Ex Parte Park et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2018

14065475 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2018)

Atty. Docket No. H0039977 4341-35600 Patent
IN HU UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Appellant: Honeywell International Inc. § Group Art Unit: 2887
§
§ Examiner: Thien T. Mai
§
§ Confirmation No.: 5906
§
§
Serial No.: 14/065,475
Filed: October 29, 2013
For: SYSTEM AND METHOD OF
MONITORING A REGION §
Mail Stop Appeal Brief Patents
Commissioner for Patents
PO Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
CERTIFICATE OF EFS-WF.B FILING
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §1.8, I hereby certify that this
correspondence is being electronically submitted to the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office website, www.aspto.gov. on,
March 8, 2018.
/Michelle Yang/
Michelle Yang
REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Commissioner:
This Request for Rehearing is filed in support of the appeal in the above referenced
application and is filed pursuant to the Notice of Appeal previously filed June 29, 2016,
Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed September 29, 2016, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed
December 1, 2016, the Reply Brief filed January 27, 2017, and the Decision on Appeal mailed
January 18, 2018. Appellant notes that the Examiner unilaterally indicated that the application
was abandoned without waiting on the period during which Appellant can file this Request for
Rehearing, and that this Request for Rehearing is timely as being filed within two-months of the
mailing date of the Decision on Appeal. The Appellant authorizes all required fees under 37
C.F.R. § 1.17 to be charged to Deposit Account No. 50-1515, of Conley Rose, P.C. of Texas.
488967-v 1/4341-35600
1
Atty. Docket No. H0039977 4341-35600 Patent
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. STATUS OF CLAIMS.....................................................................................................3
II. GROUNDS FOR REHEARING..................................................................................... 4
III. ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................... 5
1. The analysis of Wedig and Whelihan, alone or in combination, as not teaching or
suggesting the placement of an identifier outside of a zone being monitored by a detector
was based on an incorrect application of the law to the findings in the Final Office Action
and the Examiner’s Answer.................................................................................................... 5
2. The consideration of the arguments against obviousness were based on the
improper analysis under Section 1 and were based on an improper standard.................. 10
3. The Decision on Appeal did not consider the arguments that the Final Office
Action fails to establish aprima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 1 for
failing to address all of the limitations of the claims......................................................... 12
4. The Decision on Appeal did not consider the arguments that none of Wedig or
Whelihan, alone or in combination, teach or suggest obtaining the at least one
environmental parameter prior to the wireless device entering the zone around the
respective detector................................................................................................................. 14
IV. CONCLUSION............................................................................................................... 17
488967-v 1/4341-35600
2
Atty. Docket No. H0039977 4341-35600 Patent
I. STATUS OF CLAIMS
A. Total Number of Claims in the Application
Claims currently in the application: 1, 3-8 and 11-20.
B. Status of All Claims in the Application
1. Claims canceled: 2, 9 and 10.
2. Claims withdrawn from consideration but not canceled: None.
3. Claims pending: 1, 3-8 and 11-20.
4. Claims allowed: None.
5. Claims rejected: 1, 3-8 and 11-20.
6. Claims neither rejected nor allowed: None.
C. Claims on Appeal
Claims on appeal: 1, 3-8 and 11-20.
488967-v 1/4341-35600
3
Atty. Docket No. H0039977 4341-35600 Patent
II. GROUNDS FOR RUHUARTNG
1. The Decision on Appeal addressing Sections VILA. 1 and VII.A.2 was based on
misapprehension of the factual findings in the Final Office Action and an
incorrect application of law to the facts presented in the Final Office Action.
2. The Decision on Appeal failed to consider or address Sections VII.A.3 and
VII. A.4 of the Appeal Brief, which were based on arguments separate and distinct
from those addressed under VII.A.l and VII.A.2. As a result, Appellant’s
arguments were not considered by the Board in rendering their affirmation of the
rejections in the Final Office Action.
488967-v 1/4341-35600
4
Atty. Docket No. H0039977 4341-35600 Patent
III. ARGUMENT
Appellant contends that the Decision on Appeal, has made an incorrect application of the
law to the facts and did not address the arguments presented in the Appeal Brief and the Reply
Brief. Accordingly, the presently claimed invention is patentable, for at least the reasons set
forth below.
