Ex Parte Hanses et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2018

13949634 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/949,634 07/24/2013
34044 7590 03/30/2018
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch)
100 EAST WISCONSIN A VENUE
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thomas Hanses
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.
022862-187 6-usoo 1482
EXAMINER
MESA,JOSEM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2018 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):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS HANSES and JOERG TURNER
Appeal2017-011067
Application 13/949,634
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, IRVINE. BRANCH, and
KERRY BEGLEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEGLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1 and 3-19. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE and enter a NEW GROUND OF
REJECTION pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
The disclosed invention is directed to a fire monitoring system that
includes at least two cameras with viewing fields, i.e., "regions ... imaged
on the [cameras'] monitoring images," that overlap in a common monitoring
Appeal2017-011067
Application 13/949,634
region. (Spec. i-fi-f l, 5, 31.) Each camera's monitoring images displays the
common monitoring region from a different perspective. (Id. i-fi-15, 33.)
In addition, the fire monitoring system includes an evaluation device
that is constructed to detect a fire in the cameras' monitoring images and to
output positional information of the fire. (Id. i-fi-f l, 6-7.) The evaluation
device preferably determines positional information of the fire using stereo
analysis of the cameras' monitoring images. (Id. i-fi-f 11, 38.)
Claim 1, the sole independent claim in the instant application, is
representative of the recited subject matter:
1. A fire monitoring system (1) compromising[lJ:
a first and a second monitoring camera ( 4, 5) for outputting
monitoring images (4.a; 5.1), wherein the viewing
fields ( 6, 7) of the first and the second monitoring
camera ( 4, 5) overlap in a common monitoring region (8) that
extends over a length (L) on a floor or a wall,
an evaluation device (9) for identifying a fire (2, 3) in the
monitoring images ( 4.1, 5.1) wherein the evaluation
device (9) is constructed to output positional information for
the fire (2, 3) by way of evaluating the monitoring
images ( 4.a, 5.1) using stereo analysis.
(App. Br. 10.)
Prior Art References
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Pfeff erseder
Hou
US 2003/0038877 Al
US 2009/0315722 Al
Feb.27,2003
Dec. 24, 2009
1 Claim 1 contains a typographical error, reciting "compromising" instead of
"comprising." For purposes of this appeal, we interpret the claim to be
directed to "[a] fire monitoring system ( 1) comprising" the recited elements.
2
Appeal2017-011067
Application 13/949,634
Knox
Xiong
US 2011/0058167 Al
US 2011/0058706 Al
Rejections
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Mar. 10, 2011
Mar. 10, 2011
Claims 1, 10-12, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Knox·
'
Claims 3-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Knox;
Claims 8, 9, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Knox and
Pfeff erseder;
Claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Knox and Xiong; and
Claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Knox and Hou.
(Non-Final Act. (filed Sept. 22, 2016) 10-25; Ans. 2-16.)
ISSUE
The dispositive issue on appeal is: Did the Examiner err in finding that
Knox discloses the disputed limitations of "wherein the viewing fields ( 6, 7)
of the first and the second monitoring camera ( 4, 5) overlap in a common
monitoring region (8) that extends over a length (L) on a floor or a wall"
("'common monitoring region' limitation") and "wherein the evaluation
device (9) is constructed to output positional information for the fire (2, 3)
by way of evaluating the monitoring images ( 4.a, 5.1) using stereo analysis"
("'evaluation device' limitation"), as recited in independent claim 1 ?2
ANALYSIS
Anticipation Re} ection
The Examiner finds that Knox discloses the "common monitoring
region" limitation of independent claim 1 in paragraphs 107-108, 34 7, 349-
2 Appellants raise additional contentions of error. We, however, do not
reach them because the identified issue is dispositive.
