Ex Parte Toncrey

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 22, 2018

14248785 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/248,785 04/09/2014
59582 7590 10/23/2018
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
2600 WEST BIG BEA VER ROAD
SUITE 300
TROY, MI 48084-3312
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shane Toncrey
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.
39470-00012 6947
EXAMINER
DORSEY, RENEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/23/2018 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 SHANE TONCREY
Appeal 2018-002 73 5
Application 14/248,785
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
SCOTT E. BAIN
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-13, 15-20, 22-25, and 27-32. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A system for monitoring a grabbing mechanism, comprising:
a storage device having a computer readable medium storing a
program of
instructions for the monitoring the grabbing mechanism;
a processor for executing the program of instructions of the storage
device,
the processor having:
Appeal2018-002735
Application 14/248,785
a sensor interface to interface with at least one of a plurality of sensors
associated with the grabbing mechanism;
a monitoring unit in communication with the at least one of the
plurality of sensors through the sensor interface, the monitoring unit samples
data from an output of each of the at least one of the plurality of sensors
associated with the grabbing mechanism for a predetermined interval of
time, and records and stores the data for each of the at least one of a plurality
of sensors in the storage device;
an alarm unit in communication with the monitoring unit, the alarm
unit receives and compares the data sampled from the output of each of the
at least one of the plurality of sensors to a predetermined range stored in the
storage device, and triggers an alarm in response to the data of at least one of
the plurality of sensors being outside a predetermined range, and
a communication unit in communication with the monitoring unit and
the alarm unit, the communication unit transmits the data obtained by the
monitoring unit to a remote device via a network connection.
App. Br. 25 (Claims App'x)
THE REJECTI0NS 1
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which
the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the
invention. 2
Claims 1, 3, 8, 11, 13, 15, 20, 23, 28, and 29 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US PG Pub. No.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed
February 23, 2017 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed January 22,
2018 ("App. Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed November 15, 2017
("Ans."); and ( 4) the Reply Brief filed January 16, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 (b ). Ans. 2.
2
Appeal2018-002735
Application 14/248,785
2004/0122618 Al; June 24, 2004) in view ofNagathil et al. (US Patent No.
8,498,826; July 30, 2013).
Claims 4, 5, 7, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Suzuki, Nagathil, and further in view of Springer
(US Patent No. 5,765,995; June 16, 1998).
Claims 6, 10, 12, 18, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Suzuki, Nagathil, and further in view of Sankrithi et
al. (US Pat. No. 8,788,122 Bl; July 22, 2014).
Claims 25, 27, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Quist et al. (US Patent No. 6,199,018 Bl; Mar. 6, 2001) in
view of Saigh and further in view of Suzuki.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Suzuki, Nagathil, and Saigh.
Appellant's Contentions
1. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because
the disclosure ofNagathil actually teaches that calculated outputs
are stored, not data from a plurality of sensors.
App. Br. 11.
Nagathil does not include any teaching of where sensor values might
be stored to carry out a comparison, so sensor values could
temporarily be loaded into random access memory long enough to
carry out a comparison.
Reply Br. 3 ( emphasis added).
3
Appeal2018-002735
Application 14/248,785
2. Appellant also contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and
13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because:
none of Suzuki's calculations involve comparing the sampled data
obtained from the sensors to a predetermined range stored in the
storage device or triggering an alarm in response to the data of at least
one of the plurality of sensors being outside the predetermined range.
App. Br. 12.
3. Appellant also contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because:
Suzuki fails to teach a mobile application accessible on a mobile
device that has a GUI to present the data obtained via the wireless
communication device associated with the grabbing mechanism.
App. Br. 14.
The Examiner has not identified any reason why one would find fault
with the distributed diagnostic system of Quist and/ or component life
indicator of Suzuki and why one would be motivated to substitute
the site processor of Quist for the mobile application of Saigh, nor has
the examiner provided any beneficial result that would come of the
proposed modification. Rather, it is clear that the Examiner has treated
claim 25 like a shopping list and has found parts of it in Quist and
Suzuki and believes he has found other parts of it in Saigh and is
simply concluding that they can be mixed and matched at will to yield
what he professes to be predictable results - all without articulating
how this could be done and what the outcome would be.
Therefore, the combination of Quist and Saigh would likely result in a
nonfunctioning system, as the low-level indication reflecting the
operational status of its associated machine of Quist is not what the
smartphone application of Saigh would need to operate, since it
is designed to communicate directly with sensors and/or RFID tags.
