Ex Parte Binder

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2017

14301544 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2017)

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.
14/301,544 06/11/2014 Yehuda BINDER BINDER-013-US2 1674
131926 7590 04/28/2017
May Patents Ltd. c/o Dorit Shem-Tov
P.O.B 7230
Ramat-Gan, 5217102
ISRAEL
EXAMINER
HOFSASS, JEFFERY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2017 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 YEHUDA BINDER
Appeal 2017-003594
Application 14/301,544
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 10-13. Claims 14, 16—21, and 23—103 have been withdrawn from
consideration, and claims 1—9, 15, and 22 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2017-003594
Application 14/301,544
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is directed to an apparatus and method for a
motion sensing device including a motion sensor for “motion sensing and an
annunciator responding to the sensed motion” (Title; Spec. 1:4—6).
Independent claim 10, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
10. A device for signaling in response to a sensed motion,
the device having a single enclosure, and in the single enclosure
comprising:
an accelerometer attached to the single enclosure for
producing an output signal responsive to the device acceleration;
a signaling component attached to the single enclosure for
signaling to a person;
a software and a processor for executing the software, the
processor coupled to the accelerometer and to the signaling
component for activating or controlling the signaling component
in response to the output signal;
a rechargeable battery connected to power the device; and
a battery charger connected for contactless charging of the
rechargeable battery,
wherein the accelerometer comprises, consists of, uses, or
is based on, a piezoelectric, piezoresistive, capacitive, Micro­
mechanical Electrical Systems (MEMS), or electromechanical
accelerometer, and wherein the signaling component is a visible
light emitter for emitting a visible light indicating a first status to
the person.
REFERENCES and REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Willner (US 5,810,685; issued Sept. 22, 1998),
Kuesters (US 6,113,504; issued Sept. 5, 2000), and Connelly (US 5,236,383;
issued Aug. 17, 1993).
2
Appeal 2017-003594
Application 14/301,544
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claim 10, the Examiner finds Willner
teaches all of Appellant’s claimed limitations, but does not disclose “that the
battery is rechargeable and that a battery charger can be connected and the
particular type of accelerometer and a visual indication” (Final Act. 4—5
(citing Willner Abstract; Fig. 5)). The Examiner finds Kuesters teaches a
rechargeable battery connected to power a device, and a battery charger
connected for contactless charging, and relies on Connelly for teaching a
capacitive accelerometer and a visible light emitter for emitting a visible
light indication (Final Act. 5 (citing Kuesters col. 4,11. 22^40, Fig. 3;
Connelly col. 3,1. 9—col. 5,1. 8, Abstract, Fig. 7)). The Examiner further
finds it would have been obvious to combine Willner with Kuesters “to
provide a more convenient way to renew the power source of the device,”
and Willner, Kuesters, and Connelly to provide a renewable power source,
“a visual indication which would be more recognizable in a noisy
environment,” and a capacitive sensor as an accelerometer (Final Act. 5—6).
Appellant does not contest the features of Willner, Kuesters, or
Connelly. Nor does Appellant dispute the Examiner’s rationale for
combining Willner, Keusters, and Connelly. Rather, Appellant only
contends the rejection of claim 10 is improper because this claim combines
parent application’s claims 11 and 15, which were restricted by the
Examiner as “subcombinations [which] are distinct. . . and are not obvious
variants” (Br. 3^4 (citing Election/Restriction Requirement issued on
January 14, 2014 in parent US Application 13/427,150, p. 11)). Therefore,
Appellant asserts, “claim [10] combining both limitations [of parent
3
Appeal 2017-003594
Application 14/301,544
application’s claims 11 and 15] is clearly non-obvious and thus patentable”
(Br. 4).
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. As recognized by the
Examiner, a “restriction requirement is made for diverse subject matter, but
there is no presumption of allowability just because the diverse subject
matter is now combined[,] as shown by the rejection of the[] claims” based
upon Willner, Kuesters, and Connelly (Ans. 5). Appellant appears to read
the word “obvious” in the phrase “not obvious variants” as meaning not
obvious under a § 103 obviousness rejection. However, the Examiner
correctly uses this term to mean the claims are restricted because they are
unrelated, i.e., not obvious variants. See also MPEP § 802.01 II (9th ed.
2015; rev. Nov. 2015) (“Related inventions are distinct if the inventions as
claimed are not connected in at least one of design, operation, or effect. . .
and wherein at least one invention is PATENTABLE (novel and
nonobvious) OVER THE OTHER (though they may each be unpatentable
over the prior art)” (emphasis added)).
As Appellant has not addressed or identified reversible error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 10 based on the combination of
Willner, Kuesters, and Connelly, we summarily affirm the rejection of claim
10 for the reasons presented by the Examiner. We also sustain the rejections
of dependent claims 11—13, which are also not addressed in Appellant’s
Brief (see Br. 3—4).
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 10—13 is affirmed.
4
Appeal 2017-003594
Application 14/301,544
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5