Ex Parte Dotson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 10, 2018

14859451 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/859,451 09/21/2015
44088 7590
Kaufhold Dix Patent Law
P. 0. BOX 89626
SIOUX FALLS, SD 57109
09/12/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gary Dotson
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
SK11244 4275
EXAMINER
BEE, ANDREW W.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/12/2018 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):
j ason@kaufboldlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GARY DOTSON and DAROLD CARTER
Appeal2018-002836 1
Application 14/859,451
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1--4 and 6-13. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Gary Dotson, one of the listed inventors, is identified as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2; Bib. Data Sheet.
Appeal 2018-002836
Application 14/859 ,451
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' disclosure relates to a "proximity alert system" in which
"[a] sensing array is coupled to [a] truck and the sensing array detects an
object behind the truck when the truck is driven rearwardly." Abstract.
Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference
(with emphasis added):
1. A proximity alert system comprising:
a truck;
a sensing array being coupled to said truck wherein said
sensing array is configured to detect an object behind said truck
when said truck is being driven rearwardly, said sensing array
emitting an audible alarm when said sensing array detects the
object, said audible alarm communicating a distance between
said truck and the object wherein said sensing array is
configured to inhibit said truck from striking the object when
said truck is being driven rearwardly, said sensing array
comprising a base unit, a control unit and a plurality of remote
units;
said truck has a box section, said box section having a
front side; and
said control unit is coupled to said box section, said
control unit being positioned on said front side of said box
section, said control unit being in electrical communication
with said base unit.
The Examiner's Rejection2
Claims 1--4 and 6-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Boddy (US 7,046,127 B2; May 16, 2006), Rennick (US
2 The rejection of claims 8-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite
was withdrawn in the Answer. See Answer 2, Final Act. 2
2
Appeal 2018-002836
Application 14/859 ,451
2005/0128060 Al; June 16, 2005), and Ehrlich (US 2007/0194896 Al; Aug.
23, 2007). Final Act. 3.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments, considering only those arguments Appellants actually raised in
the briefs. See 37 C.F.R. §4I.37(c)(l)(iv). We are not persuaded the
Examiner errs. We adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions in the
Final Action and Examiner's Answer as our own, to the extent they are
consistent with our analysis below.
Appellants argue the rejection:
fails to present a cogent explanation of how the teaching of the
cited references renders the claim obvious as opposed to simply
showing the elements of the claimed invention exist, as generally
interpreted given the difference in the Ehrlich controller
compared to the present invention.
App. Br. 8. Appellants further contend:
the motivation set forth in the rejection (as a reason for the
allegedly obvious combination relied upon) is not directed to a
problem that has been shown to be 1) "known in the art" 2) "at
the time of the invention" and 3) "addressed by the patent", as
required by the Supreme Court in the KSR opinion.
App. Br. 9; citing KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs. The Examiner correctly
finds Ehrlich teaches "sensors on a truck may communicate through a mesh
network with different sensors and a coordinator being mounted in various
locations on the truck." Final Act, 5, citing Ehrlich Fig. 9 and ,r 39. As
relied on by the Examiner, Ehrlich teaches the "benefits of mesh network
communication" (Ans. 4, citing Ehrlich ,r,r 40, 43) because, in a mesh
3
Appeal 2018-002836
Application 14/859 ,451
network, the sensors "can effectively self-organize, without the need for
human administration" (Ehrlich ,r 40) and such a network "has the ability to
be able to enhance power saving" (Ehrlich ,r 43). The Examiner further
finds, and we agree, that when Ehrlich's teachings are combined with
Boddy, "the different components, including the coordinator ( control unit in
this combination) which would forward signals to the receiver, of the mesh
network[,] may be mounted in any convenient location on the truck,
including the front of the box section." Final Act. 5; see also Final Act. 11;
Ans. 2; Boddy Fig. 2. We are unable to find in the record before us any
evidence that such combination was "uniquely challenging or difficult for
one of ordinary skill in the art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Further, with respect to the Examiner's finding that the control unit of
the mesh network "may be mounted in any convenient location on the
truck," Appellants do not argue any criticality regarding placement of the
control unit on the claimed "front side of said box section." 3 Final Act. 5.
As a truck box section typically has six sides (see, for example, Boddy Fig. 2
and Rennick Fig. 9), there are a finite number of choices of sides for which
to place the control unit; thus we find the Examiner's combination to be no
"more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 401.
3 Separately, we note the claim does not define the location of the "front
side" of the box section. For example, the claim is silent with respect to the
relationship between the front side of the box section and the front side of
the truck.
4
Appeal 2018-002836
Application 14/859 ,451
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1, and independent claim 13 not separately argued, as well as claims 2,
3, and 6-12 not separately argued (see App. Br. 10).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4 and 6-13 is affirmed.
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