Ex Parte Cline et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2013

11932815 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/932,815 10/31/2007 David J. Cline 1454.4 2924
52207 7590 12/19/2013
LAW OFFICES OF LARRY K. ROBERTS, INC.
2603 Main Street
9th Floor
Irvine, CA 92614-6232
EXAMINER
BAUER, SCOTT ALLEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2836
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2013 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 DAVID J. CLINE and CINDY OTTO
____________

Appeal 2011-001629
Application 11/932,815
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 54-70. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim 54 is illustrative:
54. A bathing installation control system, comprising:

a plurality of electrically powered devices associated with operation
of the bathing installation;

an electronic controller system operatively connected to the plurality
of electrically powered devices for controlling the operation of said device in
accordance with one or more programmed control algorithms;

a ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI) circuit;
Appeal 2011-001629
Application 11/932,815

2
a line voltage service connected to the controller system and the
plurality of electrically powered devices through the GFCI circuit, the GFCI
circuit adapted to detect ground faults and interrupt the line voltage service
to the controller system and the plurality of electrically powered devices
upon detection of a ground fault;

a fault inducing circuit for selectively inducing a ground fault
condition between line voltage and ground in response to an electronic
command signal;

a circuit actuation system responsive to an error or fault condition of
the bathing system, the circuit actuation system connected to said controller
and said fault inducing circuit, the circuit actuation system adapted to
actuate the fault inducing circuit to induce a ground fault between line
voltage and ground in response to the error or fault condition, thereby
tripping the GFCI circuit and disconnecting the line voltage service from
said plurality of electrically powered devices and said controller system;

wherein the circuit actuation system includes an algorithm performed
by said controller system and configured to cause the controller system to
generate said electronic command signal in response to an algorithmically-
determined fault or error condition.

The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness:
Gerondale et al. (Gerondale) 4,763,365 Aug. 16, 1988
Gernhardt et al. (Gernhardt) 5,864,455 Jan. 26, 1999
Engel et al. (Engel) 5,861,683 Jan. 19, 1999
Hall 5,898,958 May 4, 1999
Thweatt, Jr. 6,080,973 Jun. 27, 2000
Nemir et al. (Nemir) 6,262,871 B1 Jul. 17, 2001

Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a bathing installation
control system comprising an electronic controller system operatively
connected to a plurality of electrically powered devices, such as a heater and
Appeal 2011-001629
Application 11/932,815

3
pump. The system also comprises a circuit actuation system that is
connected to the controller which is responsive to an error or fault condition
of the bathing system. The circuit actuation system includes an algorithm
performed by the controller system which is configured to cause the
controller system to generate a command signal in response to an
algorithmically-determined fault or error condition.
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
follows:
(a) claims 54, 61-63, and 70 over Gerondale in view of Thweatt,
(b) claims 55 and 64 over Gerondale in view of Thweatt and Hall,
(c) claims 56 and 65 over Gerondale in view of Thweatt and Nemir,
(d) claims 57, 58, 66, and 67 over Gerondale in view of Thweatt,
Nemir and Engel, and
(e) claims 59, 670, 68, and 69 over Gerondale in view of Thweatt and
Nemir.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner's rejections for the reasons set
forth in the Answer, which we incorporate herein, and we add the following
for emphasis only.
There is no dispute that Gerondale, like Appellants, discloses a
bathing installation control system comprising a plurality of electrically
powered devices associated with operation of the installation, a ground fault
Appeal 2011-001629
Application 11/932,815

4
circuit interrupter (GFCI) circuit, a line voltage service connected to the
system and the plurality of devices through the GFCI circuit, the GFCI
circuit adapted to detect ground faults and interrupt the line voltage to the
plurality of devices upon detection of a ground fault, a fault inducing circuit
for selectively inducing a ground fault condition between the line voltage
and the ground, whereby a fault inducing circuit is actuated to induce a
ground fault between the line voltage and the ground in response to the error
or fault condition, i.e., overheating.
As recognized by the Examiner, Gerondale does not disclose a
controller system operatively connected to a plurality of electrically powered
devices for controlling the operation of the devices in accordance with one
or more programmed algorithms, and a circuit actuation system that is
responsive to an error or fault condition that is connected to the controller.
However, Appellants do not contest the Examiner's finding that Thweatt
discloses a fault and error protection circuit for the electrical water heater of
a spa which comprises an electronic controller system operatively connected
to the heater and a circuit actuation system that is response to an error or a
fault condition which includes an algorithm performed by the controller
system and is configured to cause the controller system to generate a
command signal in response to an algorithmically determined fault or error
condition.
Accordingly, based on the combined disclosures of Gerondale and
Thweatt, we find no error in the Examiner's legal conclusion that it would
have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to employ an electronic
controller system and circuit actuation system of the type disclosed by
Appeal 2011-001629
Application 11/932,815

5
Thweatt in the system of Gerondale for shutting down the line service to the
electrical devices when a ground or other fault condition is sensed.
A principal argument advanced by Appellants is that the combination
of Gerondale and Thweatt still does not result in "an electronic controller
system for controlling the operation of the plurality of devices in accordance
with one or more programmed control algorithms" (Reply Br. 4, 2nd para.).
However, we fully concur with the Examiner that it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the control system of
Thweatt for operating and controlling some or all of the plurality of
Gerondale's devices. Appellants have presented no reason for why it would
have been unobvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use such a
controller system for more than just the pump of Gerondale, particularly
since Gerondale shuts down a plurality of devices when a fault condition is
determined. Gerondale discloses that "[t]he shutting off of the current also
cuts off the pump 20, the blower 22 and the light 24" (col. 3, ll. 40-42).
Appellants' additional arguments with respect to various dependent
claims have been rebutted by the Examiner in the Answer.
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
Appeal 2011-001629
Application 11/932,815

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

cam