Ex Parte Wagner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2016

12800913 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/800,913 05/25/2010 Ronald E. Wagner
22500 7590 10/31/2016
BAE SYSTEMS
PO BOX 868
NHQl-719
NASHUA, NH 03061-0868
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.
BAEP-1160CON 7006
EXAMINER
SECK, ABABACAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2122
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2016 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 RONALD E. WAGNER, ROBERT CHARLTON,
GREG THOMPSON, and ROBERT UFFORD
Appeal2015-005489
Application 12/800,913
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRii .. Hl\1, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-005489
Application 12/800,913
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1
and 3-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
The invention relates to a key fob sized portable performance support
device for data collection and transmission to a centralized data processing
location, where clip-on modules can adapt the device to a variety of
applications (Spec. 5:11-22). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A system comprising:
a key fob sized portable performance support device for
allowing a user to be connected with all relevant information
required for a task, said key fob sized portable performance
support device including a transceiver and a display, wherein
said key fob sized portable performance support device is
adapted to accept a removably attachable clip-on module having
a predetermined sensor, wherein functionality of said key fob
sized portable performance support device is determined by the
particular clip-on module clipped to said key fob sized portable
performance support device; and
a support center including a processor for receiving real
time data associated with the task from said key fob sized
portable performance support device, analyzing the real time
data and transmitting maintenance instructions to said display of
said key fob sized portable performance support device.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Elliott US 6,509,830 Bl
2
Jan. 21, 2003
Appeal2015-005489
Application 12/800,913
Shirakawa
Rogers
Wolfson
Barnes
Ghazarian
Tran
US 2003/0117501 Al
US 2005/0026129 A 1
US 2008/0191864 Al
US 2009/0091426 Al
US RE43,l 78 E
US 2012/0095352 Al
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
June 26, 2003
Feb.3,2005
Aug. 14, 2008
Apr. 9, 2009
Feb. 14,2012
Apr. 19, 2012
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 12-15, 20, 22, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102( e) as being anticipated by Tran.
Claims 4, 5, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Tran and Barnes.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tran and Elliott.
Claims 9 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tran and Shirakawa.
Claims 10 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tran and Wolfson.
Claims 16, 17, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Tran and Ghazarian.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tran and Rogers.
ANALYSIS
The Anticipation Rejection
Regarding independent claim 1, Appellants contend "Tran does not
teach or suggestfunctionality ofsaid key fob sized portable performance
support device is determined by the particular clip-on module clipped to
3
Appeal2015-005489
Application 12/800,913
said key.fob sized portable performance support device" (App. Br. 8). We
are not persuaded by Appellants' argument.
We begin by construing the claim 1 language "removably attachable
clip-on module" and "functionality of said key fob sized portable
performance support device is determined by the particular clip-on module."
First, we note claim 1 does not define the "clip-on module" other than to
specify that it is "removable attachable" and has a "predetermined sensor."
The Specification does not include an explicit definition for "clip-on
module" and thus does not require a more limited interpretation than the
plain language of the claim. Accordingly, we construe "clip-on module"
broadly, but reasonably, as a sensor component that is removably attachable
to a portable performance support device.
Second, we note the claim 1 language "functionality of said key fob
sized portable performance support device is determined by the particular
clip-on module" relates to the functionality of the performance support
device as a whole, including the attached "clip-on module." For example,
the Specification provides the clip-on module may contain "sensors which
can detect the condition of the equipment to be maintained or persons to be
treated," where the module enables the portable performance support device
to provide "various functions in which realtime data needs to be extracted
from the site and in which instructions need to be transmitted back to service
personnel who provide necessary repairs and/ or treatment in the case of
medical monitoring" (Spec. 9: 19-10:2). Accordingly, we construe the
language "functionality of said key fob sized portable performance support
device is determined by the particular clip-on module" as including a
functionality of the portable performance device that can only be performed
when the clip-on module is attached. Claim 1 thus encompasses a system
4
Appeal2015-005489
Application 12/800,913
where a sensor added to a portable performance device as a clip-on module
allows the device to express the functionality of collecting and transmitting
sensed data.
With the above constructions, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 25)
and find Tran discloses the disputed limitation of claim 1. Specifically, Tran
discloses a device that includes "a wrist-watch sized case 1380 supported on
a wrist band 1374 .... The wrist-band 1374 can be an expansion band or a
wristwatch strap of plastic, leather or woven material" (Tran, i-f 222). As
shown in Tran's Figure 6A, the wrist-band 1374 has a sensor 1383 mounted
upon it. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Trans' wrist-
band with sensor to be a "removable attachable clip-on module" because it is
a component that could be replaced. Further, Tran discloses the
functionality of the device to which the wristband is attached is determined
by the sensor on the wristband because "the back of the device is a
conductive metal electrode 13 81 that in conjunction with a second electrode
1383 mounted on the wrist band 1374, enables differential EKG or ECG to
be measured" (Tran, i-f 223). We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument
that "in Tran, the sensors placed on wrist watches does not change the
functionality of the wrist watches" (App. Br. 8) because as Tran discloses,
the sensor 1383 on the wrist-band is what allows the device to perform the
functionality of measuring "differential EKG or ECG" (Tran, i-f 223). Thus,
we find Tran discloses the claim 1 limitation "functionality of said key fob
sized portable performance support device is determined by the particular
clip-on module clipped to said key fob sized portable performance support
device."
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 1. Appellants' arguments regarding independent claims
5
Appeal2015-005489
Application 12/800,913
3, 20, and 24 are similar to the argument presented for independent claim 1,
namely, "in Tran, the sensors placed on wrist watches does not change the
functionality of the wrist watches" (App. Br. 9, 10, 11 ). These arguments
are not persuasive for the reasons discussed above. We are, therefore, also
not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 3, 20, and
24, and dependent claims 6, 8, 12-15, and 22 not specifically argued
separately.
The Obviousness Rejections
Regarding dependent claims 4, 5, 7, 9-11, 16-19, 21, 23, and 25,
Appellants rely on the same arguments presented for independent claims 3,
20, and 24 (App. Br. 11-13). These arguments are not persuasive for the
reasons discussed above. We are, therefore, also not persuaded the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4, 5, 7, 9-11, 16-19, 21, 23, and 25.
CONCLUSIONS
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims
1, 3, 6, 8, 12-15, 20, 22, and 24.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims
4, 5, 7, 9-11, 16-19, 21, 23, and 25.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and
3-25 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).
AFFIRMED
6