Ex Parte Huxley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 9, 2015

12598847 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/598,847 02/24/2010
23908 7590 12/11/2015
RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
1621 EUCLID AVENUE
NINETEENTH FLOOR
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Martin Huxley
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.
IPLTP0168US 4119
EXAMINER
BUGG, GEORGE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/11/2015 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):
ipdocket@rennerotto.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
~UNITED STATES PATENT AND TR~ADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARTIN HUXLEY and
TANALEONARDUSWONDERGEM
Appeal2014-000436
Application 12/598,847
Technology Center 2600
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, ADAM J. PYONIN, and NABEEL U. KHAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-5, 7-10, 13, and 14, which comprise
all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-000436
Application 12/598,847
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosure is directed to "electrical supply devices -
outlet sockets and associated switches - for improved energy efficiency,
and especially for use in a domestic environment." Spec. 1: 18-19. Claim 1
is reproduced below (with emphasis added):
1. A mains electrical supply outlet comprising:
a signal receiver to receive an encoded wireless signal;
a socket, connectable, in use, to an electricity-consuming
device, to supply mains electricity thereto;
a controller, powered by mains electricity, to decode said
received encoded signal and, in response to said signal, to
control switching of electrical power to said socket; and
a connection sensor, to sense the connection of an
electricity-consuming device to said socket and to disconnect
power from said controller in the absence of such a connection.
References and Re} ections
Claims 1-5, 7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gosling (US 5,455,464; Oct. 3, 1995) and Suzuki (JP
2007-059364; Mar. 8, 2007). 1 Final Act. 2.
Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gosling, Suzuki, and Teruhiko (JP 2109282A; April
1990). Final Act. 5.
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gosling, Suzuki, Teruhiko, and Roberts (US 5,290,983;
Mar. 1, 1994). Final Act. 6-7.
1 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to the English translation of record of
Suzuki.
2
Appeal2014-000436
Application 12/598,847
ANALYSIS
Appellants do not separately argue claims 1-5, 7-10, 13, and 14. See
App. Br. 10. We select claim 1 as representative of the group. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in
light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We have
considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised
in the Briefs. Any other arguments that Appellants could have made but
chose not to make in the Briefs, or that are made in a conclusory fashion, are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We adopt the
Examiner's findings and conclusions (see Final Act. 2-8; Ans. 10-16) as our
own, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred, because the cited references
disclose a "proximity sensor" which does not teach the limitations of claim
1. App. Br. 4. Particularly, Appellants contend that "the 'sensitivity sensor'
of Suzuki does not sense whether an appliance is plugged into a socket.
Rather, the sensitivity sensor senses motion or presence of a nearby object ..
. when, for example, someone is in the room and activating the sensor."
App. Br. 6-7.
Suzuki discloses:
Conventionally, an electrical appliance or the like with a built-
in sensor was available, but there was no device allowing a user
to utilize the sensor freely for an appliance desired by the user.
This invention solves this inconvenience by providing an
electrical outlet that can be used for various electrical
appliances.
When a sensor 1 senses an object, the power supply of an
electrical outlet 2 is turned on or off.
3
Appeal2014-000436
Application 12/598,847
Suzuki page 2. Appellants do not persuade us the Examiner erred in finding
the "object," as taught in Suzuki, is the connected electrical appliance.
Rather, we agree with the Examiner that Suzuki teaches an "electrical socket
has a sensor that determines whether or not an object exists in [the] electrical
socket for turning on the power supply of the socket." Final Act. 3, see also
Suzuki Figs. 1-2. We find the Examiner's interpretation of"object" to be
consistent with Suzuki's disclosure, which refers to "user" separately from
the "object" to be sensed. See Suzuki pages 2-3.
Appellants, in contrast, do not provide evidence or persuasive
argument to show Suzuki is directed to a proximity sensor. See, e.g., App
Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2--4. Such a response to the Examiner's findings is
insufficient to persuade us of Examiner error, as mere attorney arguments
and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are
entitled to little probative value. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470
(Fed. Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding Suzuki teaches a "connection sensor" as recited in claim 1. See Ans.
1 1.
Further, Appellants argue Suzuki's operating modes and power
circuitry do not teach the claim limitations; however, such arguments are not
responsive to the Examiner's findings. See App. Br. 8-10; Reply Br. 4--9.
"The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference[,] ... the test is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, the Examiner does not bodily
incorporate Suzuki, but finds one of skill in the art would modify Gosling's
4
Appeal2014-000436
Application 12/598,847
teaching of a signal receiver, socket, and controller with Suzuki's teaching
of using a connection sensor to tum the outlet on or off, in order to use the
sensor of Suzuki to tum the controller of Gosling off when a device is not
connected. See Final Act. 3, see also Ans. 15-16 (citing Gosling Fig. 2 and
Suzuki Figs. 1-2). We agree with the Examiner and find the combination of
Gosling with Suzuki was not "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485
F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In our view, the Examiner provided the
necessary reasoning and underpinning to sustain the rejections, and we agree
with the Examiner's findings and conclusion of obviousness.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5, 7-10,
13, and 14, 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
kme
5