Ex Parte Green et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 31, 2012

10570742 (B.P.A.I. May. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
10/570,742 03/07/2006 David John Green 06-150 8740
20306 7590 06/01/2012
MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP
300 S. WACKER DRIVE
32ND FLOOR
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
LAU, TUNG S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2857
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DAVID JOHN GREEN, DEAN ALASTAIR ROBERT BEALE,
ANDREW LINTON HUME, and JASON SENOIR
____________

Appeal 2010-005231
Application 10/570,742
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005231
Application 10/570,742
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a sensor module
including a processor adapted to determine whether the sensor module
should operate in a sensing mode or a controlling mode within the network.
See Spec. 1:19-24 and 2:9-33.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A sensor module for use in a sensor network, the sensor
module comprising at least one sensor, a locator for
determining the location of the at least one sensor, a transceiver
for communicating with other sensor modules and/or a base
station and a processor wherein the processor is adapted, in use,
to communicate with other sensor modules and to determine
whether the sensor module should operate in a sensing mode or
a controlling mode within the network.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based
upon the teachings of W.D. Bryan et al, Man-Portable Networked Sensor
System, SPIE Proc. 3394: Sensor Technology for Soldier Systems, 79-88
(1998) (hereinafter “Bryan”).

ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Bryan
teaches “a processor . . . to determine whether the sensor module should
Appeal 2010-005231
Application 10/570,742
3
operate in a sensing mode or a controlling mode” as recited in claim 1 and
that the claim does not require a sensor module that includes such a
processor.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citations omitted).

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that Bryan “fails to disclose sensors that include a
processor that can decide whether to operate in a sensor mode or in a control
mode” (App. Br. 9). Appellants note that Bryan’s processors have the same
unchanging functions wherein one processor functions as the payload
processor, a second processor is the image processor for compressing images
before sending them back to the control/display, and the third processor is a
video processor dedicated to real time video compressing and transmission
(see App. Br. 9 and Bryan § 2.2). Appellants conclude that nowhere in
Bryan “is there a disclosure that any processor can change from a sensing
processor to a controlling processor or vice versa” (App. Br. 9).
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Bryan teaches a payload
processor, an image processor, and a video processor (§ 2.2). Contrary to
the Examiner’s assertion (Ans. 19-20), we find no support in Bryan for the
teaching of “a processor . . . to determine whether the sensor module should
operate in a sensing mode or a controlling mode” as recited in claim 1
Appeal 2010-005231
Application 10/570,742
4
(emphasis added). Furthermore, we find untenable the Examiner’s assertion
that the claim does not recite a sensor that includes “a processor that can
decide whether to operate in a sensor mode or in a control mode,” as
asserted by Appellants (Ans. 17-18), as claim 1 clearly requires “[a] sensor
module . . . comprising . . . a processor . . . to determine whether the sensor
module should operate in a sensing mode or a controlling mode.”
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for
the same reasons the rejections of claims 2-22.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding that Bryan teaches “a processor . . . to
determine whether the sensor module should operate in a sensing mode or a
controlling mode” as recited in claim 1 and that the claim does not require a
sensor module that includes such a processor.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-22 is reversed.

REVERSED

llw