Ex Parte Johnson

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 30, 2019

15205751 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/205,751 07/08/2016
44088 7590
Kaufhold Dix Patent Law
P. 0. BOX 89626
SIOUX FALLS, SD 57109
05/02/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Cammy Johnson
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.
SK12122 5578
EXAMINER
BLACK-CHILDRESS, RAJSHEED 0
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2684
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2019 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):
j ason@kaufboldlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CAMMY JOHNSON
Appeal2018-007731
Application 15/205, 7 51 1
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON J. CHUNG, MATTHEW J. McNEILL, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-5 and 7, which are all the claims pending in this
application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Cammy Johnson.
App. Br. 2.
2 Claim 6 is canceled.
Appeal2018-007731
Application 15/205,751
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's application relates to unattended child warning devices
that use pressure sensors in a child car seat, base units with lighted displays,
and key fobs. Spec. ,-J 10. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject
matter and reads as follows:
1. A child seat occupancy monitoring system, said system
compnsmg:
a pressure sensor configured for detecting a weight
positioned thereon, said pressure sensor being configured to be
positioned on a child car seat and detecting the weight of a child
on said child car seat;
a transmitter being electrically coupled to said pressure
sensor and sending a weight detection signal when said pressure
sensor detects said weight on said child car seat;
a key fob including:
a fob housing;
a fob processor;
a fob transceiver being mounted in said fob
housing and being electrically coupled to said fob
processor;
a base unit being configured for being positioned on a
dashboard of a vehicle, said base unit including:
a base housing;
a base processor being mounted in said base
housing;
a base transceiver for receiving wireless signals
from said transmitter and sending and receiving signals
with said fob transceiver, said base transceiver being
positioned in said base housing and being electrically
coupled to said base processor, said base processor
determining when said fob transceiver is beyond a
2
Appeal2018-007731
Application 15/205,751
predetermined distance from said base unit;
an active light emitter being electrically coupled to
said base transceiver and being mounted on said base
housing, said active light being turned on when said
weight detection signal is received by said base
transceiver, said active light defining a ring extending
around a top of said base housing;
a warning light emitter being electrically coupled
to said base transceiver and being mounted on said base
housing, said warning light emitter being positioned on
top of said active light emitter such that said base
housing, said active light emitter, and said warning light
emitter form a dome shape; and
said base processor turning on said warning light
emitter when said weight detection signal is received by
said base transceiver and said fob transceiver is beyond
said predetermined distance.
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1-5 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Flanagan (US 7009522 B2; Mar. 7, 2006), Jones (US
20160196732 Al; July 7, 2016), and Brown (US 20030067790 Al; Apr. 10,
2003). Final Act. 2-14.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's
contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's
Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief. We concur with the
3
Appeal2018-007731
Application 15/205,751
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional
points.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as
unpatentable over Flanagan, Jones, and Brown. Br. 6-8. In particular,
Appellant argues Brown does not teach or suggest an "active light defining a
ring extending around a top of said base housing" and a "warning light
emitter being positioned on top of said active light emitter such that said
base housing, said active light emitter, and said warning light emitter form a
dome shape," as recited in claim 1. Br. 6. According to Appellant, instead
of teaching an active light defining a ring, Brown teaches four separate
lights, each positioned within a well. Id. Appellant argues these lights are
positioned in a radial arrangement around a housing, but each light is
separate and distinct, with gaps between the lights. Id. Appellant further
argues that even if the four lights were considered an active light, these
lights are not positioned at the top of the base housing as claimed. Id. at 7.
Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Flanagan teaches a child seat occupancy system that
includes a base housing, an active light emitter, and a warning light emitter.
Ans. 3 ( citing Flanagan Fig. 3). The Examiner finds, and we agree, the only
difference between Flanagan's system and the claimed system is the
arrangement and operation of the light emitters, including the active and
warning lights. Id. The Examiner relies on Brown for teaching a plurality
of light emitters defining a ring extending around a top of a base housing.
Ans. 3 ( citing Brown Figs. 1-2, ,-J,-J 3 8, 40). We agree with the Examiner's
finding. Appellant's argument that Brown's lights are positioned within a
well and with a gap between each light is not commensurate with the scope
4
Appeal2018-007731
Application 15/205,751
of the claim, which recites an "active light defining a ring extending around
a top of said base housing." In particular, nothing in claim 1 requires a
single light in the shape of a continuous ring around the base housing.
Instead, claim 1 recites an active light defining a ring, which is taught by
Brown.
Appellant's argument regarding the warning light emitter is similarly
unpersuasive. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Brown teaches a light
emitter positioned on top of the ring of light emitters. Ans. 3 ( citing Brown
Figs. 1-2 ,i,i 3 8, 40). Appellant's argument that claim 1 recites a warning
light that produces a structure "in which both the ring and the warning light
are each visible from around the device and would have different specific
shapes giving distinct appearances when lighted separately or in
combination" (Br. 8), is unpersuasive of error because it is not
commensurate with the scope of the claim. In particular, claim 1 does not
recite this particular structure, instead reciting a "warning light emitter being
positioned on top of said active light emitter such that said base housing,
said active light emitter, and said warning light emitter form a dome shape."
Thus, Appellant's arguments regarding the "warning light" are not
persuasive of Examiner error.
Finally, Appellant argues the Examiner erred because an ordinarily
skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine Flanagan, Jones,
and Brown, and the Examiner's determination otherwise is conclusory and
based upon speculation. Br. 7. Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner
error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, an ordinarily skilled artisan would
have used the light structure taught by Brown with the child occupancy
system of Flanagan and Jones to provide a decorative housing, as suggested
5
Appeal2018-007731
Application 15/205,751
by Brown. Final Act. 6-7 ( citing Brown ,i 8). Appellant has not
persuasively identified error in the Examiner's reasoning, instead offering
conclusory assertions of error. See Br. 7. Further, the Examiner's proposed
combination does nothing more than use the familiar elements of Flanagan
and Jones, including active and warning light emitters that perform the
functions recited in claim 1, in combination with the structure of the lights in
Brown. In other words, the Examiner's combination is a "combination of
familiar elements according to known methods, [which] is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int 'l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007). In addition, Appellant has not
provided persuasive evidence to show combining the features of Flanagan,
Jones, and Brown as proposed by the Examiner would have been "uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." See Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 419).
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 as
unpatentable over Flanagan, Jones, and Brown. We also sustain the
rejection of independent claim 7, for which Appellant relies on the same
arguments. See Br. 8. We also sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2-
5, for which Appellant relies on the same arguments. See id.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-5 and 7.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
6