Ex Parte Rosenlund et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 17, 2018

13368814 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/368,814 02/08/2012
27572 7590 07/19/2018
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O. BOX 828
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Richard Rosenlund
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.
16065-000001/US 5639
EXAMINER
TRPISOVSKY, JOSEPH F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/19/2018 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):
troymailroom@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte Richard ROSENLUND,
GARY OLSON, and
CHRISTIAN BERGH OFF 1
Appeal2017-009486
Application 13/368,814
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JAMES P. CAL VE, and
ANTHONY KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, and
21. App. Br. 1. Claims 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, and 14 have been canceled while
claims 17-19 have been withdrawn. Claims Appendix (filed Feb. 10, 2017).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Control Products, Inc.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-009486
Application 13/368,814
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter "relates to a system, apparatus, and
method for detecting an object or the lack of the presence of an object,
including the detection of ice in an ice-forming apparatus or refrigeration
case or system." Spec. ,r 2. System and apparatus claims 1 and 10
(respectively) are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on
appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A system comprising:
an acoustic transmitter positioned proximate to an
evaporator grid of an evaporator, the acoustic transmitter
including an acoustic diaphragm that amplifies background noise
of the system;
an acoustic sensor coupled to the acoustic transmitter,
wherein the acoustic sensor receives an acoustic signal
emanating from the acoustic diaphragm of the acoustic
transmitter and generates an electronic signal indicative of the
acoustic signal; and
a receiver module coupled to the acoustic sensor, the
receiver module configured to receive the electronic signal,
transform the electronic signal to a frequency domain, sample a
plurality of amplitudes of the transformed electronic signal at a
plurality of predetermined frequencies each having a
corresponding predetermined amplitude threshold, compare each
sampled amplitude to its corresponding predetermined amplitude
threshold, and initiate a harvesting operation for ice formed on
the evaporator grid when at least one sampled amplitude of the
electronic signal is greater than its corresponding predetermined
threshold.
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Goldstein
Knowles et al.
Schwarz
us 7,296,425
US 2008/0202142 Al
US 2010/0269522 Al
2
Nov. 20, 2007
Aug.28,2008
Oct. 28, 2010
Appeal2017-009486
Application 13/368,814
THE REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, and 21 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Goldstein, Knowles, and Schwarz.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue independent claims 1 and 10 together (App. Br. 11-
16), claims 3 and 12 together (App. Br. 16-17), claims 4 and 13 together
(App. Br. 17-18), claims 7 and 15 together (App. Br. 18-19), and claims 8
and 16 together (App. Br. 19-20).2 We select claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 8 for
review, with the remaining claims standing or falling therewith. See 37
C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 1
The Examiner primarily relies on the teachings of Goldstein, but
acknowledges certain limitations that "Goldstein does not explicitly teach."
Final Act. 2-3; see also Reply Br. 2. The Examiner relies on Knowles for
the "positioned proximate" limitation of claim 1 and on Schwarz for other
recited limitations. Final Act. 3--4. Nevertheless, the Examiner identifies
where Goldstein teaches the limitation pertaining to a "harvesting operation
for ice formed on the evaporator grid." Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 11.
Appellants address the teachings of Schwarz and affirm that
Schwarz's "spectral signature is equivalent to the [claimed] frequency
spectrum of a vibrating element." App. Br. 13 (referencing Schwarz ,r 54).
Appellants also acknowledge the teachings in Paragraph 57 of Schwarz
2 Appellants also separately contend that claims 20 and 21 are defined over
the prior art "[fJor at least the above reasons." App. Br. 20. We do not
consider this to be a separate argument for these claims.
3
Appeal2017-009486
Application 13/368,814
which states, "an alteration in the operating condition can be detected by
comparing the spectral signature obtained in a normal operating condition
with the one generated from recently detected vibrations." App. Br. 13.
However, Appellants point out that one limitation on appeal is the
comparison of a sample signal whereas Schwarz teaches "[t]he comparison
of an entire spectral signature" and that "Schwarz does not include
sampling." App. Br. 14--15; see also id. at 16 ("Schwarz only describes
comparing an entire spectral signature" and "[ n Jo where does Schwarz teach
or suggest sampling"); Reply Br. 3 ("an entire spectral signature in Schwarz
is compared.").
When addressing this limitation, the Examiner references Paragraph
59 of Schwarz. Final Act. 3; Ans. 10. This paragraph states that in order for
the system diagnosis to be confirmed, "the standard spectral signature of the
system needs to be compared with the spectral signature generated from the
current operating conditions. " 3 In other words, Schwarz teaches comparing
stored signals with real-time signals. Importantly, Schwarz additionally
teaches
[i]It should be further pointed out that the system and method of
the present invention can use spectral signature ranges or
intervals associated to an operating condition to make
diagnoses.
Schwarz ,r 59 (emphasis added); see also Final Act. 10.
Appellants do not address this disclosure in Schwarz regarding the use
of "ranges or intervals," or attempt to explain how such disclosure fails to at
least suggest the sampling of operating conditions ( as compared with
3 Paragraph 59 of Schwarz also teaches that "the present invention relies on
standard spectral signatures stored in a database."
4
Appeal2017-009486
Application 13/368,814
employing the "entire spectral signature" as Appellants argue above). See
e.g., Reply Br. 3. The Examiner, in the Answer, again addresses the claim
limitations directed to "sampling" and again references "paragraph 59" of
Schwarz as disclosing same. See Ans. 10. Appellants' failure to address
this "ranges or intervals" portion of Paragraph 59 of Schwarz is not
persuasive that the Examiner erred in relying on this paragraph for its
teachings of sampling.
Appellants also contend that "Schwarz is silent as to exactly how the
entire spectral signature is compared." App. Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 3.
