Ex Parte Quine et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 27, 2012

11170460 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte DOUGLAS B. QUINE, RAY PAN,
and DENIS J. STEMMLE
________________

Appeal 2011-001960
Application 11/170,460
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, CHARLES F. WARREN, and
CATHERINE Q. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A system for detecting a mailpiece contaminated by hazardous
agents/materials comprising:

a contaminant sensor disposed for detecting the presence of a
hazardous agent/material, the contaminant sensor issuing an alert signal
indicating that a hazardous agent/material has been sensed; and
Appeal 2011-001960
Application 11/170,460

2
an Radio Frequency IDentification (RFID) system including an RFID
device and an RFID reader, the RFID device operative to change state in
response to the alert signal of the contaminant sensor,

the RFID reader operative to detect the change of state of the RFID
device for determining when a mailpiece is contaminated.

The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness (Ans. 3):
Hickle 2002/0188259 A1 Dec. 12, 2002
Tsikos 2003/0218070 A1 Nov. 27, 2003
Ebert 2009/0008450 A1 Jan. 08, 2009

Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a device for detecting and
identifying hazardous material in a mailpiece. The system comprises a
contaminant sensor which issues an alert signal that causes a change in state
in a radio frequency identification system (RFID). An RFID reader detects
the change of state in the RFID device to identify the contaminating
mailpiece.
Appealed claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ebert in view of Tsikos. Claims 7, 8, and 20 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the stated
combination of references further in view of Hickle.
Appellants do not present separate arguments for any particular claim
on appeal. Also, Appellants do not present a separate, substantive argument
against the § 103 rejection of claims 7, 8 and 20. Accordingly, all the
appealed claims stand or fall together with claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
Appeal 2011-001960
Application 11/170,460

3
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s factual determination that
Ebert discloses a detection device for sensing and identifying various
conditions of a package comprising a sensor that issues a signal to an RFID
device that is coupled to the sensor, and an RFID reader that responds to the
change of status of the RFID device. As recognized by the Examiner, Ebert
does not expressly disclose a contaminant sensor. However, Tsikos
evidences that it was known in the art to employ a contaminant sensor for
personal articles that issues an alert signal, which personal articles include
an RFID tag. Accordingly, based on the state of the prior art, we fully
concur with the Examiner that it would have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to utilize a contaminant sensor in the system of
Ebert. Also, as explained by the Examiner, “by measuring for temperature,
Ebert is actually indirectly concerned with the detection of biological
pathogen contaminants in food shipments already [and] [i]t would have been
desirable to include additional contaminant sensors capable to directly
monitor hazardous material levels in order to improve efficiency and
precision” (Ans. 6, first para.).
Appellants’ arguments, as noted by the Examiner, do not address the
thrust of the Examiner’s rejection. Appellants improperly argue Tsikos as
the primary reference and argue why it would have been nonobvious to
modify the Tsikos system by coupling the sensor to the RFID device.
Appellants present no argument why it would have been nonobvious for one
Appeal 2011-001960
Application 11/170,460

4
of ordinary skill in the art to employ a contaminant sensor as one of the
sensors in Ebert’s device.
Appellants also maintain that Ebert provides no teaching or
suggestion that the RFID tag is used in combination with a mailpiece rather
than a “box”, which is presumably a shipping container in transit. However,
we totally agree with the Examiner that the shipping containers of Ebert
which contain consumer products qualify as a mailpiece. We perceive no
patentable distinction between the broadly claimed “mailpiece” and the
shipping containers of the reference.
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims 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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

ssl