As a result, such a combination would frustrate the purpose of one or
both of these references.
App. Br. 21-23.
4
Appeal2018-002735
Application 14/248,785
4. Appellant also contends that the Examiner erred because Sankrithi and
Saigh are non-analogous art to Appellant's claimed invention. App. Br. 16-
21.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments (Appeal Brief) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with
Appellant's conclusions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Action
from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief. The
Examiner responds to Appellant's above Contention 1 at pages 3--4 of the
Answer; Contention 2 at pages 6-8 of the Answer; and Contention 3 at
pages 9-12 of the Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight the following additional points.
As to Appellant's above contention 1, we disagree. In addition to the
points made by the Examiner (Ans. 6-7), we note that Nagathil teaches a
life calculator 120 may use either the respective output signals from sensors
110 or a corrected output from a voting module 116. See Nagathil, col.
3:64---67. In particular, Nagathil teaches the life calculator is connected with
memory. Nagathil, col. 3:53-55. As to Appellant's argument in the Reply
brief that "sensor values could temporarily be loaded into random access
memory," the claim language does not preclude temporary storing.
As to Appellant's above contention 2, Nagathil expressly teaches
using a predetermined range. See Nagathil, col. 3, line 67, "predetermined
threshold range"; also see Nagathil, claim 9 at col. 6, 11. 22-25.
5
Appeal2018-002735
Application 14/248,785
As to Appellant's above contention 3, the Examiner relies upon Quist,
Saigh, and Suzuki, rather than Suzuki for the teachings recited in claim 25.
See Ans. 8-11; and Final Act. 12-15. Appellant's arguments regarding
Suzuki's alleged shortcomings in this regard do not show nonobviousness
where, as here, the rejection is based on the cited references' collective
teachings of upon Quist, Saigh, and Suzuki (id.). See In re Merck & Co.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding the comb inability of Quist and Saigh, Appellant has not
demonstrated that the Examiner's proffered combination would have been
"uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art."
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
In addition, we find no evidence in the record before us that the
combination of Quist' s teachings with those of Saigh would change Quist' s
principle of operation. In summary, we find combining the respective
reference teachings in the manner proffered by the Examiner would have
merely resulted in "the predictable use of prior art elements according to
their established functions," KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417
(2007); see also Ans. 15. 3 We find the Examiner provided sufficient
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; see also Ans. 15. We
3 The Examiner finds, and we agree that "it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sensor monitoring system of Quist
et al. such that the sensor updates, data, and information would be sent to a
mobile device (in addition to the various other wired/wireless devices the
sensors already update) for the purpose of real-time user notification of a
system issue." Ans. 15.
6
Appeal2018-002735
Application 14/248,785
are further mindful that the skilled artisan would "be able to fit the teachings
of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle" since the skilled artisan
is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at
420-21.
As to Appellant's above contention 4, prior art is analogous if either
(A) "the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem
addressed" or (B) regardless of field of endeavor, the reference is
"reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is
involved." Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm 't, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314,
1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). "A reference is reasonably
pertinent if ... it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals,
logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in
considering his problem." Id. ( quotation omitted). "If a reference disclosure
has the same purpose as the claimed invention, the reference relates to the
same problem, and that fact supports use of that reference in an obviousness
rejection." Id. (quotation omitted). However, "[t]he pertinence of the
reference as a source of solution to the inventor's problem must be
recognizable with the foresight of a person of ordinary skill, not with the
hindsight of the inventor's successful achievement." Sci. Plastic Prod., Inc.
v. Biotage AB, 766 F.3d 1355, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
On this record, we are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. The
Examiner is relying on Sankrithi to show monitoring of different sensor data
and taking responsive action (Final Act. 11 ); and on Saigh for displaying
sensor data (Final Act. 15). We agree with the Examiner that Sankrithi and
Saigh are analogous art in that monitoring and displaying sensor data are
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor. See,
7
Appeal2018-002735
Application 14/248,785
e.g., In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (a prior art reference is reasonably pertinent if it is one which, because
of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to
an inventor's attention in considering his or her invention as a whole).
This reasoning is applicable here. Accordingly, on this record, we are
not persuaded the Examiner erred by combining the cited references under
§ 103.
Consequently, Appellant has failed to show error in the Examiner's
rejections of claims 1, 3-8, 10-13, 15-20, 22-25, and 27-32.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting 1, 3-8, 10-13, 15-20, 22-25, and
27-32 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)(l )(iv) (2016).
AFFIRMED
8