Ex Parte Brauers et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 23, 2014

12599068 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ANDREAS BRAUERS, RALF DORSCHEID, and
FRANK JOHNEN
___________

Appeal 2012-012644
Application 12/599,068
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Andreas Brauers et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s decision to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): (1) claims
1–3 and 5–10 as unpatentable over Berger (US 5,780,781; iss. July 14,
1998); and (2) claim 4 as unpatentable over Berger and Hill Rom (EP
0 322 994 A2; pub. July 5, 1989). Claims 11 and 12 have been cancelled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

Appeal 2012-012644
Application 12/599,068

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to “a sensor arrangement for
weight and/or movement sensing in a bed and uses thereof, to a bed and to a
method of sensing weight and/or movement of a user in a bed.” Spec. 1, ll.
1–3; Fig. 3. Claims 1 and 10 are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
1. Sensor arrangement for sensing in a bed, comprising:
a structure attachable between a bedframe and a
mattress frame,
wherein the structure comprises:
a first sensor support, and
a second sensor support,
wherein the first sensor support and the
second sensor support extend in a space below the
mattress frame,
wherein, in the space, the mattress frame is
unsupported by the bedframe, and
wherein at least one sensor is arranged
between the first sensor support and the second
sensor support in the space.

ANALYSIS

Obviousness over Berger
Claims 1–3 and 5–9
Independent claim 1calls for a sensor arrangement including a
structure attachable between a bedframe and a mattress frame, the structure
having a first and a second sensor support, “wherein the first sensor support
and the second sensor support extend in a space below the mattress frame.”
Appeal Br. 10, Claims App. The Examiner finds that Berger discloses “a
structure (3) attachable between a bedframe (S) and a mattress frame.” Ans.
Appeal 2012-012644
Application 12/599,068

3
4. Regarding the mattress frame, the Examiner proposes either of two
scenarios. The first scenario being that “[an] optional [mattress] frame
[could be] located between the mattress [M] and (1b) [of Berger].” Id. at 9;
see also id. at 4, 8; Berger, Figs. 1, 1a, 1b. The second scenario being that
“(1b) of the middle section (1) [of Berger] could reasonably interpreted as a
frame of a mattress as (1b) is the top surface of (1) and supports the
mattress.” Id. at 8; see also id. at 4, 9. The Examiner further finds that
Berger discloses “the structure comprising a first sensor support (3b) and a
second sensor support (3a), the first sensor support and the second sensor
support extending in a space below the mattress frame.” Id. at 4–5. The
Examiner also finds that
the sensor (2) and the sensor supports (3a, 3b) do
in fact fall “in a space below the mattress frame
. . . ” with the mattress frame being known in the
art or interpreted as feature (1b) of [Berger] and
the bed frame (S, fig 1b). The space in which the
sensors and their supports sit is within the space
below the mattress frame (Fig 4) as anything
below the mattress frame is construed as “a/the
space”. The space limitations/structure was not
described in the claims.
Id. at 910.

Appellants contend that “in either of the proffered explanations by the
Examiner of the supposed mattress frame in Berger, . . . the sensor supports
are [not] located ‘in a space below the mattress frame.’” Appeal Br. 7;
Reply Br. 6.
Appellants’ argument is persuasive. At the outset, the Specification
describes that “[t]he space below the mattress frame” means “that space,
which is enclosed by a vertical projection of the bedframe or, respectively,
Appeal 2012-012644
Application 12/599,068

4
. . . of the supporting area of the bedframe and the mattress frame.” Spec. 2,
ll. 20–23. The Specification further describes that “[t]he space in which the
first sensor support 4 and the second sensor support 5 according to the
invention extend, is enclosed by the mattress frame 3 from above, by vertical
projections of the supporting surfaces of the bedframe 2 from the sides, and
by the ground from below.” Id. at 6, ll. 28–31. Where an explicit definition
is provided by the applicant for a term, the definition will control
interpretation of the term as it is used in the claim. Toro Co. v. White
Consolid. Industries, Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Further,
claims are construed with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the
claim. Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Here, the Examiner’s interpretation of “the space below the mattress
frame” to be “anything below the mattress frame” (see Ans. 10) is too broad
and not consistent with the definition of this phrase as defined in the
Specification. First, in reference to the Examiner’s initial proposed mattress
frame scenario (i.e., an optional mattress frame located between mattress M
and (1b) of Berger (see Ans. 9)), the Examiner has failed to establish, by
evidence or technical reasoning, a sufficient factual basis to support a
determination as to where the mounting parts (sensor supports (3a, 3b)) of
Berger would be located in this scenario and specifically that they would or
could still extend in “a space” (enclosure) below the proposed mattress
frame as claimed. See Ans. 4–5, 8–10. Second, in reference to the
Examiner’s alternative proposed mattress frame scenario (i.e., (1b) of the
middle section (1) of Berger constituting the mattress frame (see Ans. 8,
10)), figure 4 of Berger, referenced by the Examiner (see Ans. 10), fails to
illustrate that co-planar mounting parts (sensor supports (3a, 3b)) extend in
Appeal 2012-012644
Application 12/599,068

5
“a space” (enclosure) below shell (mattress frame (1b)). See Berger, Fig. 4.
Figure 4 of Berger merely illustrates mounting parts (sensor supports (3a,
3b)) fixed (joined) by double-sided adhesive tape 4 to respective shells 1a
and 1b. See Berger, col. 3, ll. 32–38; Figs. 2, 4. In other words, in either
proposed mattress frame scenario, the Examiner has failed to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that the first and second sensor supports of
Berger extend in a space below the mattress frame. Consequently, the
Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case that Berger discloses the
sensor arrangement called for in independent claim 1.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1 and its respective dependent claims 2, 3, and 5–9 as
unpatentable over Berger is not sustained.
Claim 10
Independent claim 10 calls for a method of sensing a user in a bed,
including the step of “measuring [transferring] forces by at least one sensor
located in [a] space below the mattress frame.” Appeal Br. 11, Claims App.
The Examiner relies on the same findings and proposed mattress frame
scenarios for Berger discussed above in reference to independent claim 1.
See Ans. 4–6.
Appellants contend that “in either of the proffered explanations by the
Examiner of the supposed mattress frame in Berger, . . . the sensors . . . are
[not] located ‘in a space below the mattress frame.’” Appeal Br. 7; Reply
Br. 6.
Appellants’ argument is persuasive. Berger merely discloses that
“[s]ensors (2) are fixed between the two shells (la) and (lb).” See Berger,
col. 3, l. 25; Figs. 2, 4, 5. In either proposed mattress frame scenario, the
Appeal 2012-012644
Application 12/599,068

6
Examiner has failed to establish, by evidence or technical reasoning, a
sufficient factual basis to support a determination that at least one sensor 2
of Berger extends in “a space” (enclosure) below the proposed mattress
frame. See Ans. 4–5, 8–10. As such, the Examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case that Berger discloses the method of sensing a user in a bed
called for in independent claim 10.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 10 as unpatentable over Berger is not sustained.
Obviousness over Berger and Hill Rom
Claim 4
Claim 4 depends directly from independent claim 1. See Appeal Br.
10, Claims App. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 as unpatentable over
Berger and Hill Rom (see Ans. 6–7) is based on the same deficient findings
and conclusions discussed above with respect to independent claim 1. Hill
Rom is not relied upon to remedy the deficiencies of Berger discussed
above. Accordingly, for similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 4 as unpatentable over Berger and Hill Rom.

DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–10.

REVERSED
llw