Ex Parte Stumpf

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 15, 2012

11270052 (B.P.A.I. May. 15, 2012)

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.
11/270,052 11/09/2005 Michael Stumpf 07-0573.1011 6630
21491 7590 05/16/2012
LANIER FORD SHAVER & PAYNE P.C.
P O BOX 2087
HUNTSVILLE, AL 35804-2087
EXAMINER
KWOK, HELEN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2856
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/16/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL STUMPF
____________

Appeal 2009-013210
Application 11/270,0521
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 18, 19, 22-25, 27-34, 36, 38-40, 42, 44-50, and 52-65.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1 The real party in interest is QST Holdings, LLC.
2 Claims 1-17, 20, 21, 26, 35, 37, 41, 43, and 51 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2009-013210
Application 11/270,052

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention concerns a system and method for judging the
sealing effectiveness of a sealed compartment. An ultrasonic transmitter
generates ultrasound energy within the cabin of a vehicle, and an array of
ultrasound sensors outside the cabin detects the presence and amplitude of
ultrasound energy at a specified frequency. In a factory setting, the vehicle
can be passed through an array of ultrasound sensors strategically located to
detect the presence and amplitude of ultrasound energy in the vicinity of
potential leakage areas of the compartment. If the position of the
compartment relative to the sensor array is known, the leak indication can be
used to pinpoint the location of the leak. (Spec. 2:2-18).
Independent claim 18, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
18. A system for detecting leaks in compartments of
vehicles, comprising:

a structure;

an ultrasonic transmitter disposed inside of a
compartment of a vehicle, said compartment having a
seal, said ultrasonic transmitter configured to emit energy
of a specified frequency within said compartment;

at least one ultrasonic receiver disposed outside of
said compartment and coupled to said structure;

at least one sensor for detecting a position of said
vehicle as said compartment is moving past said at least
one ultrasonic receiver; and

a signal processor configured to receive a plurality
of signals from said at least one ultrasonic receiver, each
Appeal 2009-013210
Application 11/270,052

3
of said signals indicative of a respective amount of
ultrasonic energy of said specified frequency detected by
said at least one ultrasonic receiver while said
compartment is being moved past said at least one
ultrasonic receiver, said signal processor further
configured to detect, based on said signals, at least one
leak in said compartment at said seal and to provide an
indication of a detection of said at least one leak by said
signal processor, wherein said signal processor is
configured to automatically pinpoint a location of said at
least one leak relative to said vehicle based on said at
least one sensor, wherein said indication indicates said
location, and wherein said at least one leak is caused by a
defect in said seal.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 18, 19, 22-25, 27, 28, 30-34, 36, 38, 40,
42, 44-48, 50, 52-57, and 59-65 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the
teachings of Blaser (U.S. Patent No. 4, 719,801(filed Sept. 18, 1986)) and
Imanishi (U.S. Patent No. 5,726,705 (filed Dec. 19, 1996)).
The Examiner rejected claims 18, 19, 22-25, 27, 28, 30-34, 36, 38, 40,
42, 44-48, 50, 52-57, and 59-65 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the
teachings of Rademacher (U.S. Patent No. 4,901,576 (filed Apr.8, 1988))
and Imanishi.
The Examiner rejected claims 29, 39, 49, and 58 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Blaser and Rademacher.

ISSUES
With respect to the rejection over Blaser in view of Imanishi,
Appellant argues that Imanishi fails to teach or suggest that the apparatus
should be used to detect a leak, as Imanishi is directed to detecting surface
Appeal 2009-013210
Application 11/270,052