1. The analysis of Wedig and Whelihan, alone or in combination, as not
teaching or suggesting the placement of an identifier outside of a zone being
monitored by a detector was based on an incorrect application of the law to
the findings in the Final Office Action and the Examiner’s Answer.
The Decision on Appeal relies on elements supplied solely based on obviousness to then
be combined and further modified on the basis of having a reasonable expectation of success.
Specifically, the elements relied upon in the Decision on Appeal as facts from the cited
references were not disclosed in the references, and rather were established based solely on
obviousness in the Final Office Action and the Examiner’s Answer. These findings were then
further modified on the basis that there was a reasonable likelihood of success for modifying the
elements to match the claim limitations. This type of hindsight reconstruction of the claims
relies on multiple levels of obviousness type modifications and is not allowed under a 35 U.S.C.
§103 analysis.
In order to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious, all the claimed
elements must have been known in the prior art, it must be shown that one skilled in the art could
have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective
functions, there must be a reason to combine the references, and it must be shown that the
combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in
the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007);
488967-v 1/4341-35600
5
Atty. Docket No. H0039977 4341-35600 Patent
Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson ’s-Black
Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great
Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306
(1950). In this overall analysis, the reliance on having a reasonable expectation of success only
comes into play once the elements are shown in the prior art and there is a reason to combine the
elements with no change in their respective functions.
Appellant’s prior arguments were addressed to the fact that the claimed elements were
not known in the prior art. In order to clarify this point, we note that the following are the only
alleged facts from the reference relied upon in the Final Office Action and the Examiner’s
Answer.
1. In Wedig, an identification code is contained in the packaging of a sensor that is
used by a separate mobile device in the installation of the sensor. Wedig at ]}
[0115]; Appeal Brief at pp. 12-13; Examiner’s Answer at p. 2. The code and
location of the mobile device, as determined by the mobile device, can be sent to
a server from the mobile device during installation. Id.
2. In Wedig, the sensor node can display its own sensor information on a user
interface. Wedig at ]} [0040]; Reply Brief at p. 4.
3. The Final Office Action acknowledges that Wedig does not disclose posting the
representation of the unique coded identifier by stating, “Wedig is silent to
‘posting.’” Final office Action at p. 2
4. The Final Office Action acknowledges that Wedig does not teach obtaining
environmental parameters from a server by stating, “Wedig is silent to the user
488967-v 1/4341-35600
6
Atty. Docket No. H0039977 4341-35600 Patent
device using the identification code to obtain environmental parameters from the
server.” Examiner’s Answer at p. 3; Final Office Action at p. 3.
5. In Whelihan, a barcode on a piece of computing equipment is used to obtain
information about the equipment. Whelihan at ]} [0007]; Appeal Brief at p. 15.
Looking at these facts, it is clear that neither Wedig nor Whelihan described “posting a
representation of each unique coded identifier at a respective location displaced from the
corresponding detector, wherein each respective location is outside of the zone around the
corresponding detector, ....” as recited in claim 1.
Based on these few findings in the art, the Final Office Action and the Examiner’s
Answer developed a first level of proposed modifications to the teachings of Wedig and
Whelihan. These include:
A. Obtaining information from the respective detector using the code. Final Office
Action at pp. 2-3; Examiner’s Answer at p. 4. This requires modifying findings 1
and 2 above for Wedig to use the code at a time other than during installation.
This also requires modifying Wedig to send information in response to the code
based on Whelihan.
B. Posting the identifier off of the sensor of Wedig. Final Office Action at pp. 2-3;
Examiner’s Answer at p. 4; Appeal Brief at pp. 12-13. This requires modifying
finding 1 for Wedig and finding 5 for Whelihan to use the identifier at a location
other than on the sensor during operation of the sensor.
C. Reading the code and obtaining information for the sensor through a server. Final
Office Action at p. 4. This requires modifying findings 1-4 with respect to Wedig
based on Whelihan.
488967-v 1/4341-35600
7
Atty. Docket No. H0039977 4341-35600 Patent
While Appellant does not agree with all of these findings, it is worth noting that even in
the first level modifications, there is no mention of posting the code at a location displaced from
the corresponding detector that is “outside of the zone around the corresponding detector.” In
order to reach this conclusion, the first level modifications were then used as the base facts
(which is improper under an obvious analysis) to further modify the first level modifications and
allegedly arrive at the claimed limitations. Specifically, the Final Office Action and the Reply
Brief found the following.
