Kent Savage et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 14, 2020

2019006813 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 14, 2020)

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.
15/490,284 04/18/2017 Kent V. Savage 074716-00011US2CN1e 1948
27805 7590 07/14/2020
THOMPSON HINE L.L.P.
10050 INNOVATION DRIVE
SUITE 400
DAYTON, OH 45342-4934
EXAMINER
COLLINS, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/14/2020 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):
ipdocket@thompsonhine.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KENT V. SAVAGE and BENJAMIN V. SAVAGE
____________

Appeal 2019-006813
Application 15/490,284
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 64–67, 69–71, 73–75, 77, 79–81, 84–86, and 92–
104.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Our decision references Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.,” filed
Apr. 18, 2017), Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Mar. 15, 2019) and Reply
Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Sept. 11, 2019), and the Examiner’s Final Office
Action (“Final Act.,” mailed June 6, 2018), and Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July
11, 2019). Appellant identifies Apex Industrial Technologies LLC as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
2 The Examiner indicated that claim 76 contains allowable subject matter.
Final Act. 10.
Appeal 2019-006813
Application 15/490,284
2
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to “a dispensing system that provides a
user direct access to the items being dispensed.” Spec. ¶ 2.
Claims 64, 79, and 94 are the independent claims on appeal.
Claim 64, reproduced below with bracketed notations added, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
64. An access and storage system comprising:
[(a)] a manually-carryable storage component
positionable on or in a storage area, wherein said storage
component is configured to store items therein or thereon in
associated storage positions, and wherein said storage
component is configured to provide a user direct manual access
to said items in said storage positions; and
[(b)] a sensor system configured to track at least one of
said user’s removal of an item from the associated storage
position or replacement of the item to the associated storage
position, wherein the sensor system is operable to track said
removal or replacement of the item when the storage component
is positioned on or in the storage area and to track said removal
or replacement of the item when the storage component is not
positioned on or in the storage area.
REJECTION
Claims 64–67, 69–71, 73–75, 77, 79–81, 84–86, and 92–104 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Vonk
(US 2006/0058917 A1, pub. Mar. 16, 2006).
ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claims 64, 79, and 94 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b),
because Vonk does not disclose a sensor system that “is operable . . . to track
said removal or replacement of the item when the storage component is not
positioned on or in the storage area,” as recited in claim 64, limitation (b),
and similarly recited in claims 79 and 94. Appeal Br. 5–8, 17–19; Reply
Appeal 2019-006813
Application 15/490,284
3
Br. 2–4, 14–16. The Examiner relies on paragraph 28 of Vonk as teaching
the argued limitation. See Final Act. 3, 6, 9. In the Answer, the Examiner
additionally relies on paragraph 32 of Vonk. Ans. 8.
Vonk discloses a medication adherence system comprising medication
tray 10 and docking station 20. Vonk ¶ 21, Fig. 1. Medication tray 10
includes individual receptacles 25 for receiving removable medication
containers 30, and smart tag 40 for storing information about the
medications on medication tray 10 and communicating the information to
docking station 20. Id. Docking station 20 includes sensors 110 to detect
when a specific medication container 30 has been removed from or replaced
into docking station 20. Id. ¶ 36, Fig. 1. For example, a bottom surface of
each medication container 30 includes low-bit tag 35 that allows sensors 110
to sense whether medication container 30 is present. Id. ¶ 44, Fig. 7.
Specifically, sensors 110 each contains probes 702a and 702b that, when
placed in contact with low-bit tag 35, enable a low voltage, low current
signal to pass through low-bit tag 35 for detection by processor 502 of the
respective sensor. Id. ¶ 45, Fig. 7. When the container is removed and low-
bit tag 35 is not in contact with probes 702a and 702b, processor 502 senses
the absence of the signal. Id.
During the filling of medication tray 10, prescription information
(e.g., who prescribed the medicine and who filled the prescription),
medication information (e.g., which medication is in which container), and
tray data is encoded in smart tag 40 of medication tray 10. Id. ¶¶ 28–30.
When medication tray 10 is placed on docking station 20 after filling,
docking station 20 downloads information contained in smart tag 40
regarding prescription information, medication information, and tray data.
Appeal 2019-006813
Application 15/490,284
4
Id. ¶ 32. The information is used, in part, to remind patients when to take
their medications. Id.
The Examiner finds that smart tag 40 and sensors 110 function to
provide “the limitation of tracking replacement of an item (30), and its
corresponding medication(s), in a remote loading location.” Ans. 8–9.
More specifically, the Examiner finds Vonk discloses the limitation at issue
because Vonk teaches that, during the loading of medication container 30
remote from docking station 20, prescription data is transferred into
medication tray 10 via smart tag 40. Id. at 8 (citing Vonk ¶ 28).
Yet, the argued limitation is not met by encoding prescription and
medication information in smart tag 40 while refilling medication of a
medication tray 10 remotely. Instead, claim 64 requires, and claims 79 and
94 similarly require, a sensor system operable to track removal or
replacement of the item when the storage component is not positioned on or
in the storage area. As argued by Appellant (Reply Br. 4), Vonk’s smart tag
40 is a transceiver. That is, smart tag 40 receives medication information
during filling of medication tray 10, and transmits this information to
docking station 20 when placed on docking station 20. See Vonk ¶¶ 21, 28,
30, 32. Accordingly, smart tag 40 does not disclose a sensor system, much
less a sensor system operable to track removal or replacement of container
30 when medication tray 10 is not positioned on or in docking station 20.
Vonk’s sensors 110, alone or in combination with smart tag 40, also
fail to disclose the argued limitation. Sensors 110 are operable to track
removal or replacement of the medication container 30 when medication
tray 10 is positioned on the docking station 20. See Vonk ¶¶ 36, 44. But
Vonk’s sensors 110 cannot track replacement of medication container 30
Appeal 2019-006813
Application 15/490,284
5
when medication tray 10 is not positioned on or in docking station 20, as
there is no contact between sensors 110 and low-bit tag 35. See id.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) of independent claims 64, 79, and 94 and their dependent claims as
anticipated by Vonk.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 64–67, 69–71, 73–75, 77, 79–81,
84–86, and 92–104 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference Affirmed Reversed
64–67,
69–71,
73–75,
77, 79–
81, 84–
86, 92–
104
102(b) Vonk
64–67,
69–71,
73–75,
77, 79–
81, 84–
86, 92–
104

REVERSED