4
defects, such as defects in painting (App. Br. 9). Appellant further argues
that even if Imanishi discloses the features missing from Blaser, the
combination is improper, because the types of defects being detected in
Imanishi are drastically different from those detected in Blaser, and because
Blaser’s teaching of moving ultrasound receivers along a stationary vehicle
teaches away from Imanishi’s disclosure of moving the vehicle past
stationary cameras (App. Br. 12-13).
Appellant makes the same arguments with respect to the rejection
over Rademacher in view of Imanishi (App. Br. 14).
With respect to the rejection over Blaser or Rademacher, Appellant
argues that neither reference teaches “a signal processor configured to
receive a plurality of signals . . . detected by said at least one ultrasonic
receiver while said compartment is being moved past said at least one
ultrasonic receiver,” as recited by claim 18 (App. Br. 16).
Appellant’s contentions, and the Examiner’s findings, present us with
the following issues:
1. Does the combination of Blaser and Imanishi, or the combination of
Rademacher and Imanishi, teach or fairly suggest at least one sensor for
detecting a position of a vehicle as the vehicle is moving past at least one
ultrasonic receiver, and a signal processor configured to automatically
pinpoint a location of at least one leak relative to said vehicle, based on said
at least one sensor?
2. Does Imanishi teach away from the combination with Blaser or
Rademacher?
3. Does Blaser or Rademacher teach or fairly suggest detecting the
position of a vehicle as it is being moved?
App
App

perso
prior
been
Rola
Willi
Cir.
the B
refer
the d
re Yo
wou
inten
prop
Furth
away
wou
wou
appl
1085
Cir.
eal 2009-0
lication 11
The dete
n of ordin
art to ach
a reasona
bo S.L., 43
amson To
2000). Wh
oard of P
ence to su
egree to “
ung, 927
ld render t
ded purpo
osed modi
er, our rev
when a p
ld be disco
ld be led in
icant.” Pa
, 1090 (Fe
1994)).

13210
/270,052
rmination
ary skill i
ieve the cl
ble expect
7 F.3d 11
bacco Cor
ere the te
atent Appe
ggest solu
which one
F.2d 588,
he prior ar
se, then th
fication. I
iewing co
erson of o
uraged fro
a directio
ra-Ordnan
d. Cir. 199
PRINCIP
of obviou
n the art w
aimed inv
ation of su
57, 1164 (
p. v. Philip
achings of
als and In
tions to on
reference
591 (Fed.
t invention
ere is no s
n re Gord
urt has he
rdinary sk
m followi
n divergen
ce Mfg., I
5) (quotin
5
LES OF L
sness must
ould have
ention and
ccess in d
Fed. Cir. 2
Morris, I
two or mo
terferences
e of ordina
might acc
Cir. 1991)
being mo
uggestion
on, 733 F.
ld that “[a
ill, upon e
ng the path
t from the
nc. v. SGS
g In re Gu
AW
consider,
been moti
whether t
oing so. M
006). See
nc., 229 F
re prior ar
must wei
ry skill in
urately dis
. If the pro
dified uns
or motivat
2d 900, 90
] reference
xamining
set out in
path that
Importers
rley, 27 F
inter alia
vated to c
here would
edichem
also Brow
.3d 1120,
t referenc
gh the pow
the art, co
credit ano
posed mo
atisfactory
ion to mak
2 (Fed. Ci
may be s
] the refere
the refere
was taken
Int’l, Inc.
.3d 551, 5
, whether a
ombine th
have
S.A. v.
n &
1124 (Fed
es conflict
er of each
nsidering
ther.” In
dification
for its
e the
r. 1984).
aid to teac
nce,
nce, or
by the
, 73 F.3d
53 (Fed.