I. Moving the identifier or code outside the zone monitored by the sensor. Final
Office Action at p. 7; Examiner’s Answer pp. 4-5. This requires a further
modification of the first level modification in B above to move the code outside of
a zone monitored by the sensor. This goes directly against the actual factual
findings in items 1-5 above (moving the code off of the device of Whelihan and
using the code to locate the sensor during installation in Wedig).
II. Moving the user interface from the sensor node of Wedig to the mobile device.
Examiner’s Answer at p. 4. Requires a modification of original item 2 above
along with the first level modification in B. This is not taught or suggested in
Wedig or in Whelihan and rather is based purely on arguments in the Examiner’s
Answer.
As seen above, proposed modifications that are built upon further proposed modifications
is the essence of hindsight. In order to avoid hindsight, the analysis must begin with the
elements found in the cited art. Starting only with those facts (which forms the basis for the
488967-v 1/4341-35600
8
Atty. Docket No. H0039977 4341-35600 Patent
arguments in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief), Wedig and Whelihan do not teach or suggest
“posting a representation of each unique coded identifier at a respective location displaced from
the corresponding detector, wherein each respective location is outside of the zone around the
corresponding detector, ...” Neither reference is cited as teaching this element, and there are at
least two levels of modification needed to reach this conclusion. After this level of modification
of the actual teachings of the reference, there is a clear functional change in the elements that are
cited in the prior art. On this basis, the analysis should never reach the point of needing to
consider whether there is reason to modify the references or whether or not there is a reasonable
expectation of success in doing so, which appears to be the basis of the Decision on Appeal.
Further, Appellant notes that the statements in the Decision on Appeal that address the
Examiner’s findings that Wedig teaches a method of providing information wirelessly from
detectors fixed in or more regions to a server and using a barcode to contact the server are
incorrect as Appellant included two arguments in Sections VII.A.3 and VILA.4 of the Appeal
Brief as well as a response in the Reply Brief that were not addressed in the Decision on Appeal.
Those sections fully disputed this finding in the Final Office Action and the Examiner’s Answer.
As noted above in the modification A, this finding is only based on obviousness and appears to
be relied upon in the Decision on Appeal for moving to the second level finding I above.
As the decision with respect to Wedig and Whelihan are based on an incorrect analysis of
the facts, Appellant requests that the affirmation of the rejection of claim 1 on this basis be
reversed.
Claims 12 and 20 contain similar elements reciting that the code is outside of the
monitored zone. Specifically, claim 12 recites, “plurality of detectors, wherein each detector of
the plurality of detectors is configured to monitor a zone around each detector; a plurality of
488967-v 1/4341-35600
9
Atty. Docket No. H0039977 4341-35600 Patent
graphical codes, wherein each graphical code corresponds to a detector of the plurality of
detectors, and wherein each graphical code is disposed outside of the zone around the
corresponding detector,” and claim 20 states, “a plurality of code elements, wherein each code
element is associated with a respective detector of the fixed ambient condition detectors, and
wherein each code element is placed at a location displaced from a respective detector outside of
the zone around the respective detector,” Accordingly, Appellant requests that the rejection of
claims 1, 12, and 20 be reversed upon reconsideration.
2. The consideration of the arguments against obviousness were based on the
improper analysis under Section 1 and were based on an improper standard..
The Decision on Appeal did not fully address the arguments against the obviousness of
moving the code outside of a monitored zone based on the findings under the first argument.
Decision on Appeal at p. 5. The Decision on Appeal stated with regard to the first argument,
“Appellant has not adequately explained why one skilled in the art, using not more than ordinary
creativity, would not have been capable of determining the best location for placement of the
code identifier to obtain the desired information.” Decision on Appeal at p. 4. The mere fact that
portions of the reference can be combined or modified does not render the resultant combination
obvious. KSR at 471. As noted above, the analysis upon which the affirmation of the rejections
is based relies on multiple levels of modification to follow the map laid out by the claims
themselves. As a further basis of noting why the modification of Wedig and Whelihan would not
be obvious, Appellant explained that the proposed combination and modifications would render
the system of Wedig unsuitable for its intended purpose, and thus did provide a full explanation
of why the proposed combination would not have been obvious.
