased monitoring functionality. Fin.
Rej. 5 (citing Right ’530, col. 2, ll. 42-48). See also Ans. 10-12.
Appellant argues Right ’530’s background discusses a central
receiver, and does not indicate a plural input trip device having a plurality of
programmable responses. Br. 21-22. Appellant further argues Right ’530’s
background fails to indicate collection of environmental data performed by a
noxious or poison gas detector. Br. 22.
In response, the Examiner explains a fire detector that measures
smoke density and/or gas concentration is acting as a noxious or poison gas
detector. Ans. 12. We agree with the Examiner.
We are not persuaded that Right ’530’s background’s (Right ’530, col.
2, ll. 42-48) monitoring smoke density or gas concentration does not teach a
noxious or poisonous gas detector.
Further, we see no reason why Right ’530’s system would not benefit
from noxious or poisonous gas detection capability, such as disclosed in
Right ’530’s background (Right ’530, col. 2, ll. 42-48). Further, adding
additional detection capability is readily applicable to Right ’530 as Right
’530 (col. 3, ll. 24-31, 45-54; col. 5, ll. 1-20, 43-63) teaches a plurality of
Appeal 2013-005786
Reexamination Control 90/011,706

8
input trips. Modifying Right ’530’s system to include a noxious or
poisonous gas detector, as recited in claim 6, in view of Right ’530’s and
Right ’530’s background’s collective teachings, is a predictable use of prior
art elements according to their established functions—an obvious
improvement. As the U.S. Supreme Court has explained,
[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida [v. AG
Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976)] and Anderson’s-Black Rock[,
Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)] are
illustrative—a court must ask whether the improvement is more
than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.
KSR Int’l, Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
We are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred in rejecting claim 6.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6.
Claim 16
Claim 16 depends from claim 6. We agree with the Examiner’s
position, with regard to claim 16, that Right ’530 teaches all claim
limitations. Ans. 2; Fin. Rej. 5-6.
Appellant argues claim 16 is allowable based on the arguments for
claim 6. Br. 22. We find this argument unpersuasive for reasons discussed
with respect to claim 6.
Appellant further argues claim 6 recites further structure allowable in
view of additional recitations. Br. 22.
Appeal 2013-005786
Reexamination Control 90/011,706

9
An argument that merely points out what a claim recites is
unpersuasive. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e
hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more
substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim
elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not
found in the prior art.”).
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 16.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 2 OVER RIGHT ’530 AND MALTBY
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 2, that
Right ’530 and Maltby collectively teach all claim limitations. Ans. 2; Fin.
Rej. 6; Request 26-27, Exhibit 10 (the Examiner’s Answer refers to the Final
Rejection, and the Final Rejection incorporates from the Request for Ex
Parte Reexamination).
The Examiner relies on Right ’530’s system for teaching all recited
limitations except for the warning output signal being sent when a loss of
local unit power is detected, for which the Examiner relies on Maltby’s “fail
safe” design where the alarm state of the output signal is made to correspond
with the power-off state of the output device. Request, Exhibit 10, p. 6
(citing Maltby, col. 2, ll. 27-40).
The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the recited warning
output signal sent when a loss of local unit power is detected because the
warning signal as disclosed in Maltby, when combined with Right ’530,
Appeal 2013-005786
Reexamination Control 90/011,706

10
yields the predictable result of a system which includes further warning
signal capability. Request, Exhibit 10, pp. 6-7.
Appellant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to the
teachings of Maltby, Maltby does not qualify as analogous prior art, and
there is no motivation to combine the references. Br. 23-24.
In response, the Examiner explains the combination of Right ’530 and
Maltby combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield
predictable results. Ans. 13 (citing Request, Exhibit 10, pp. 6-7). We agree
with the Examiner.
The Examiner further explains Right ’530, Maltby, and Skoff are in
the same field of endeavor, electronic monitoring and warning systems. The
Examiner further explains Right ’530 and Maltby are also pertinent to the
particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, activating alarms
based on detected conditions. Ans. 15. Again, we agree with the Examiner.
In short, we see no reason why modifying Right ’530’s system to
include a warning output signal sent when a loss of local unit power is
detected, such as disclosed by Maltby (col. 2, ll. 27-40), which also
describes an electronic monitoring and warning system, would not
predictably use prior art elements according to their established functions—
an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 2.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 4 OVER RIGHT ’530 AND SHERE
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 4, that
Right ’530 and Shere collectively teach all claim limitations. Ans. 2; Fin.
Appeal 2013-005786
Reexamination Control 90/011,706