e
.
,

h
Appeal 2009-013210
Application 11/270,052

6
ANALYSIS
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 18, 19, 22-25, 27, 28, 30-34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44-48, 50,
52-57, AND 59-65 OVER BLASER IN VIEW OF IMANISHI
We select claim 18 as representative of this group of claims, pursuant
to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Imanishi fails to
teach or suggest an apparatus used to detect a leak (App. Br. 9). Rather, we
agree with the Examiner’s finding that Blaser teaches receiving signals from
the receiver to detect and determine the location of a leak due to an improper
seal (Ans. 8, citing Blaser col. 5, ll. 8-33). We agree with the Examiner’s
conclusion that it would have been obvious to modify Blaser in view of the
teachings of Imanishi such that stationary sensors detect the position of a
moving vehicle and leaks due to improper seals on the vehicle, rather than
moving sensors detecting leaks due to improper seals on a stationary vehicle
(Ans. 4).
Further, we disagree with Appellant that Imanishi teaches away from
combination with Blaser because Imanishi detects drastically different
defects (App. Br. 12). Appellant’s argument is not germane to the rejection
because the Examiner relies on Blaser, rather than Imanishi, for teaching
defect detection (Ans. 8). The Examiner properly relies upon Blaser to
detect leaks due to improper seals, and relies upon Imanishi for teaching, in
the context of a defect detection apparatus, detecting the position of a
vehicle as it is moved.

Appeal 2009-013210
Application 11/270,052

7
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 18, 19, 22-25, 27, 28, 30-34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44-48, 50,
52-57, AND 59-65 OVER RADEMACHER IN VIEW OF IMANISHI
We select claim 18 as representative of this group of claims, pursuant
to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We are similarly unpersuaded that the combination of Rademacher
and Imanishi fails to teach or suggest the claimed invention (App. Br. 14).
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Rademacher teaches receiving
signals from the receiver to detect and determine the location of a leak due
to an improper seal (Ans. 7-8, citing Rademacher col. 6, ll. 37-58). We
agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to
modify Rademacher in view of Imanishi such that stationary sensors detect
the position of a moving vehicle and leaks due to improper seals on the
vehicle, rather than moving sensors detecting leaks due to improper leaks on
a stationary vehicle (Ans. 6).
Further, we disagree with Appellant that Imanishi teaches away from
combination with Rademacher because Imanishi detects drastically different
defects (App. Br. 12, 14). Appellant’s argument is not germane to the
rejection because the Examiner relies on Rademacher for teaching defect
detection (Ans. 7-8). The Examiner properly relies upon Rademacher to
detect leaks due to improper seals, and relies upon Imanishi for teaching, in
the context of a defect detection apparatus, detecting the position of a
vehicle as it is moved.
CLAIMS 29, 39, 49, AND 58
We disagree with the Examiner’s statement that the only difference
between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Blaser and
Rademacher do not disclose a scanner for scanning the vehicle identification
Appeal 2009-013210
Application 11/270,052

8
number (Ans. 6). Each of claims 29, 39, 49, and 58 depend from an
independent claim that requires the detection of the position of a vehicle as it
is being moved, whereas Blaser and Rademacher teach moving ultrasound
sensors relative to a stationary vehicle. Unlike the rejection of the
independent claims discussed supra, without the presence of Imanishi in the
Examiner’s rejection, the “combination” of references asserted by the
Examiner fails to teach the limitation of detecting the position of a moving
vehicle.
The Examiner’s asserted references fail to teach all the limitations of
the rejected claims. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejection of claims 29, 39, 49, and 58.

CONCLUSION
1. The combination of Blaser and Imanishi, and the combination of
Rademacher and Imanishi, fairly suggests at least one sensor for detecting a
position of a vehicle as the vehicle is moving past at least one ultrasonic
receiver, and a signal processor configured to automatically pinpoint a
location of at least one leak relative to said vehicle, based on said at least
one sensor as set forth in claim 18.
2. Imanishi does not teach away from combination with Blaser or
Rademacher.
3. Blaser and Rademacher fail to teach or fairly suggest detecting the
position of a vehicle as it is being moved.

Appeal 2009-013210
Application 11/270,052

9
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 18, 19, 22-25, 27, 28, 30-34, 36,
38, 40, 42, 44, 46-48, 50, 52-57, and 59-65 are affirmed. The Examiner’s
rejection of claims 29, 39, 49, and 58 is reversed.
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)(2010).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

llw