We note, however, that claim 1 is likewise "silent as to exactly how" the
signals are compared, only that they are. Appellants do not dispute that in
Schwarz, a comparison also occurs. See Schwarz ,r 59 ("the comparison
would be made between the signature generated and the range of signatures
stored in the database.").
Regarding the limitation concerning a comparison of the sampled
signal "to its corresponding predetermined amplitude threshold," the
Examiner states, "a stored normal operating spectral signature would
inherently have a predetermined amplitude threshold indicating an abnormal
condition." Ans. 10. Appellants contend, "this feature is not disclosed by
the Schwarz reference on its face" and hence "the Examiner now argues that
this feature is inherent in the Schwarz system." Reply Br. 4. Consequently,
because the Examiner is now relying on an inherency finding, Appellants
state that the Examiner "has failed to meet his burden to establish that this
feature is inherent in the Schwarz reference." Reply Br. 4.
We disagree with Appellants' analysis. First, the Examiner references
"a stored normal operating spectral signature," such as the "signatures stored
5
Appeal2017-009486
Application 13/368,814
in the database" of Schwarz. Schwarz ,r 59. Appellants neither explain nor
argue that such stored signals lack amplitude values or thresholds. Instead,
such stored (i.e., predetermined) signals are understood to represent
boundaries that define "normal operating" conditions. Hence, by default,
signals that breach or fail to conform to these stored boundaries would be
indicative of an "abnormal condition." Thus, Appellants do not explain how
the Examiner erred in stating, "a stored normal operating spectral signature
would inherently have a predetermined amplitude threshold indicating an
abnormal condition." Further, this understanding of the Examiner's
statement is consistent with Appellants contention that, "[a]s described in
Schwarz, the change in the spectral signature includes oscillations 'in other
frequencies with other amplitudes."' Reply Br. 5 (referencing Schwarz
i1 54).
Thus, based on the record presented, and in view of Schwarz's
teachings above, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in relying on
Schwarz as disclosing the ability to "sample" the signals, or in disclosing
their comparison with stored signal thresholds. In summation, we affirm the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 10 ( and dependent claims 20 and 21) as
being obvious over Goldstein, Knowles, and Schwarz.
Claims 3 and 4
Appellants' arguments for claims 3 and 4 (and claims 12 and 13) are
to the extent that "[n]owhere does Schwarz teach or suggest sampling."
App. Br. 17. This contention is not persuasive for the reasons expressed
above. Additionally, Appellants argue that Schwarz fails to teach "initiating
a harvesting operation" (App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 5), but the Examiner relies
6
Appeal2017-009486
Application 13/368,814
on Goldstein for such teaching, not Schwarz. See Final Act. 4; Ans. 11, 12.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 4, 12, and 13.
Claim 7
Claim 7 includes the limitation "the acoustic signal transmitted by the
acoustic transmitter increases." (Emphasis added.) The Examiner identifies
where Goldstein teaches this limitation, and also addresses Knowles which
discloses "changes" in the signal. Final Act. 5 (referencing Goldstein 6: 13-
34 and Knowles ,r 29); see also Ans. 13. Appellants address Knowles whose
"changes" are more accurately described therein as a dampening and thus
fail to meet this claim limitation. App. Br. 18-19; see Knowles ,r 29.
Goldstein, however, does not "explicitly" disclose "increases" in the
signal (Final Act. 5), but instead employs other language to make this point.
Goldstein teaches that when there are no ice crystals forming, there is "little
vibration and noise" and, consequently, the signal to be compared "is below
the threshold level of the comparator." Goldstein 6: 13-20. However,
"when ice crystals begin to form," vibrations and noise arise until "a large
signal component in the pass range" occurs "that is above the threshold of
the comparator." Goldstein 6:22-32. This teaching of signal progression
from "below" (no ice) to "above" (ice formation) a threshold level of the
comparator is understood as disclosing the recited "increase." Appellants do
not explain how this can be otherwise. Accordingly, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in relying on Goldstein for disclosing this limitation.
Final Act. 5; Ans. 13. We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 7 and
15 as being obvious over Goldstein, Knowles, and Schwarz.
7
Appeal2017-009486
Application 13/368,814
Claim 8
Claim 8 includes a limitation directed to "a flexible acoustical
transmission tube." Appellants do not dispute that Knowles "states that
'sensor strip 58' shown in Figure 3, for example, 'may alternatively be a
tube or rod."' App. Br. 19 (referencing Knowles ,r 39). Instead, Appellants
contend, "Knowles is silent, however, as to ajlexible acoustical transmission
tube." App. Br. 20. The Examiner likewise references Paragraph 39 of
Knowles stating that it would have been obvious "to include a flexible
acoustical transmission tube" in Goldstein because such a tube "is a known
alternative medium to efficiently propagate and measure acoustic waves."
Final Act. 5-6. The Examiner further explains that for Knowles' tube to
propagate waves, it "would inherently need to have a degree of flexibility."
Ans. 13. The Examiner also references Paragraph 3 8 of Knowles which
states that the ice detection assembly is "pivotally connected to an ice grid
82 through a bracket 84." In view of the above, Appellants do not explain
how Knowles' tube 58 is not flexible or how the Examiner's understanding
of Knowles on this point is in error. Instead, Appellants simply argue that
"Knowles is silent" in this matter. App. Br. 20. Appellants do not address
this point in their Reply Brief. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of
Examiner error and, as such ( and in view of the record presented), we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 8 and 16 as being obvious over
Goldstein, Knowles, and Schwarz.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20,
and 21 is affirmed.
8
Appeal2017-009486
Application 13/368,814
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)) may be extended (see 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv)).
AFFIRMED
9