Ex Parte Goldfarb et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 19, 2009

10955870 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 19, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte HELENA GOLDFARB, STEVEN HECTOR AZZARO, and
THOMAS SHAGINAW
____________

Appeal 2009-003889
Application 10/955,870
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: October 19, 2009
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-003889
Application 10/955,870

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-8, 10, 13-19, 21-27, 29-36, 39-44, 46-48, and 50 (App.
Br. 2).1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants disclose a security monitoring system 10 for a large
infrastructure 12 (e.g., a pipeline). The system includes several
magnetometers disposed around an area of the infrastructure to detect a
change in magnetic flux due to moving metal objects (e.g., a gun, a hammer,
or a similar object) in the area. (Spec. ¶ 0013; Abstract).
Claim 1, illustrative of the invention, follows:
1. A security monitoring system for large infrastructure, comprising:
a plurality of battery-operated magnetometers disposed in at least one
known location and at least one calculated location around an area of the
infrastructure, wherein at least one magnetometer is configured to wirelessly
relay an alert signal indicating a change in a magnetic flux profile in the
area.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references:
Miller US 3,812,484 May 21, 1974
Sojdehei US 5,969,608 Oct. 19, 1999
Bader US 6,292,112 B1 Sept. 18, 2001
Galloway US 6,388,575 B1 May 14, 2002
Gehlot US 6,822,568 B2 Nov. 23, 2004
(filed Jan. 23, 2002)
The Examiner rejected, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):

1 This opinion refers to Appellants’ Brief (filed April 11, 2008) (“App. Br.”)
and Reply Brief (filed June 30, 2008) (“Reply Br.”), and the Examiner’s
Answer (mailed April 29, 2008) (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2009-003889
Application 10/955,870

3
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 13-16, 18, 19, 23-25, 31-34, 36, 39-42, 44, 48,
and 50 based upon Gehlot and Miller;
Claims 5, 27, and 35 based upon Gehlot, Miller, and Bader;
Claims 21, 22, 29, 30, 46, and 47 based upon Gehlot, Miller, and
Sojdehei; and
Claims 17, 26, and 43 based upon Gehlot, Miller, and Galloway.

ISSUE
Appellants’ arguments and the Examiner’s findings present the
following issue:
Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that
Gehlot and Miller collectively teach employing wireless, battery-operated
magnetometers disposed in at least one known location and one calculated
location around an area of a protected infrastructure, as set forth in claim 1?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
Appellants’ Disclosure
1. Appellants state: “In accordance with the present technique, any
suitable magnetometers may be employed. . . . It should be noted, however,
that while magnetometers are described herein as exemplary sensors . . . ,
any other sensors with similar features . . . would equally be applicable.”
(Spec. ¶ 0015).
2. Appellants describe their magnetometers as sensors that measure
the earth’s magnetic field. The sensors also measure a disturbance of that
field caused by “[m]ost moving metal objects (i.e. those that contain some
magnetic material).” (Id. at ¶ 0013).
Appeal 2009-003889
Application 10/955,870

4
IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms
3. “[E]ddy current(s)[:] . . . (2) The currents that are induced in the
body of a conducting mass by the time variation of magnetic flux.” IEEE
STANDARD DICTIONARY OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS TERMS 330 (6th
ed. 1996).
4. “[M]agnetometer[:] An instrument for measuring the intensity or
direction (or both) of a magnetic field or of a component of a magnetic field
in a particular direction.” Id. at 620.
Wiley Encyclopedia of Electrical and Electronics Engineering
5. Many different types of magnetic sensors are available.
These sensors can broadly be classified as primary or
secondary. In primary sensors, also known as the
magnetometers, the parameter to be measured is the external
magnetic field. The primary sensors are used in biological
applications and geophysical and extraterrestrial measurements.
In secondary sensors, the external parameter is made from other
physical variables such as force and displacement. In this
article, both the primary and secondary sensors will be
discussed. These sensors include inductive, eddy current,
transformative, magnetoresistive, Hall-effect, metal-oxide-
semiconductor (MOS) magnetic field, and magneto-optical
sensors; magnetotransistor and magnetodiode sensors,
magnetometers; superconductors; semiconductors; and
magnetic thin films.
Halit Eren, Magnetic Sensors, WILEY ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ELECTRICAL AND
ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING 111 (J. Webster ed., 1999), available at
http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/emrw/9780471346081/eeee/article/W395
1/current/pdf (emphasis added).
Miller
6. Miller discloses an intrusion detector for a protected building (Fig.
1) employing at least four helical winding and core sensors 20 surrounding
Appeal 2009-003889
Application 10/955,870

