Ex Parte Jacob

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 19, 2018

13395526 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/395,526 03/12/2012 Lawrence Anthony Jacob
24737 7590 10/23/2018
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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.
2009P01125WOUS 1078
EXAMINER
SUL, DOUGLAS YOUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3785
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/23/2018 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):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LAWRENCE ANTHONY JACOB
Appeal2017-010370
Application 13/395,526
Technology Center 3700
Before: DANIEL S. SONG, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's final
decision rejecting claims 1--4, 7-9, and 11-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2017-010370
Application 13/395,526
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a humidifier with wireless temperature
sensmg. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A respiration humidifier comprising:
a base unit, the base unit comprising a primary coil of a
transformer;
a chamber constructed and arranged to hold a reservoir of
liquid, the chamber comprising:
a chamber outlet configured to release gas, via a fluid
passageway, from the chamber to a user interface for breathing
by a user, wherein the chamber is detachable from the base unit;
a sensor disposed within the chamber, and being
operatively configured and arranged to sense a temperature of the
liquid within the chamber, wherein the sensor is carried by the
chamber;
a radiation signal transmitter carried by the chamber and
operatively associated with the sensor, wherein the radiation
signal transmitter is configured to send a radiation signal
indicative of the sensed temperature wirelessly;
a processing unit carried by the chamber operatively
associated with the sensor and the radiation signal transmitter,
the processing unit configured to receive sensed temperature
information from the sensor and cause the radiation signal
transmitter to send the radiation signal; and
a secondary coil of the transformer, wherein a varying
current in the primary coil induces a voltage in the secondary coil
via a varying magnetic field such that power is provided to the
chamber by inductive coupling;
a radiation signal receiver carried by the base unit and
configured to receive the radiation signal from the radiation
signal transmitter; and
a control unit carried by the base unit that controls the
temperature based on the radiation signal received by the
radiation signal receiver.
Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal2017-010370
Application 13/395,526
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Gerder
Forster
Edell
Polacsek
He
Somervell
Kenyon
US 2004/0182392 Al
US 6,847,912 B2
US 6,898,464 B2
US 2008/0066751 Al
US 2009/0171178 Al
US 2011/0088693 Al
US 8,006,691 B2
REJECTIONS
Sept. 23, 2004
Jan.25,2005
May 24, 2005
Mar. 20, 2008
July 2, 2009
Apr. 21, 2011
Aug. 30, 2011
(I) Claims 1--4, 7-9, 11-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Somervell, Polacsek, Forster, Gerder, and He.
(II) Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Somervell, Polacsek, Forster, Gerder, He, Kenyon, and
Edell. 1
OPINION
Rejection(!); claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-16, and 20
The Examiner finds that Somervell discloses many of the elements
required by claim 1, but relies on Polacsek to teach a detachable chamber in
a humidifier, Forster to teach features related to a radiation signal
transmitter, and Gerder to teach an inductive interface that transmits sensor
1 The heading for this rejection does not list Gerder and He as applied prior
art. Final Act. 13. However, as claims 17-19 each depend from one of
claims 1, 7, and 11, we understand that all of the prior art references applied
in the rejection of claims 1, 7, and 11 are also applied in the rejection of
claims 17-19.
3
Appeal2017-010370
Application 13/395,526
signals and an alternating current (to a battery). Final Act. 2-6. The
Examiner finds that He discloses an inductive power transmitter with first
and second coils. Id. at 6-7. The Examiner determines that the use of
primary and secondary coils for inductive charging was known in the art and
that a device as disclosed by Somervell, modified based on the teachings of
He would perform equally well. Id. at 7.
Appellant makes arguments for the patentability of claims 1--4, 7-9,
11-16, and 20 as a group. Appeal Br. 9-14. We select claim 1 as
representative of the group. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in applying He in the
rejection of claim 1 because He is non-analogous art. See Appeal Br. 9-13.
Specifically, Appellant contends that the Inventor's field of endeavor
"relates to a respiration humidifier," whereas He "describes a glucose
monitoring system that includes a sensor, a transmitter coupled to the sensor,
and a receiver which is configured to communicate with the transmitter via a
communication link." Id. (citing He ,r 23). Appellant further contends that
He is not reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the Inventor was
concerned. Id. at 11-12.
In response, the Examiner finds that He is reasonably pertinent to the
problem with which the Inventor was concerned inasmuch as both relate to
the wireless telemetry of sensor data between a transmitter and a receiver
and both relate to the providing power via inductive coupling. Ans. 17-18.