3
Appeal2017-011067
Application 13/949,634
3 51 and Figures 21-23 and the "evaluation device" limitation in
paragraphs 104, 107, 109,261,274,303,331,388,399--400,484-485,493,
495-500, 524--525, 646 and Figures 15, 26, 27, and 29. (Non-Final Act. 5-
12; Ans. 2-3, 20-22.) On appeal, Appellants contend that paragraphs 107-
108 are "the only ... disclosure in Knox of overlapping fields of view" but
these paragraphs "do[] not include any disclosure of stereo analysis." (App.
Br. 5---6.) Therefore, according to Appellants, paragraphs 107-108 of Knox
are "insufficient to anticipate" the "common monitoring region" and
"evaluation device" limitations. (Id.) Appellants further assert that "[a ]ll of
the figures and the remainder of the description [of Knox] do not disclose
these limitations." (Id. at 6; see id. at 5-7; Reply Br. 2-3.)
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 1 as anticipated by Knox. In our analysis below, we
address the "common monitoring region" limitation followed by the
"evaluation device" limitation.
To start, we agree with the Examiner that paragraphs 107-108 of
Knox disclose the "common monitoring region" limitation. According to
the Examiner, in light of Knox's reference to "cameras configured to
capturing images with overlapping fields of view," the "overlapping fields of
view of the cameras ha[ve] to have a common region." (Non-Final Act. 5-7;
Ans. 20.) Appellants concede that this passage discloses "overlapping fields
of view." (App. Br. 5.) Having reviewed the passage, we are persuaded that
it discloses the "common monitoring region" limitation, given the discussion
of a particle detection system with a "plurality of image sensors," or
"cameras," "configured to capture images with overlapping fields of view"
and explanation that these cameras output images featuring "the same
object," "taken at approximately the same time." In particular, the
4
Appeal2017-011067
Application 13/949,634
discussion expressly discloses that the "viewing fields" of the cameras
"overlap" and makes clear that this overlap covers a "common monitoring
region ... that extends over a length (L)," i.e., at least the length of the
object that is featured in the image from each camera.
We agree with Appellants, however, that paragraphs 107-108 of
Knox are the only portion of the reference cited by the Examiner for the
"common monitoring region" limitation that discloses the limitation. (See
id. at 5---6.) Beyond paragraphs 107-108, the passages and figures of Knox
cited by the Examiner for this limitation divide into three categories:
(1) Figure 21 and corresponding description in paragraphs 349-350,
(2) Figure 22 and corresponding description in paragraph 351, and
(3) Figure 23 and corresponding description in paragraph 347. (Non-Final
Act. 11-12; Ans. 2-3, 20-22.) We address each in tum.
First, the Examiner finds that in Knox's Figure 21, discussed in
paragraphs 349-350, the "viewing fields of cameras 2104 and 2114"
"clearly overlap" in the "same" or "common region of interest 2116" that
extends the "length (L) ... between the two cameras." (Non-Final Act. 7-
11; Ans. 2-3, 20-21.) Appellants respond that Figure 21 illustrates, and
paragraph 350 "specifically recites," that "receivers (i.e., cameras) 2104 and
2114 monitor separate areas ... [that] do not overlap." (App. Br. 5 (quoting
Knox i-f 350); Reply Br. 2.) According to Appellants, the cameras' separate
monitored areas or "viewing fields" 2106 and 2116 "abut but do not
overlap." (Reply Br. 2.) Appellants contend that the common boundary of
these separate areas is not a "common monitoring area" and does not extend
"a length (L) on a floor or wall," as claim 1 requires. (App. Br. 5, 7.)
We agree with Appellants that paragraph 350 and Figure 21 of Knox
do not support the Examiner's finding that the "viewing fields" of
5
Appeal2017-011067
Application 13/949,634
receivers 2104 and 2114 "overlap in a common monitoring region," namely
region of interest 2116. Paragraph 350 specifies that first receiver 2104,
together with light source 2102, is "configured to monitor" "triangular area"
or "region of interest 2106"-whereas second receiver 2114, together with
light source 2112, is "configured to monitor" "triangular area" or "region of
interest 2116." (Knox i-f 350.) The paragraph also expressly states: "each
laser-receiver pair monitor[s] a different area in the region of interest." (Id.