5
the building perimeter and attached to “[m]onitoring circuitry . . . [that]
responds to a change in the earth’s magnetic field produced by the presence
of a magnetically permeable object by generating an intrusion alarm signal”
(Abstract). Miller discloses three types of installations for such coil sensors
20: buried, above ground, or secured to a fence (col. 2, ll. 21-38; Fig. 1).
Miller’s detection circuits employ DC power (VDC) (Figs. 2, 3).
Gehlot
7. Gehlot discloses an intrusion detection system (Fig. 6) employing
“[s]pace area network sensors [that] may have eddy current sensors capable
of sensing the amount of metals present in a small gun or unwanted object
100” (col. 12, ll. 7-10). These “[s]pace area network sensors 124 may also
be formed on space area network elements 125 which may communicate via
wireless communications with a base station” (col. 12, ll. 15-18). The
sensors 124 are “disposed in a pattern of concentric rings surrounding a
space location or school” (to be protected from intrusion) (col. 12, ll. 22-23).
Detection of an unwanted object 100 through any of the concentric circles
generates an alarm to police or other authorities via a wireless
communications network (col. 12, ll. 43-48). (See generally col. 11, l. 66 to
col. 12, l. 61).
8. Gehlot discloses a network element 10 having a battery unit 20, a
sensor unit 16, a GPS unit 12, and a wireless communications unit 14. The
sensor unit gathers information relative to a monitored person and the
environment surrounding the person. (Figs. 1, 2; col. 2, l. 41 to col. 3, l. 30).

Appeal 2009-003889
Application 10/955,870

6
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or
on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
“[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). “‘On appeal to the
Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection by showing insufficient
evidence of prima facie obviousness . . . .’” Id. at 985-986 (quoting In re
Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

ANALYSIS
Appellants first contend that Gehlot and Miller do not collectively
teach using magnetometers.2 Gehlot teaches eddy current sensors (FF 7),
which the Examiner found to be a type of “magnet[ic] field detector[]” (Ans.
4). The Examiner also found that it would have been obvious to replace
Gehlot’s magnetic field detector with a magnetometer as suggested by the
“theory of magnetometers” discussed in Miller (see id.). According to the
Examiner, such magnetometers rely on the earth’s magnetic field, so that
using such a device in place of Gehlot’s magnetic (eddy current) sensor
reduces power requirements (id.).

2 Appellants group claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 13-16, 18, 19, 23-25, 31-34, 36, 39-
42, 44, 48, and 50 (App. Br. 7) together, noting that independent claims
recite “generally similar language” (App. Br. 9). Accordingly, claim 1 is
selected to represent the group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2009-003889
Application 10/955,870

7
Appellants do not contest with sufficient evidence or argument the
Examiner’s rationale for the combination of Miller and Gehlot, or the
findings that Miller and Gehlot each teach a type of magnetic sensor:
“Appellants would dispute whether the Examiner’s characterization of eddy
current sensors as ‘magnetic field detectors’ is even technically accurate”
(App. Br. 11). Such a mere “dispute,” without more, lacks persuasive
evidence to rebut the Examiner’s findings. In any case, the record supports
the finding that Gehlot’s eddy current sensor and Miller’s sensor are simply
different types of magnetic field sensors (FF 3-7).
Miller’s sensor (FF 6) also meets a known (FF 4) and Appellants’ (FF
2) definition of a magnetometer because it senses a magnetic field. Both
Miller’s (FF 6) and Gehlot’s (FF 7) sensors perform the same general
function as Appellants’ sensor (FF 2) by detecting moving objects that alter
a magnetic field (Ans. 8-11).3 More particularly, Miller’s magnetometer
functions in the same or similar manner as Appellants’ disclosed
magnetometer by detecting changes in the earth’s magnetic field due to
moving magnetic objects (compare FF 6 with FF 2).
Appellants contend (App. Br. 12) that using Miller’s magnetometer
would not “lead to some likelihood of success.” According to Appellants,
such success would be unlikely because Miller’s intrusion system teaches
coils embedded around a protected area, and as such, “would not . . . result
in a system [that] would communicate wirelessly . . . as taught by Gehlot”

3 Appellants also state that “any other sensors with similar features . . .
would equally be applicable” (FF 1).
Appeal 2009-003889
Application 10/955,870

8
(id.) because “the ground would presumably block wireless
communications” (Reply Br. 6).
This line of reasoning lacks necessary evidentiary support. That is,
Miller also discloses two embodiments employing above ground sensors (FF
6). It follows from Appellants’ reasoning that Miller’s above ground sensors
would readily transfer to Gehlot’s wireless, battery powered, intrusion
system (i.e., for remote authority notification purposes, etc.) (see FF 7, 8).
(Moreover, Appellants’ below ground signal blocking presumption does not
constitute evidence and does not explain why Miller’s buried sensor coil
could not communicate to an above ground (wirelessly communicating)
antenna system either by wire or via a short wireless path.)
Appellants also argue (App. Br. 12) that “the system of Miller is not
designed for operation by battery means.” This argument lacks merit.
Miller’s detection circuits operate using DC power (FF 6), thereby
suggesting, if not disclosing, a similar battery means as disclosed by Gehlot
(FF 7, 8). See also infra note 4 (last sentence discussing Gehlot’s battery-
powered sensor teachings).
Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 13) that Gehlot’s sensors are not
“disposed in at least one known location and at least one calculated location”
is also not persuasive. Gehlot’s sensors 124 (as depicted in Figure 6) are
arranged on concentric circles. As such, each of the plurality of sensors is
disposed at either a known location (i.e., on a circle) or a calculated location
(i.e., on the same or another concentric circle) (FF 7).
In support of their argument, Appellants point to their Specification
and contend (App. Br. 13) that “Miller and Gehlot appear to specifically
teach away from any randomized or unknown location of the sensors and
Appeal 2009-003889
Application 10/955,870