488967-v 1/4341-35600
10
Atty. Docket No. H0039977 4341-35600 Patent
Specifically, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held, a prima facie case of
obviousness cannot be supported if, as a result of the proposed modification to the prior art, the
prior art “would be rendered inoperable for its intended purpose.” See In re Gordon, 221 USPQ
at 1127; see also In re Ratti, 123 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1959) (If the proposed modification or
combination would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified,
then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious).
Appellant notes that this analysis goes against obviousness, not simply whether the prior is
physically capable of being combined or modified.
Appellant requests that the arguments presented in Section VII. A.2 of the Appeal Brief
and Section III. A.2 of the Reply Brief be reconsidered. As a summary of the prior arguments
from the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief for reference, Appellant noted that Wedig only uses the
code during commissioning of a detector, and the code is used to provide a location of the device
commissioning the detector (e.g., the device operating the interface) to the server. At that point
the code is never discussed again or mentioned for any other uses in Wedig. Whelihan further
supports this position by noting that the code is “on” the device to enable proper identification of
the device relative to the information. Thus, any modification of Wedig to relocate the code off
of the detector itself or away from a location that is “near” the detector would prevent the
location from being properly correlated with the detector location during commissioning, thereby
preventing the sensor from being properly installed and correlated within the system.
The remainder of Wedig is directed to notifications that rely on the location of the sensor
established during the commissioning. If the code were to be removed to a location outside of a
zone monitored by the sensor, the captured location at the time of commissioning would not
allow for proper identification of the sensor node during an alarm event. For example, placing
488967-v 1/4341-35600
11
Atty. Docket No. H0039977 4341-35600 Patent
any code outside of an area monitored by the smoke detector of Wedig would not allow the area
monitored by the smoke detector to be correlated with any alarm. As a result, modifying Wedig
to place the smoke detector outside of an area monitored by the smoke detector would render the
system of Wedig unsuitable for its intended use.
Accordingly, nothing in the Final Office Action or the Examiner’s Answer provides
reasons as to why the proposed relocation of the code in Wedig would not render the system of
Wedig unsuitable for its intended purpose. Thus, the teachings of Wedig and Whelihan are not
sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious, and Appellant requests that the rejections
under Wedig (including the rejections of at least claims 1, 12, and 20) be reversed upon
reconsideration.
3. The Decision on Appeal did not consider the arguments that the Final
Office Action fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
claim 1 for failing to address all of the limitations of the claims..
The Decision on Appeal did not address Appellant’s arguments in Sections VII.A.3 of the
Appeal Brief and Section II.A.3 of the Reply Brief. The arguments in these sections were distinct
and addressed separate elements of claim 1 from those discussed in Sections VII. A. 1 - VII. A.2 of
the Appeal Brief and Sections III.A. 1-III.A.2 of the Reply Brief. Reconsideration of these
arguments is requested under this Appeal.
For reference, the comments from Reply Brief are provided below, though these comments
should be considered along with the full arguments presented in the Appeal Brief.
In order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness under any rationale,
each element of the claims must be identified in some prior art. The Final Office
Action has not addressed where in any cited art (e.g., Wedig or Whelihan) such
elements are allegedly taught or suggested. Specifically, claim 1 recites in part,
“obtaining, from the at least one server at the wireless device, the at least one
environmental parameter for the respective detector using the unique coded
identifier, wherein the at least one environmental parameter is obtained prior to
488967-v 1/4341-35600
12
Atty. Docket No. H0039977 4341-35600 Patent
the wireless device entering the zone around the respective detector .” In the
context of claim 1, the environmental parameter is obtained at the wireless device
prior to entering the monitored zone around the detector, not simply at a server.
Further, the information is obtained “using the unique coded identifier.”
The Examiner’s Answer appears to acknowledge that Wedig does not
teach this element. Examiner’s Answer at p. 6. The citation to this element is
then cited to the portion of the Final Office Action that states, “It would have been
obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
incorporate Whelihan’s teachings such that upon reading the sensor’s ID (i.e. on a
card, manual, box), the environmentally sensed information from the server,
which was previously communicated from the sensor, can be provided to the
user’s mobile device.” Examiner’s Answer at pp. 6-7 (underlining in original).
