Ex Parte Giunta

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 27, 2012

10910858 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SALVATORE JOHN GIUNTA
____________

Appeal 2010-003816
Application 10/910,858
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 1, 3-10, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Kobitz (US 6,923,146 B2; iss. Aug. 2, 2005), and claim 2
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kobitz and Durst (US
6,441,778 B1; iss. Aug. 27, 2002). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6. We REVERSE.
Appeal 2010-003816
Application 10/910,858

2
THE INVENTION
Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter on appeal:
1. A method comprising:
physically coupling a programming fixture to a tetherless
leash, wherein said programming fixture is operable to actuate a
first switch of said tetherless leash;
actuating said first switch via the programming fixture
for a first period of time at a first location;
obtaining signals when said first switch is actuated for
said first period of time;
determining geo-coordinates of said tetherless leash at
said first location from said signals; and
defining a first perimeter based on said geo-coordinates
of said first location.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3-10, and 21 as anticipated by Kobitz
The Examiner found that Kobitz discloses physically coupling a
programming fixture such as a PDA or portable PC to a tetherless leash
(collar 22), where the programming fixture is operable to actuate a first
switch of the tetherless leash. Ans. 3. The Examiner also found that Kobitz
discloses actuating the first switch via a programming fixture by using
master controller 30 to indirectly actuate a switch in the tetherless leash.
Ans. 3. The Examiner also found that a PDA or the like is physically
coupled by an electrical connection or circuitry to the tetherless leash
(elements 23, 24, 26, 28) and removed after programming so there is no
button protruding from the leash. Ans. 7. The Examiner further found that
the step of actuating the first switch via the programming fixture is taught by
Kobitz because there is no indication that the first switch is disposed on the
programming fixture and the claim 1 is broad enough to cover actuation via
Appeal 2010-003816
Application 10/910,858

3
a wireless connection such as controller 30, which connects wirelessly to the
programming fixture or a user can activate the programming fixture (PDA)
as disclosed in Kobitz at column 4, lines 28-33. Ans. 7-8.
We agree with Appellant that Kobitz does not disclose physically
coupling a programming fixture to a tetherless leash where the programming
fixture is operable to actuate a first switch of the tetherless leash. App. Br.
13. Although Kobitz discloses physical coupling of a PDA or portable PC to
the collar 22 via an electrical connection or other circuitry (col. 4, ll. 28-33),
we agree with Appellant that Kobitz does not disclose the physical coupling
of either the portable PC or PDA as being “operable to actuate a first switch
of said tetherless leash [collar 22],” as called for by claim 1. App. Br. 13.
Instead, Kobitz discloses buttons on the collar 22 that a user can press at a
first location to obtain signals and determine geo-coordinates of the first
location (col. 4, ll. 14-28). See App. Br. 13. The Examiner’s finding that
controller 30 can be used to actuate a first switch by activating the PDA or
other programming fixture (Ans. 8) does not adequately address how the
PDA, portable PC, or other programming fixture of Kobitz is “operable to
actuate a first switch of said tetherless leash” as recited in claim 1. Claim 1
calls for the first switch to be part of the tetherless leash and a programming
fixture to be operable to actuate the first switch of the tetherless leash. The
Examiner has not identified a switch of collar 22 that is actuated by the
programming fixture (PDA, portable PC). To the contrary, the Examiner
appears to construe this limitation to be satisfied by a switch on the PDA or
other fixture that is actuated via a wireless connection with controller 30.
Ans. 8. This interpretation is not consistent with claim 1 when interpreted in
Appeal 2010-003816
Application 10/910,858

4
light of Appellant’s Specification.1 As such we cannot sustain the rejection
of claims 1, 3-10, and 21.
Claim 2 as obvious over Kobitz and Durst
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites that “the operation of
actuating comprises magnetically actuating.” The Examiner found that
Durst magnetically actuates a first switch by using a magnetic compass to
provide information about coordinate positions and a controller to start the
method. Ans. 6, 10. We agree with Appellant that Durst does not cure the
deficiency of Koblitz with respect to claim 1 by disclosing a programming
fixture that is operable to actuate a switch on the tetherless leash. App. Br.
16. As such, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 2.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 3-10, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Kobitz is REVERSED.
The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kobitz and Durst is REVERSED.

REVERSED

mls

1 Appellant discloses that the tetherless leash 102 is physically coupled to a
programming fixture 104 (see Figs. 13A, 13B) that includes a programming
button 1346 that is operable to actuate a first switch in the input device 1136
of the tetherless leash 102. Spec. [00133-00139]. The first switch can be a
magnetic reed switch or a Hall Effect sensor that is actuated magnetically by
a magnetic 1356 of the programming button 1346 of the fixture 104, or input
device 1136 may be optically actuated. Spec. [0048, 00121-122].