9
coil arrangements.” According to Appellants’ reasoning (id.), their
disclosed invention involves a later calculation of a previously unknown
location of a randomly dispersed sensor. These arguments are neither
commensurate in scope with claim 1 nor clearly related to any limitation
recited therein. A calculated location, as recited in claim 1, is not
necessarily either previously “randomized or unknown.” As such,
Appellants have failed to demonstrate how Miller and Gehlot teach away
from their claimed invention.4
“[W]hen . . . the prior art . . . is altered by the mere substitution of one
element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than
yield a predictable result.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416
(2007) (citation omitted). Substituting Miller’s magnetometer (or others
known in the art (see FF 1)) in place of Gehlot’s eddy current sensor yields
no more than a predictable result of a battery operated, wireless
magnetometer intrusion detection system having known and calculated
locations for the different magnetometer sensors.

4 Appellants also point out (App. Br. 14; see also Reply Br. 6-9) that the
Examiner relied on a separate Gehlot embodiment (see Fig. 2) from that
described in column 12 (the Figure 6 embodiment) to teach the known and
calculated location limitations of the independent claims. Our discussion in
response to Appellants’ arguments with respect to the latter embodiment
renders moot any cumulative findings with respect to Gehlot’s Figure 2
embodiment. As our discussion indicates, the breadth of claim 1 precludes
the necessity of reliance on the GPS teachings involved in Gehlot’s Figure 2
embodiment (as generally proposed by the Examiner (see Ans. 10)). In any
case, Gehlot’s Figure 1 sensor (including batteries, wireless, and GPS)
teachings are not limited to sensing involving a person (see Figure 2), but
also apply generally to sensing of an environment (FF 8), like the sensors in
the Figure 6 embodiment (FF 7).
Appeal 2009-003889
Application 10/955,870

10
Therefore, Appellants have not demonstrated Examiner error with
respect to claim 1, nor with respect to claims 2-4, 6-8, 10, 13-16, 18, 19, 23-
25, 31-34, 36, 39-42, 44, 48, and 50, which were not separately argued and
therefore fall with claim 1 (see supra note 2).
Appellants rely (App. Br. 15-17) on the asserted deficiencies of
Gehlot and Miller to show error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of
claims 5, 27, and 35; claims 21, 22, 29, 30, 46, and 47; and claims 17, 26,
and 43; respectively based upon the additional references to Bader, Sojdehei,
and Galloway. Accordingly, for the reasons outlined above, Appellants’
reliance fails to demonstrate Examiner error in the rejections of these claims.

CONCLUSION
Appellants did not demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that
Gehlot and Miller collectively teach employing wireless, battery-operated
magnetometers disposed in at least one known location and one calculated
location around an area of a protected infrastructure as set forth in claim 1.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-8, 10, 13-19,
21-27, 29-36, 39-44, 46-48, and 50.
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

Appeal 2009-003889
Application 10/955,870

11

babc

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PCPI)
C/O FLETCHER YODER
P. O. BOX 692289
HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289
Application/Control No.

10/955,870
Applicant(s)/Patent Under
Reexamination
Helena Goldfarb et al.
Notice of References Cited
Examiner

Jennifer Mehmood
Art Unit

2600

Page 1 of 1

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

* Document Number Country Code-Number-Kind Code Date MM-YYYY

Name

Classification

A US-

B US-

C US-

D US-

E US-

F US-

G US-

H US-

I US-

J US-

K US-

L US-

M US-
FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS

* Document Number Country Code-Number-Kind Code Date MM-YYYY

Country

Name

Classification

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T
NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS
* Include as applicable: Author, Title Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages)

U

Halit Eren, Magnetic Sensors, WILEY ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING 111 (J.
Webster ed., 1999), available at http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/emrw/9780471346081/eeee/article/W3951/current/pdf.

V

IEEE STANDARD DICTIONARY OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS TERMS 330 (6th ed. 1996).

W

X

*A copy of this reference is not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP § 707.05(a).)
Dates in MM-YYYY format are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
PTO-892 (Rev. 01-2001) Notice of References Cited Part of Paper No.
Delete Last PagelAdd A Page