(emphasis added).) In addition, Figure 21 depicts receivers 2104 and 2114
monitoring different regions of interest 2106 and 2116, respectively, with a
line separating the two distinct regions. (See id. at Fig. 21.) Accordingly,
Figure 21 and paragraph 350 of Knox disclose that receivers 2104 and 2114
monitor distinct areas or regions of interest 2106 and 2116, respectively,
and, thus, make clear that these receivers have distinct "viewing fields."
(See Spec. i-f 5 (explaining that "viewing fields" "mean[ s] ... regions which
are imaged on the monitoring images of the monitoring cameras").)
Moreover, even if regions of interest 2106 and 2116 could be
understood to share a common boundary, a mere shared boundary does not
constitute a "common monitoring region" (emphasis added) where the
receivers' "viewing fields ... overlap," as claim 1 requires. (App. Br. 5, 7 .)
In sum, Figure 21 and paragraph 3 50 of Knox fail to support the
Examiner's finding that the "viewing fields" of receivers 2104 and 2114
"overlap in a common monitoring region," i.e., region of interest 2116.
Second, as to cited paragraph 351 and Figure 22 of Knox,
paragraph 351 explains that Figure 22 illustrates an exemplary
implementation of apparatus 2200, including a combination of a light
source, light bar, and receiver, which can be used at the ends of the system
of Figure 21. (Knox i-f 3 51.) This discussion of apparatus 2200, as well as
6
Appeal2017-011067
Application 13/949,634
its depiction in Figure 21, adds nothing to demonstrate or support Knox's
disclosure of a "common monitoring region."
Third, with respect to paragraph 34 7 and Figure 23 of Knox, the
Examiner's finding and reasoning that system 2300 includes camera 2302,
with field of view 2304, and scanning light source 2306, which "cast[ s]
rays" and "scan[ s] a region substantially overlapping field of view 2304," is
insufficient to support that system 2300 includes a "common monitoring
region." (Non-Final Act. 8; Ans. 20.) Rather, as described in paragraph 347
and depicted in Figure 23, system 2300 includes only one camera 2302 with
field of view 2304. (Knox i-f 347, Fig. 23.) Although system 2300 also
includes light source 2306, which "cast[s] rays[,] for example 2312," and
"scan[ s] a region substantially overlapping field of view 2304," light
source 2306 is not a "camera" and the area its light rays scan does not
constitute a "viewing field[]" of a "camera," as claim 1 requires. (Id. if 347;
see id. i-f 351 (explaining that a light source is used to "project" and "emit a
beam of light" towards a sensor or receiver).) Thus, the overlap in field of
view 2304 of camera 2302 and the region scanned by light source 2306 is
not a "common monitoring region," in which the "viewing fields ( 6, 7) of
the first and second monitoring camera ( 4, 5) overlap," as recited in claim 1.
Turning to the "evaluation device" limitation of claim 1, the
Examiner's finding that Knox discloses this limitation is deficient for two
independent reasons. First, the Examiner's rejection lacks sufficiently clear
and detailed factual findings and persuasive explanation as to how Knox
discloses this limitation, particularly the recited "stereo analysis," which, per
the claim language, involves evaluating the monitoring images of the two
cameras to determine positional information for the fire. The Examiner's
vague and generic finding that Knox "evaluat[ es] the monitoring images (i.e.
7
Appeal2017-011067
Application 13/949,634
images) using stereo analysis (i.e. analysis)" is insufficient in this regard.
(Non-Final Act. 10, 12; Ans. 3, 22.) The Examiner fails to provide
explanation to support how the cited passages and figures of Knox satisfy
the claim language.
Second, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner's rejection fails
to show that paragraphs 107-108 of Knox-which, as explained above, are
the only cited passage of the reference that discloses the recited "common
monitoring region"---disclose the "evaluation device" limitation. (App.
