Ex Parte Lichtig

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 18, 2013

10983210 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
10/983,210 11/05/2004 John F. Lichtig 1075
7590 11/19/2013
Clifford Kraft
320 Robin Hill Dr.
Naperville, IL 60540
EXAMINER
BOECKMANN, JASON J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/19/2013 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 JOHN F. LICHTIG
____________

Appeal 2011-013220
Application 10/983,210
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before GAY ANN SPAHN, JOHN W. MORRISON, and
MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.

SPAHN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 22-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2011-013220
Application 10/983,210

2
Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed subject matter relates to “remote pressure monitoring and
control and more particularly[,] to a hose pressure monitor/telemetry
system.” Spec. 1, ll. 10-11. Claim 22, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the appealed subject matter.
22. A method of maintaining correct pressure at the nozzle of a
fire hose comprising the steps of:
placing a pressure sensor in a fire hose system that
directly measures water pressure at said nozzle, said sensor
producing nozzle pressure data;
wirelessly providing said nozzle pressure data at a pump
panel of a fire engine for use by a pump operator or a closed
loop feedback system, whereby said pump operator or said
closed loop feedback system can maintain correct pressure at
said nozzle by adjusting said pump.

Rejections
The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review:
I. claims 22, 26, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over McLoughlin (US 4,189,005, issued Feb. 19, 1980), Pillar (US
2003/0163228 A1, published Aug. 28, 2003), and Giles (US 5,134,961,
issued Aug. 4, 1992); and
II. claims 23-25 and 28-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over McLoughlin, Pillar, Giles, and Masamura (US 4,715,048,
issued Dec. 22, 1987).
Appeal 2011-013220
Application 10/983,210

3
OPINION
Rejection I – Obviousness based on McLoughlin, Pillar, and Giles
Appellant has not presented arguments for the patentability of claims
26 and 27 apart from claim 22. App. Br. 5-10. Therefore, in accordance
with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011), we select claim 22 as the
representative claim to decide the appeal of the rejection of these claims,
with claims 26 and 27 falling with claim 22.
The Examiner finds that McLoughlin substantially discloses the
subject matter of claim 22 including, inter alia, a pressure sensor 40a. The
Examiner notes that “sensor 40a is being referred to [in McLoughlin] as a
flow transducer, however, the signal coming from the sensor is used to
display a pressure value,” and “[p]ressure and flow are directly related in a
hose system,” Ans. 5. The Examiner also finds that McLoughlin fails to
explicitly disclose “that the pressure sensor directly measures the water
pressure at the nozzle,” but turns to Giles for its disclosure of “a pressure
monitoring system including a nozzle (12), a pump (18) and a pressure
sensor (28), the pressure sensor directly monitoring the pressure at the
nozzle.” Ans. 5-6 (citing Giles, col. 6, ll. 27-34). The Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to place
the pressure sensor (40a) at the nozzle, as shown by Giles . . . in order to
provide a pressure sensor that is a direct indicator of the nozzle flow.” Ans.
6.
First, Appellant argues that “McLoughlin teaches a flow sensor at the
nozzle, not a pressure sensor” as required by claim 22, and the Examiner’s
finding that pressure and flow are related in a hose system is “true only if the
channel size is known,” but since “[f]iremen use many different nozzles
Appeal 2011-013220
Application 10/983,210

4
interchangeably with different channel sizes,” it is impossible to keep
pressure exact at the nozzle by measuring flow rate. App. Br. 6-7.
The Examiner responds that “McLoughlin specifically states that
sensors 40a, 41a and 42a feed information to the central logic computer to
control the pressure, and that pressure values f[ro]m the sensors are
displayed on a digital display” so that sensors 40a, 41a and 42a in some way
detect a flow pressure. Ans. 8 (citing McLoughlin, col. 3, ll. 30-35). The
Examiner also responds that “in a pipe for w[hi]ch the diameter is constant[,]
the pressure is directly related to the flow,” so that “if the flow is detected,
so is the pressure,” and “[t]he flow sensor of McLoughlin therefore detects
pressure.” Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. McLoughlin is
directed to a “FIRE TRUCK CONTROL MEANS,” and discloses a “[f]ire
fighting system for communication and control of fire fighting equipment,
such as maintaining the pressure” through the use of a governor 5 in a nozzle
pressure control system. McLoughlin, Title, Abstr., col. 2, ll. 30-44, and fig.
1. Appellant has not contested the Examiner’s finding that McLoughlin’s
sensor (flow transducer 40a) produces a signal used to display a pressure
value and that “[p]ressure and flow are directly related in a hose system”
(Ans. 5), other than to state that during a fire, “[f]iremen use many different
nozzles interchangeably with different channel sizes.” App. Br. 6. While it
may be true that firemen use nozzles of different channel sizes in the course
of fighting a fire, Appellant has not adequately explained why channel size
of a nozzle would either not be known or otherwise determinable in order to
calculate pressure from flow. Regardless, we note that the Examiner relies
on Giles for disclosing sensing pressure at the nozzle (Ans. 9) as will be
Appeal 2011-013220
Application 10/983,210