11
Rej. 6; Request 27-28, Exhibit 11 (the Examiner’s Answer refers to the Final
Rejection, and the Final Rejection incorporates from the Request for Ex
Parte Reexamination).
The Examiner relies on Right ’530’s system for teaching all recited
limitations except for the earthquake detector, for which the Examiner relies
on Shere’s earthquake detector. Request, Exhibit 11, p. 6 (citing Shere, col.
1, ll. 57-64; col. 2, ll. 34-38).
The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the recited earthquake
detector because the earthquake detector as disclosed in Shere, when
combined with Right ’530, yields the predictable result of a system which
includes further sensor capability. Request, Exhibit 11, pp. 6-7.
Appellant argues Shere does not teach the plurality of input trips
including an earthquake detector. Br. 25. Appellant further argues there is no
motivation to combine the references. Br. 26.
In response, the Examiner explains the combination of Right ’530 and
Shere combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield
predictable results. Ans. 16 (citing Request, Exhibit 11, pp. 6-7). We agree
with the Examiner.
We see no reason why modifying Right ’530’s system to include an
earthquake detector, such as disclosed by Shere (col. 1, ll. 57-64; col. 2, ll.
34-38), which also describes an electronic monitoring and warning system,
would not predictably use prior art elements according to their established
functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 4.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4.
Appeal 2013-005786
Reexamination Control 90/011,706

12

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 5 AND 15 OVER RIGHT ’530 AND
GOLDEN
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 5, that
Right ’530 and Golden collectively teach all claim limitations. Ans. 2; Fin.
Rej. 6; Request 28-30, Exhibit 12 (the Examiner’s Answer refers to the Final
Rejection, and the Final Rejection incorporates from the Request for Ex
Parte Reexamination).
The Examiner relies on Right ’530’s system for teaching all recited
limitations except for the motion detector, for which the Examiner relies on
Golden’s motion detector. Request, Exhibit 12, p. 6 (citing Golden, col. 2, ll.
51-54; col. 8, ll. 38-50).
The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the recited motion
detector because the motion detector as disclosed in Golden, when combined
with Right ’530, yields the predictable result of a system which includes
further sensor capability. Request, Exhibit 12, pp. 6-7.
Appellant argues Golden teaches video surveillance, and does not
teach motion detection. Br. 26. Appellant argues Golden does not teach the
plurality of input trips including a motion detector. Br. 26. Appellant further
argues there is no motivation to combine the references. Br. 27.
In response, the Examiner explains the combination of Right ’530 and
Golden combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield
predictable results. Ans. 18 (citing Request, Exhibit 12, pp. 6-7). We agree
with the Examiner.
Appeal 2013-005786
Reexamination Control 90/011,706

13
We see no reason why modifying Right ’530’s system to include a
motion detector, such as disclosed by Golden (col. 2, ll. 51-54; col. 8, ll. 38-
50), which also describes an electronic monitoring and warning system,
would not predictably use prior art elements according to their established
functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5, as well as claim
15 which is not argued separately with particularity.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 8-11 AND 18-20 OVER RIGHT ’530
AND AAPA
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 8, that
Right ’530 and AAPA collectively teach all claim limitations. Ans. 2; Fin.
Rej. 7; Request 31-32, Exhibit 13 (the Examiner’s Answer refers to the Final
Rejection, and the Final Rejection incorporates from the Request for Ex
Parte Reexamination).
The Examiner relies on Right ’530’s system for teaching all recited
limitations except for illumination of a strobe light, for which the Examiner
relies on AAPA’s strobe light. Request, Exhibit 13, p. 6 (citing Skoff, col. 1,
ll. 15-17; col. 2, ll. 7-16).
The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the recited strobe light
because the strobe light as disclosed in AAPA, when combined with Right
’530, yields the predictable result of a system which includes further
warning capability. Request, Exhibit 13, pp. 6.
Appeal 2013-005786
Reexamination Control 90/011,706

