Ex Parte Krassinger

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2016

11759650 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111759,650 0610712007
321 7590 07/05/2016
SENNIGER POWERS LLP
100 NORTH BROADWAY
17THFLOOR
ST LOUIS, MO 63102
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Eric Krassinger
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.
LINI 8956 6653
EXAMINER
MOONEYHAM, JANICE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2016 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):
uspatents@senniger.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC KRASSINGER
Appeal2013-008606
Application 11/759,650
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BRADLEY B. BAY AT, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 3, 4, and 25-28. 2
We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6.
The invention relates to a fluid dispensing control system comprising
a plurality of hybrid fluid dispensing units and hybrid keypads providing
both wired and wireless communication with a billing computer. Spec. i-f 4.
Independent claim 26 below is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1 Our decision references Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed July 19,
2012), the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Apr. 2, 2013), and the Final
Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Feb. 29, 2012).
2 Claims 1, 2, and 5-24 are canceled. Br. 17, Claims Appendix.
Appeal2013-008606
Application 11/759,650
26. A fluid dispensing apparatus for use with a wired
network connected to a master computer and for use with a
router communicating with the master computer, said apparatus
compnsmg:
solenoid valves for dispensing fluid;
a hybrid fluid dispensing control unit configured for
wired communication with the wired network, and configured
for wireless communication with the router;
said hybrid fluid dispensing control unit further
compnsmg:
a processor having output ports connected to and
controlling the solenoid valves and having a data port for
transmitting and receiving information to and from the
master computer;
a wired network board configured for a wired
connection to the wired network;
a wireless communication device configured for
wireless communication with the router; and
a connecting device configured for connection to
the wired network board and also configured for
connection to the wireless communication device, said
connecting device connecting the data port to only one
the wired network board and the wireless
communications device;
such that when the connecting device connects the
data port to the wired network board, then the wireless
communication device not connected to the data port so
that the processor is configured for wired transmission
and wired reception of information to and from the
master computer via the first wired network board and
not via the first wireless communication device; and
such that when the connecting device connects the
data port to the wireless communications device, then the
wired network board not connected to the data port so
that the processor is configured for wireless transmission
and wireless reception of information to and from the
master computer via the wireless communications device
and not via the wired network board.
2
Appeal2013-008606
Application 11/759,650
Claims 3 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wells3 and Netgear. 4 Final Act. 3-31.
Claims 4 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Wells, Netgear, and Jones. 5 Id. at 31-34.
We AFFIRM.
ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that the
combination of the cited prior art renders claims 3, 4, and 25-28 obvious.
Br. 7-15. Upon consideration of Appellant's assertions, we agree with the
Examiner's findings, rationale, and response to arguments set forth on pages
3-16 of the Examiner's Answer, as fully responsive to Appellant's
assertions. Accordingly, we adopt them as our own.
We add the following for emphasis only.
We disagree with Appellant's argument that "[t]he Examiner's
mismterpretation of the 'only' recitals in claims 25 and 26 improperly
broadens the scope of the claims and ignores the claimed elements." Br. 8.
In particular, we are unpersuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellant's argument that "Wells does not include any teaching that a
hybrid control unit be configured structurally to have a wireless device AND
an Ethernet board with ONLY one connected to the processor and in use."
Id. at 10. The Examiner does not rely solely on Wells, but rather on the
combination of Wells and Netgear to teach this disputed limitation. See
3 Wells, US 2005/0184084 Al, published August 25, 2005.
4 Netgear, "54 Mbps Wireless Ethernet Bridge Reference Manual,"
published July 2003.
5 Jones et al., US 2004/0059844 Al, published March 25, 2004.
3
Appeal2013-008606
Application 11/759,650
Final Act. 19-27. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the
references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination
of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F .2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986).
We are unpersuaded of error on the Examiner's part by Appellant's
argument that "Wells in view ofNetgear never suggests that a unit should
include both a wireless card and an Ethernet board with ONLY one
connected to the data port" (Br. 11) because Appellant fails to address the
Examiner's stated rationale for combining the references. We find that the
Examiner's position and findings are detailed in the rejection of record and
the Examiner has articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning as
to why the proposed combination is appropriate to support the conclusion of
obviousness.
We disagree with Appellant's argument that the Examiner's "rejection
provides a text book example of impermissible hindsight analysis." Br. 12.
The Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Wells and Netgear as
would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Those reasons do
not include knowledge gleaned only from the Appellant's disclosure.
DECISION
The decision to reject claims 3, 4, and 25-28 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
4