5
discussed infra. Thus, we are not apprised of Examiner error by Appellant’s
first argument.
Second, Appellant argues that “[n]owhere does McLoughlin state or
indicate that these flow rate sensors[, i.e., flow transducers 40a, 41a, 42a,]
are located near the nozzles,” and “[i]n fact, in Fig. 4, they seem to be nearer
the pump.” App. Br. 7. The Examiner responds that claim 22 does not
require the sensor to be located at the nozzle, only “placing a pressure sensor
in a fire hose system that directly measures water pressure at [the] nozzle.”
Ans. 8; see also App. Br., Clms. App’x. We are not persuaded of Examiner
error by Appellant’s second argument because as noted by the Examiner,
claim 22 does not require that sensors be located at the nozzle, only that the
sensors measure water pressure at the nozzle.
Third, Appellant also argues that Giles “does not cure the
[E]xaminer’s problem, . . . because Giles also does not teach measuring
pressure and maintaining a particular pressure right at the nozzle,” but
instead “states that the pressure transducer 28 may be placed between the
valve and the nozzle” since “Giles is trying to control flow characteristics,
not pressure at the nozzle.” App. Br. 7-8 (citing Giles, col. 6, ll. 27-34). In
other words, it is Appellant’s contention that “Giles is totally dedicated to
controlling totally different features of the flow such as flow rate or droplet
size.” App. Br. 8 (citing Giles, col. 4, ll. 59-63).
The Examiner responds that Giles is relied upon to disclose “a
pressure sensor (28) . . . directly monitoring the pressure at the nozzle.”
Ans. 8; see also Ans. 6 (citing Giles, col. 6, ll. 27-34). More particularly, the
Examiner states that “Giles teaches . . . [that] the transducer 28 provide[s] a
pressure signal is a direct indicator of the nozzle flow,” and “[t]herefore, the
Appeal 2011-013220
Application 10/983,210

6
transducer 28 directly measure[s] pressure at the nozzle,” as required by the
language of claim 22. Ans. 9 (quoting Giles, col. 6, l. 27 (emphasis added)).
Appellant replies that Giles’ transducer 28 can provide a pressure
signal that is a direct indicator of the nozzle flow because Giles knows the
exact channel size, but it would be impossible to find flow rate from
pressure or pressure from flow rate during a fire situation when firemen use
many different nozzles interchangeably so that the channel size of the nozzle
is not known. Reply Br. 3. Appellant also replies that “Giles does not teach
a pump and controller that is remote from the nozzle by hundreds of feet of
fire hose and many different feet in elevation.” Id. Finally, Appellant also
replies that “Giles[’s] pressure transducer (28) is positioned between the
valve and the nozzle,” and “[t]his position will not work on a fire hose since
if the valve is turned off, the pressure transducer will see no pressure.” Id.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellant’s third
argument. The fact that Giles indicates that the pressure transducer 28 is
placed between the valve and the nozzle is immaterial because as noted by
the Examiner, claim 22 does not require that the sensor be located at the
nozzle, only that it “directly measures water pressure at said nozzle.” See
App. Br., Clms. App’x. As discussed supra with respect to McLoughlin,
while it may be true that firemen use nozzles of different channel size,
Appellant has not adequately explained why channel size of a nozzle in
Giles would either not be known or could not be measured or otherwise
determined in order to calculate pressure from flow. Moreover, Appellant’s
arguments against the Giles reference individually fail to address the
combined teachings of the references upon which the Examiner’s rejection
was based. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
Appeal 2011-013220
Application 10/983,210

7
individually where the rejections are based on a combination of references.
See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
Finally, Appellant also argues that “combining Pillar with
McLoughlin and Giles does not cure the basic problem of measuring and
maintaining pressure directly at the nozzle.” App. Br. 9. However, since we
found no basic problem of measuring pressure directly at the nozzle with
respect to the combination of McLoughlin and Giles, we are not persuaded
of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 22, and claims 26 and 27 which fall therewith, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over McLoughlin, Pillar, and Giles.

Rejection II – Obviousness based on
McLoughlin, Pillar, Giles, and Masamura
Claim 28 is similar to claim 22, but additionally recites “a radio link”
and “wherein said radio link operates simultaneously on at least two
different frequencies or uses two separated receive antennas.” App. Br.,
Clms. App’x.
The Examiner relies on the same findings made for claim 22 and
discussed supra, in addition to relying on Masamura for teaching the radio
link. Ans. 6-7.
Appellant argues that “adding Masamura . . . does not cure the
[E]xaminer’s basic problem,” and the Examiner “has failed to make out a
prima facie case of obviousness.” App. Br. 10.
Appellant therefore relies upon those arguments already presented
against the rejection based on the combination of McLoughlin, Pillar, and
Appeal 2011-013220
Application 10/983,210

8
Giles. For the same reasons as discussed supra with respect to obviousness
based on McLoughlin, Pillar, and Giles, we are not persuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 23-25 and
28-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over McLoughlin, Pillar,
Giles, and Masamura.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 22-30.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Klh