Br. 5---6.) The Examiner identifies active video smoke detection ("A VSD")
system 2600 as the claimed "evaluation device," but system 2600 appears in
Figure 26 and paragraph 388 of Knox and is not discussed in
paragraphs 107-108. (Non-Final Act. 10, 12; Ans. 3, 22; Knox i-fi-f 107-108,
388, Fig. 26.) Thus, the Examiner's rejection does not identify an
"evaluation device" in paragraphs 107-108 of Knox.
The Examiner also fails to explain and support how paragraphs 107-
108 disclose an "evaluation device ... constructed to output positional
information/or the fire (2, 3)" (emphasis added), as claim 1 requires. The
passage explains that the disclosed particle detection system is "configured
to detect particle in an air volume" or in other words, "to analyse the
captured images to detect the presence of particles within the volume."
(Knox i-f 107 (emphases added).) The passage further explains that the
system includes an intrusion detection means "configured to analyse the
output of the cameras ... to calculate a position of [a] suspected intruding
object." (Id. (emphasis added).)
On this record, we are not persuaded that the particles and intruding
object in paragraphs 107-108 are equivalent or that the intruding object
corresponds to the "fire" recited in claim 1. The Examiner does not make
8
Appeal2017-011067
Application 13/949,634
any finding that Knox's particles and intruding object are the same element
or that the intruding object satisfies the "fire" claim element. Further, Knox
explains the particles and intruding object are distinct. The particles in Knox
correspond to an attribute of fire, such as smoke. (See id. i-fi-f 165, 362
("smoke particles"), i1331 ("smoke or other particles"), i-fi-1274--275
("particles or fire threat," "airborne smoke or dust particles"), i1 449 ("dust
and smoke particle populations"); see also id. i12 (explaining that "[a]ctive
video smoke detection" is the name coined for ''particle detection systems
(most preferably smoke detection systems) that use video analysis techniques
to detect smoke" (emphases added).) The intruding object, however, does
not correspond to a fire and instead, refers to an object whose presence may
prevent accurate fire or smoke detection. Indeed, Knox refers to examples
of "intruding objects," namely "airborne insects" and "spider webs." (Id.
i1370.) Knox further explains its goal to "ameliorate the negative effects,"
such as false alarms and prevention of smoke detection, caused by "objects
other than smoke entering the [sensor's] beam or field of view." (Id. i15
(emphasis added); see id. i-fi-f l 06, 334--33 7, 340, 348 (explaining that if the
relevant systems and methods "detect the presence of an intruding object,"
they raise a "fault condition" or "error signal"); id. i-fi-1260-262 (discussing
an embodiment that "determine[ s] if there are any obstructions ... that may
reduce the sensor's ability to detect smoke").)
Accordingly, Knox discloses that the system in paragraphs 107-108 is
configured to calculate the position of an intruding object but only to detect
the presence-not to determine or output the position---of particles
corresponding to a fire. The passage, therefore, does not disclose outputting
the position of a fire, as required by the "evaluation device" limitation.
9
Appeal2017-011067
Application 13/949,634
In addition to paragraph 107 of Knox, the Examiner's analysis of the
"evaluation device" limitation in the rejection cites twenty-one other
paragraphs and four figures spread throughout Knox: "figs. 15, 26, 27, 29
~s 104, ... 109,261,274,303,331,388,399-400,484-485,493,495-500,
524-525, 646." (Non-Final Act. 10, 12; Ans. 3, 22.) The Examiner's
analysis specifically refers to Knox's A VSD system 2600, which is featured
in Figure 26 and discussed in paragraph 388, as well as Knox's explanation
in paragraph 399 that "positional change can be recogni[ s Jed by processing
of the sensor output[ (]e.g.[,] video image[)] of the target spot." (Non-Final
Act. 10, 12 (alterations added to track punctuation and spelling in
paragraph 399 of Knox); Ans. 3, 22 (same); Knox~~ 388, 399, Fig. 26.)