Initially, Appellant notes that this statement is still based solely on obviousness
and not on evidence or factual findings from Wedig or Whelihan. Thus, the Final
Office Action and the Examiner’s Answer fail to establish aprima facie case of
obviousness with respect to this element of claim 1.
Further, the language of claim 1 is specific to the information being
received at the wireless device prior to the wireless device entering the zone being
monitored. The underlined portion in the Examiner’s Answer would appear only
to refer to information from the sensor that is communicated to the server, which
does not correlate with the language of the claims.
The Examiner’s Answer includes arguments beyond those presented in the
Final Office Action with respect to Wedig by noting that,
Wedig teaches the mobile device 710 and server 700 communicate
bi-directionally (Fig. 7). Wedig further teaches that the sensor
nodes 705 communicate bi-directionally to the system server and
responder server regarding environmental information (i.e. status,
sensed condition, temperature readings, alert; paragraph 106, 110).
Thus, the proposed EW/^/Whliham combination would allow
environmental data to be available to the user upon scanning the
coded identifier prior to entering the zone having the sensor.
Examiner’s Answer at p. 7. The citation to the communication of information to
the server does not teach the wireless device obtaining the information prior to
entering the monitored zone. Further, Appellant notes that the additional portions
of Wedig that are cited do not teach or suggest ever placing the code outside of the
monitored zone or the wireless device obtaining the environmental parameter
using the unique coded identifier. Rather, this portion is simply cited by noting
that the proposed combination would include this feature without ever citing to
where such features are taught or suggested in the references themselves. As a
result, neither the Final Office Action nor the Examiner’s Answer cites to any
portion of the cited references as teaching or suggesting this element of the claims
(other than through a citation to obviousness alone).
As neither the Final Office Action nor the Examiner’s Answer provides a
citation to Wedig or Whelihan as teaching or suggesting obtaining, from the at least
488967-v 1/4341-35600
13
Atty. Docket No. H0039977 4341-35600 Patent
one server at the wireless device, the at least one environmental parameter for the
respective detector using the unique coded identifier, wherein the at least one
environmental parameter is obtained prior to the wireless device entering the
zone around the respective detector,” Appellant requests that the rejection of
claim 1 be reversed.
Upon reconsideration, Appellant requests that the rejection of the claims be reversed.
4. The Decision on Appeal did not consider the arguments that none of Wedig
or Whelihan, alone or in combination, teach or suggest obtaining the at least
one environmental parameter prior to the wireless device entering the zone
around the respective detector.
The Decision on Appeal did not address Appellant’s arguments in Sections VII.A.4 of the
Appeal Brief and Section II. A.4 of the Reply Brief. The arguments in these sections were distinct
and addressed separate elements of claim 1 from those discussed in Sections VII. A. 1 - VII. A.2 of
the Appeal Brief and Sections III.A. 1-III.A.2 of the Reply Brief. Reconsideration of these
arguments is requested under this Appeal.
For reference, the comments from Reply Brief are provided below, though these comments
should be considered along with the full arguments presented in the Appeal Brief.
Wedig and Whelihan do not teach all of the elements of claim 1.
Specifically, Wedig and Whelihan fail to teach or suggest “wherein the at least
one environmental parameter is obtained prior to the wireless device entering the
zone around the respective detector.”
The Examiner’s Answer states “Wedig is silent to obtaining the
environmental parameter from the server using the sensed id code, [wherein the at
least one environmental parameter is obtained prior to the wireless device
entering the zone around the respective detector].” Examiner’s Answer at p. 6
(brackets in original). This statement acknowledges that Wedig does not teach or
suggest “wherein the at least one environmental parameter is obtained prior to the
wireless device entering the zone around the respective detector” as recited in
claim 1.
While acknowledging that Wedig does not teach or suggest this feature,
the Examiner’s Answer cites to Wedig as teaching that there is motivation to
obtain environmental information from a detector, and further that the code is
used to identify the sensor. As noted in Section III.A..1, Wedig only teaches that
the code is ever used during commissioning to allow the location of the sensor to
488967-v 1/4341-35600
14
Atty. Docket No. H0039977 4341-35600 Patent
be detected and sent to the server. Nothing in Wedig ever teaches that the code is
ever used again, where the code would not be needed once the identification and
location of the detector is input into the system. The comment about the cost of
the code in the Examiner’s Answer has no basis in Wedig, and further such a one­
time use code would not be expensive as it is simply a bar code placed on piece of
paper. See Examiner’s Answer at p. 8. Appellant further notes that Wedig is
never cited as teaching or disclosing this element.