14
Appellant argues there is no motivation to combine the references. Br.
28.
In response, the Examiner explains the combination of Right ’530 and
AAPA combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield
predictable results. Ans. 20 (citing Request, Exhibit 13, pp. 6-12; Skoff, col.
1, l. 15-col. 2, l. 67). We agree with the Examiner.
We see no reason why modifying Right ’530’s system to include a
strobe light, such as disclosed by AAPA (Skoff, col. 1, ll. 15-17; col. 2, ll. 7-
16), would not predictably use prior art elements according to their
established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8, as well as claims
9-11 and 18-20 which is not argued separately with particularity.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 12 OVER RIGHT ’530, AAPA, SHERE,
AND GOLDEN
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 12, that
Right ’530, AAPA, Shere, and Golden collectively teach all claim
limitations. Ans. 2; Fin. Rej. 11; Request 36-39, Exhibit 14 (the Examiner’s
Answer refers to the Final Rejection, and the Final Rejection incorporates
from the Request for Ex Parte Reexamination).
Appellant argues Golden teaches video surveillance, and does not
teach motion detection. Br. 29. Appellant argues Golden does not teach the
plurality of input trips including a motion detector. Br. 29. Appellant argues
Shere does not teach the plurality of input trips including an earthquake
Appeal 2013-005786
Reexamination Control 90/011,706

15
detector. Br. 29. Appellant further argues there is no motivation to combine
the references. Br. 29.
In response, the Examiner explains the combination of Right ’530,
AAPA, Shere, and Golden combines prior art elements according to known
methods to yield predictable results. Ans. 21 (citing Request, Exhibit 14, pp.
6-15). We agree with the Examiner.
We see no reason why modifying the system of Right ’530 and AAPA
to include a motion detector, such as disclosed by Golden (col. 2, ll. 51-54;
col. 8, ll. 38-50) and an earthquake detector, such as disclosed by Shere (col.
1, ll. 57-64; col. 2, ll. 34-38), both of which also describe electronic
monitoring and warning systems, would not predictably use prior art
elements according to their established functions—an obvious improvement.
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 12.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 13 OVER RIGHT ’530, AAPA, AND
NYKERK
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 13, that
Right ’530, AAPA, and Nykerk collectively teach all claim limitations. Ans.
2; Fin. Rej. 12; Request 39-42, Exhibit 15 (the Examiner’s Answer refers to
the Final Rejection, and the Final Rejection incorporates from the Request
for Ex Parte Reexamination).
The Examiner relies on Right ’530’s system for teaching all recited
limitations except for the audio message being a verbal message that is
broadcast in a plurality of different languages, for which the Examiner relies
Appeal 2013-005786
Reexamination Control 90/011,706

16
on Nykerk’s alarm system utilizing a synthetically generated voice that can
be programmed to operate in any desired language, or a combination of
languages. Request, Exhibit 15, p. 8 (citing Nykerk, col. 6, ll. 3-13).
The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious to include the
recited messages broadcast in a plurality of different languages because the
multiple languages as disclosed in Nykerk, when combined with Right ’530,
yield the predictable result of a system which includes warning messages
understandable by a wider range of persons who speak different languages.
Request, Exhibit 15, p. 8.
Appellant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to the
teachings of Nykerk, and there is no motivation to combine the references.
Br. 30-31.
In response, the Examiner explains the combination of Right ’530,
AAPA, and Nykerk combines prior art elements according to known
methods to yield predictable results. Ans. 22 (citing Request, Exhibit 15, pp.
6-8). We agree with the Examiner.
We see no reason why modifying the system of Right ’530 and AAPA
to broadcast in a plurality of different languages, such as disclosed by
Nykerk (col. 6, ll. 3-13), would not predictably use prior art elements
according to their established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR,
550 U.S. at 417.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 is affirmed.
Appeal 2013-005786
Reexamination Control 90/011,706

17
Extensions of time for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

Patent Owner:
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
WASHINGTON SQUARE, SUITE 1100
1050 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON D.C. 20036-5304

Third Party Requester:
MATTHEW A. SMITH
FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP
3000 K STREET, N.W.
SUITE 500
WASHINGTON D.C. 20007

alw