The Examiner has the better position on this point. The title of He is
"Method and System for Powering an Electronic Device." He describes a
glucose monitoring system that uses batteries in a transmitter device
implanted under the skin. He ,r,r 2-3. He provides a power supply that
provides power to the transmitter inductively to recharge a battery in the
4
Appeal2017-010370
Application 13/395,526
transmitter. Id. ,r 50. Further, He transmits data wirelessly from the
transmitter to a receiver. Id. ,r 43. Appellant's Specification discusses the
problem of wear and tear that occurs when using mechanical or electrical
connections between a humidifier and its base unit. Spec. ,r 4.
Nothwithstanding Appellant's contention that "[d]ifferences between (1) a
respiration humidifier in which power is provided to the chamber from the
base unit by inductive coupling and (2) a glucose monitoring system (like
the one taught in [He]) are numerous," the question is not whether there are
differences between the prior art and the cited prior art. The question is
whether He "logically would have commended itself to an inventor's
attention in considering his problem." In re Icon Health and Fitness, Inc.,
496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed.
Cir. 1992)). Although the focus of He's disclosure may not be in the same
field of endeavor, it is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the
Appellant because it describes nearly identical transmission functions.
Appellant also states, "there would be no reason one of ordinary skill
in the art would look to the diverse field of [He] absent hindsight," but the
Appeal Brief provides no explanation in support of the contention that the
Examiner's reasoning is deficient aside from arguing that He is non-
analogous art. Appeal Br. 12. Accordingly, as we agree with the Examiner
that He is analogous art, Appellant's contention on this point fails to apprise
us of Examiner error.
Appellant next contends:
The transmitter unit and the receiver unit of [He] are individually
powered by a power source (e.g., a battery) so there is no need to
transmit power from one unit to the other such that "power is
provided to the chamber by inductive coupling" as claimed in
claims 1, 11, and 20. In addition, the magnetic field between the
5
Appeal2017-010370
Application 13/395,526
transmitter unit and the receiver unit is generated to transmit data
between the transmitter unit and the receiver unit, not to transmit
power.
Appeal Br. 14. Accordingly, Appellant asserts that He does not transmit
power to its transmitter.
We disagree with Appellant on this point because, as the Examiner
correctly finds (Ans. 19), He teaches that the battery of its transmitter is
rechargeable, and recharging of the battery is performed inductively. He
states, "in one embodiment of the present invention, the magnetic field
generator unit 300 may be configured to inductively charge the rechargeable
power source of the transmitter unit 102 (FIG. 1)." He ,r 50; see also id. ,r 57
("[a]s shown, when the transmitter unit 102 is positioned in close proximity
to the magnetic field generator unit 300 of the receiver unit 104, for
example, the high frequency power transformer is generated so as to
inductively charge the rechargeable battery 505 of the transmitter unit
102.").
In reply, Appellant asserts that He's disclosure of supplying power to
the transmitter via a rechargeable battery that receives its power inductively
fails to support the rejection "because power is, nonetheless, provided to the
transmitter unit via the battery ( e.g., in contrast to power being provided via
inductive coupling)." Reply Br. 5. We disagree with Appellant's contention
because claim 1 recites, in part, "a varying current in the primary coil
induces a voltage in the secondary coil via a varying magnetic field such that
power is provided to the chamber by inductive coupling." Appeal Br. 17
(Claims App., emphasis added). Thus, Appellant's argument is not
commensurate with the scope of claim 1, which allows for power to be
6
Appeal2017-010370
Application 13/395,526
inductively transferred to a battery, so long as this power is ultimately
provided to the chamber.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant contends, "[i]n the present case, the
modification of the alleged teachings of [He] with those of [Somervell],
[Polacsek], [Forster], and [Gerder] would change the principle of operation
of the system of [He]," and Appellant cites MPEP § 2143.0l(VI) in support
of this argument. Reply Br. 3.
This argument is raised for the first time in the Reply Brief and is not
responsive to any position newly raised in the Examiner's Answer.
Appellant does not show good cause why this new argument should be
considered. Accordingly, this argument2 is waived and will not be
considered. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.47(b)(2).
We have considered all of Appellant's timely arguments regarding
claim 1, but find them unavailing. We sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2--4, 7-9, 11-16, and 20 fall with claim 1.
Re} ection (II); cl aims 17-19
Appellant makes no additional arguments for the patentability of
claims 17-19. See Appeal Br. 14. Accordingly, we sustain the Rejection
(II) for the same reasons we sustain Rejection (I).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4, 7-9, and 11-20 is
affirmed.
2 Appellant's argument is flawed inasmuch as the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1 relies on Somervell, not He, as the primary reference. See Final Act.
2-7. He is not modified in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. See id.
7
Appeal2017-010370
Application 13/395,526
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
8