Further, Whelihan is also not cited as teaching this element of the claims.
While not cited as teaching this element of claim 1, Appellant submits that
Whelihan does not make up for the deficiencies of Wedig. The Final Office
Action cites Whelihan as teaching the use of the codes to obtain information about
a detector. Final Office Action at pp. 3-4. However, Whelihan is specifically
directed to the placement of the code at the detector. For example, Whelihan
states, “a one-or two-dimensional barcode is affixed on or near each piece of
hardware.” Whelihan at ]} [0022], The entire description of Whelihan relies on
the code being near the hardware. Any information obtained using the coded
identifier is then only obtained once the device is positioned next to the hardware.
Thus, nothing in Whelihan teaches or suggests that any code would be placed
outside of a monitored zone of a detector. Without being placed outside of a
monitored zone of a detector, no information of any kind could be obtained “prior
to” any device entering the zone around a detector.
Rather than citing to any disclosure in Wedig or Whelihan as teaching or
suggesting “wherein the at least one environmental parameter is obtained prior to
the wireless device entering the zone around the respective detector,” the Final
Office Action and the Examiner’s Answer rely solely on obviousness to fill in this
missing element. See Examiner’s Answer at p. 8. Such a modification of the
references fails to provide any evidence that the elements of the claims were ever
disclosed and the proposed system could only be obtained through hindsight
reasoning and use of Appellant’s claims as a roadmap to construct the claimed
method and systems. Specifically, the proposed combination of Wedig and
Whelihan would require that various elements be entirely created outside of the
disclosures of Wedig or Whelihan using only obviousness, including: 1) posting
the unique coded identifier outside of the monitored zone around the detector, 2)
transmitting a request to the server in response to sensing the representation of the
unique coded identifier, and 3) obtaining the parameter prior to entering the zone
around the detector. Such modifications to the system of Wedig and/or Whelihan
in the proposed combination would only be possible by relying on Appellant’s
disclosure and using Appellant’s claims to guide the modification of the system.
When looking only at the disclosures of Wedig and Whelihan, the rearrangement
of the systems and creation of functionality using the coded identifier would not
have been obvious or even possible using only the systems and configurations of
those systems in Wedig and Whelihan. Such modification of the cited references
therefore can only be based on impermissible hindsight. See MPEP §
2145(X)(A). Further, the citation to the implementation of predictable variations
does not allow for significant modifications to the cited references that are neither
taught or suggested. Further, this rational does not allow for modifications that
488967-v 1/4341-35600
15
Atty. Docket No. H0039977 4341-35600 Patent
would change the references in ways that render the prior art systems unsuitable
for their intended purpose as noted herein.
Since it is acknowledged that neither Wedig nor Whelihan, alone or in any
combination, teach or suggest these element of claim 1, and since the proposed
combination relies solely on obviousness to provide the missing features of the
claims, Appellant requests that the rejection of claim 1 be reversed.
Upon reconsideration, Appellant requests that the rejection of the claims be reversed.
488967-v 1/4341-35600
16
Atty. Docket No. H0039977 4341-35600 Patent
IV. CONCLUSION
In view of the arguments set forth above and in the Appeal Brief, the Reply Brief, and
this Request for Rehearing, the Appellant respectfully requests that the rejections in the Final
Office Action be reversed and the case advanced to issue. Should the Examiner feel that a
telephone interview would advance prosecution of the instant application, Appellants invite the
Examiner to call the attorneys of record. Otherwise, please forward this matter to the Appeal
Board for review.
The Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge payment of any further fees associated
with any of the foregoing papers submitted herewith, or to credit any overpayment thereof, to
Deposit Account No. 50-1515, of Conley Rose, P.C. of Texas.
Respectfully submitted,
CONLEY ROSE, P.C.
Date: March 8. 2018 /Andrew M, Metrailer/
5601 Granite Parkway, Suite 500
Plano, Texas 75024
Telephone: (972)731-2288
Facsimile: (972)731-2289
Andrew M. Metrailer
Reg. No. 67,353
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
488967-v 1/4341-35600
17