These passages and figures of Knox, however, do not relate to the
same embodiment described in paragraphs 107-108, which, as explained
above, discloses a particle detection system featuring a plurality of cameras
"configured to captur[ e] images with overlapping fields of view" as well as
intrusion detection means to "identify" and "calculate a position of [a]
suspected intruding object." (Knox~~ 107-108; see Non-Final Act. 10, 12;
Ans. 3, 22.) For example, as Appellants argue, Figure 26 of Knox depicts
A VSD system 2600, which includes only one camera and a "single beam"
"of radiation." (Knox~ 388, Fig. 26; App. Br. 5.) Further, Knox's
discussion of this system in paragraph 388 does not refer to detecting or
calculating the position of an intruding object. (Knox~ 388.) Instead,
system 2600 is directed to providing fire protection for a large area that
includes smaller adjoining spaces, such as offices or cabinets, by using fans
to pump air from the smaller spaces into the main area being monitored.
(Id.) Thus, A VSD system 2600 constitutes a distinct embodiment from the
particle detection system in paragraphs 107-108.
10
Appeal2017-011067
Application 13/949,634
Taking another example, paragraph 399 explains that "[i]n one
embodiment of the present invention, ... positional change" characteristic of
heat shimmer "can be recognised by processing of the sensor output (e.g.
video image) of the target spot or by accurately detecting the received light
level at the target spot" and that such recognition may be used to identify
fires that produce little or no smoke or overheating equipment. (Id. i-f 399
(emphasis added).) Thus, Knox is explicit that the A VSD system discussed
in paragraph 399----directed to recognizing heat shimmer-is a distinct
embodiment from the particle detection system discussed in paragraphs 107-
108----directed to detecting particles and to calculating the position of a
suspected intruding object using cameras with overlapping fields of view.
(See id. i-fi-1107-108, 399-400.)
Accordingly, even ifthe Examiner's rejection showed sufficiently that
the cited passages and figures of Knox---other than paragraphs 107-108-
disclose the "evaluation device" limitation, we still could not sustain the
rejection of claim 1 because it improperly relies on different embodiments of
Knox. It is well settled that to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102, "a single
prior art reference must ... disclose each claim limitation ... arranged or
combined in the same way as in the claim." Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign,
Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quotations omitted). In other
words, the reference must "identically disclose[]" the claimed subject matter
"without any need for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures
not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference." In
re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972).
In sum, given that the only passage of Knox cited by the Examiner
that discloses the "common monitoring region" limitation is paragraphs
107-108 and that the Examiner relies on embodiments distinct from the
11
Appeal2017-011067
Application 13/949,634
system in paragraphs 107-108 for the "evaluation device" limitation, the
Examiner's findings fail to show that Knox discloses every recited element
as arranged or combined in claim 1, as part of a single embodiment. Thus,
we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Knox.
Moreover, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 10-12, 15, and 16,
which depend from independent claim 1, for the same reasons as claim 1.
The rejection of these claims relies on the rejection of claim 1 and does not
cure the deficiencies discussed above. (Non-Final Act. 12-14; Ans. 3-5.)
Obviousness Rejections
We tum to consider the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 3-
9, 13, 14, and 17-19, each of which depends from independent claim 1. The
Examiner's rejection of these claims relies on the rejection of independent
claim 1 based on Knox and provides an obviousness analysis, relying on
Knox and/or Pfefferseder, Xiong, or Hou, only for the additional limitations
of each dependent claim. (Non-Final Act. 14--25; Ans. 5-16.)
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3-
9, 13, 14, and 17-19 for substantially the same reasons given above for
claim 1. First, for the same reasons the Examiner's rejection does not
explain or support sufficiently Knox's disclosure of the "evaluation device"
limitation of claim 1, we likewise determine that the rejection does not
articulate or show adequately that Knox teaches or suggests this limitation.
