12756585 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 4, 2014)

Ex Parte Hoyte et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 4, 2014

12756585 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 4, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 12/756,585 04/08/2010 Scott Mordin Hoyte 242452 (GEC-69) 1915 87853 7590 11/04/2014 Dority & Manning, PA and General Electric Company Post Office Box 1449 Greenville, SC 29602 EXAMINER FAYYAZ, NASHMIYA SAQIB ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2856 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/04/2014 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SCOTT MORDIN HOYTE, PRESTON KEITH PARKER, ACHALESH KUMAR PANDEY, RAVI YOGANATHA BABU, and BHASKER RAO KEELY ____________ Appeal 2013-000825 Application 12/756,585 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges. Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge GARRIS. Opinion Concurring filed by Administrative Patent Judge NAGUMO. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1–20 as unpatentable over Darrel (US 4,429,578 issued Feb. 7, 1984) in view of Collins (US 2003/0077179 A1 published Apr. 24, 2003). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM. Appeal 2013-000825 Application 12/756,585 2 Appellants claim a system for monitoring compressor anomalies comprising a controller and "an input device that transmits a data signal to said controller, wherein the data signal reflects at least one of repair or maintenance information about the compressor" (claim 1; see also claim 7). Appellants additionally claim a corresponding method for monitoring compressor anomalies (claim 14). A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, appears below. 1. A system for monitoring compressor anomalies, comprising: a. an acoustic energy detector connected to the compressor; b. a controller in communication with said acoustic energy detector, wherein said acoustic energy detector transmits an acoustic energy signal reflective of acoustic energy produced by the compressor to said controller; c. at least one sensor operably connected to the compressor, wherein said at least one sensor measures an operating parameter of the compressor and transmits a parameter signal reflective of the operating parameter to said controller; and d. an input device that transmits a data signal to said controller, wherein said data signal reflects at least one of repair or maintenance information about the compressor. Appellants do not separately argue the dependent claims under rejection (App. Br. 3–5). Therefore, the dependent claims will stand or fall with their parent independent claims 1, 7, and 14 of which claim 1 is representative. Appeal 2013-000825 Application 12/756,585 3 We sustain the above rejection based on the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments well expressed by the Examiner in the Final Action and in the Answer. The following comments are added for emphasis. The Examiner finds that the compressor monitoring system of Darrel fails to include an input device for transmitting to the controller a data signal reflecting repair or maintenance information as claimed but that Collins would have suggested providing Darrel with such an input device for transmitting such a data signal (Final Action 2–3 citing Collins paras. 15–24; Ans. 3–4 and 6–7 citing Collins paras. 17, 24). Appellants argue that Collins contains no teaching or suggestion of an input device for transmitting a data signal reflecting repair or maintenance information as recited in the independent claims (App. Br. 4–5; Reply 2–4). Appellants’ argument does not reveal error in the Examiner's finding because it does not address the Collins disclosures cited by the Examiner in support of this finding (i.e., paras. 17, 24). The decision of the Examiner 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). AFFIRMED UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SCOTT MORDIN HOYTE, PRESTON KEITH PARKER, ACHALESH KUMAR PANDEY, RAVI YOGANATHA BABU, and BHASKER RAO KEELY ____________ Appeal 2013-000825 Application 12/756,585 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges. NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge, concurring. I write separately to emphasize my view that the “real” problem with Appellants’ arguments is that the terms “data signal” and “repair or maintenance information” are not well-defined by the ʼ585 Specification, contrary to their argument in the Brief (App. Br., para. bridging 4-5). As the Specification itself makes clear (Spec. 9 [0030], “The patentable scope of the invention is defined by the claims, and may include other examples that occur to those skilled in the art.”), examples are not limiting. Moreover, Appellants’ argument that the recitation of data signals reflecting “operational information” in dependent claims 3, 10, and 16 differentiate “operational information” from “repair or maintenance information” (Br., para. bridging 6-7) is not consistent with the appealed Appeal 2013-000825 Application 12/756,585 2 claims. Limitation [d] of each independent claim recites that “said data signal reflects at least one of repair or maintenance information about the compressor.” (Claims App. 1, 2, and 3.) Claims 3, 7, and 16 add the further limitation, “wherein said data signal reflects operational information about the compressor.” (Id. at 1, 3, and 4.) The Examiner’s interpretation that the repair or maintenance information in the data signal recited in the independent claims encompasses the operational information recited in the dependent claims is not unreasonable. The goals of recognizing ambiguities and exploring scope and breadth of language have been well-served by the Examiner’s rejections over prior art. Cf. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). I join my colleagues in finding that Appellants have not revealed harmful error in the appealed rejections, and I concur in the affirmance. kmm