Second, the Examiner's reliance on multiple embodiments of Knox in
addressing claim 1 remains problematic for the obviousness rejections. The
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has made clear that an
obviousness "rejection ... based on ... combining multiple embodiments
from a single reference ... must [include] a motivation to make the
12
Appeal2017-011067
Application 13/949,634
combination and a reasonable expectation that such a combination would be
successful." In re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342, 1346 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
The Examiner's rejection, however, does not address or provide findings
regarding reasons to combine or an expectation of success in combining the
distinct embodiments of Knox relied upon in the rejection of claim 1.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
We enter a new ground of rejection pursuant to our authority under
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). We reject independent claim 1under35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Knox.
Knox discloses first and second monitoring cameras for outputting
monitoring images wherein the viewing fields of the first and second
monitoring cameras overlap in a common monitoring region (Knox i-f 107:
"a plurality of image sensors configured to captur[ e] images with
overlapping fields of view," which take images of "the same object ... at
approximately the same time") that extends over a length (L) on a floor or
wall (one skilled in the art would understand that image sensors that take
images of the same object at approximately the same time (Knox i-f 107)
have fields of view that overlap at least the length of the object and that
overlapping fields of view of horizontally mounted image sensors
corresponding to Knox's horizontal camera mounting orientation (Knox
i-f 629) overlap in a length dimension that extends over the length of an
underlying floor).
Knox further discloses an evaluation device for identifying a fire in
the monitoring images (Knox i-f 107: "particle detection system configured
to detect particle[ s] in an air volume" which, by detecting particles in the air
would be capable of being used to identify a fire (see Knox i-fi-12, 165, 362
13
Appeal2017-011067
Application 13/949,634
(explaining that "particles" correspond with "smoke")) wherein the
evaluation device is constructed to output information for the fire by way of
evaluating the monitoring images using stereo analysis (Knox i-f 107:
"intrusion detection means configured to analyse the output of the cameras
and identify a suspected intruding objection in the image from one of the
cameras; and to identify the same object in an image from the other camera
taken at approximately the same time as the first image and to calculate a
position of the suspected intruding object."). Under a broad but reasonable
interpretation of "stereo analysis," Knox's calculation of a position of a
suspected intruding object using images from two cameras teaches or
suggests stereo analysis of an image. (See Spec. i-fi-1 11, 3 8.)
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have
had good reason to calculate the position of particles corresponding to a fire,
including to alert firefighters, other fire response mechanisms, security
personnel, or nearby individuals regarding the fire location in order to better
respond to and address the fire. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to apply Knox's object position calculation based on
imaging from two cameras as taught by Knox's intrusion detection means of
the particle detection system to the airborne particles detected by the same
system so that the system not only detects the existence of the particles but
also calculates a position of the particles characteristic of a fire.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed supra, we find that Knox's
particle detection system, including intrusion detection means, teaches or
suggests the subject matter of claim 1.
The Board is a review body, rather than a place of initial examination.
We have made a new rejection regarding independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). However, we have not
14
Appeal2017-011067
Application 13/949,634
reviewed the remaining claims to the extent necessary to determine whether
those claims are unpatentable over Knox alone or in combination with other
prior art. We leave it to the Examiner to ascertain the appropriateness of any
further rejections based on Knox or other references. Our decision not to
enter a new ground of rejection for all claims should not be considered as an
indication regarding the appropriateness of further rejection or allowance of
the non-rejected claims. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
§ 1213.03 (9th rev. ed. 2018).
DECISION
For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner's rejection
of claims 1and3-19. We enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION for
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
This decision contains a new ground of rejection under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b). This rule provides that "[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to
this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review" and that
Appellants, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE
DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to
the new ground to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claim:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claim[] so rejected or new Evidence relating
to the claim[] so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the Examiner, in which event the proceeding
will be remanded to the Examiner ....
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record ....
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).
REVERSED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
15