Raj B. Apte et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 3, 2020

13551563 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 3, 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.
13/551,563 07/17/2012 Raj B. Apte 12713 2345
27752 7590 01/03/2020
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
GLOBAL IP SERVICES
CENTRAL BUILDING, C9
ONE PROCTER AND GAMBLE PLAZA
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
CASILLASHERNANDEZ, OMAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2020 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):
centraldocket.im@pg.com
mayer.jk@pg.com
pair_pg@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RAJ B. APTE, ERIK JOHN HASENOEHRL, and
CHRISTOPHER PAULSON
____________________

Appeal 2018-008249
Application 13/551,563
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6–8, and 10–18. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Procter & Gamble
Company of Cincinnati, Ohio. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-008249
Application 13/551,563

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (emphasis,
formatting, and bracketed material added):
1. A method of generating an action in a low-powered ad hoc
wireless network, comprising:
[A.] providing low-powered ad hoc mesh network of at least
three nodes, the ad hoc mesh network having at least one
node associated with a consumer product, the consumer
product having no independent networking communications
capability, and at least one node capable of generating node
data about the consumer product;
[B.] analyzing node data to associate the consumer product with
a room;
[C.] determining a purpose for the consumer product containing
room;
[D.] sending the node data about the consumer product to a
computing device;
[E.] using the computing device to retrieve additional data from
a database and associate the additional data with the node
data about the consumer product;
[F.] determining, at the computing device, an action based upon
the associated data from the database and the purpose of the
room containing the consumer product; and
[G.] executing the action using the computing device.
Appeal 2018-008249
Application 13/551,563

3
REFERENCES2
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Kim US 2010/0202355 A1 Aug. 12, 2010
Pelland US 2011/0291840 A1 Dec. 1, 2011
Trevino US 2012/0221720 A1 Aug. 30, 2012

REJECTIONS
A.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 16–18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Trevino, Pelland, and
Kim. Final Act. 3–7.
We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this rejection.
Appellant does not argue separate patentability for claims 2, 6, 7, and 16–18.
Except for our ultimate decision, we do not address claims 2, 6, 7, and 16–
18 further herein.
B.
The Examiner rejects claims 3, 4, 8, and 10–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the combination of Trevino, Pelland, and Kim in
various combinations with additional references. Final Act. 6–11.
To the extent that Appellant discusses claims 3, 4, 8, and 10–15,
Appellant merely repeats or references the arguments directed to claim 1.
Appeal Br. 4–8. Such a repeated argument (or referenced argument) is not

2 All citations herein to patent and pre-grant publication references are by
reference to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2018-008249
Application 13/551,563

4
an argument for “separate patentability.” Thus, Appellant does not present
separate arguments for claims 3, 4, 8, and 10–15, and the rejections of these
claims turn on our decision as to claim 1. Except for our ultimate decision,
we do not address claims 3, 4, 8, and 10–15 further herein.

OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
Appeal Brief arguments.
A.
Appellant asserts the following requirement for any rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
A rejection under 35 USC §103 [sic] requires that the cited
combination of references teach or suggest each limitation of the
invention set forth in the claims or that any limitation not
specifically taught or suggested[,] be inherently present in the
embodiments set forth in the references.
Appeal Br. 2 (emphasis added).
Appellant’s asserted restrictive requirement that each limitation be
“taught or suggested, [or] be inherently present” has no basis in the case law.
Appellant’s assertion does not take into account that the Court repudiated
any requirement that a teaching, suggestion, or motivation is required to
show obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415 (2007)
(“We begin by rejecting the rigid approach of the Court of Appeals.”).
Rather, the requirement is only that the Examiner show “the subject matter
as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.”
KSR, 550 U.S. at 406 (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103) (emphasis added); id. at 418
Appeal 2018-008249
Application 13/551,563

5
(“[T]he analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific
subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ.”).
Although Appellant premises their arguments on whether limitations
are “not specifically taught or suggested, [or] be inherently present” in the
references (e.g., Appeal Br. 6, 8), we instead review the arguments as to
whether the references teach, suggest, or render obvious those argued
limitations.
B.
Appellant raises the following argument in contending that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Office Action provides that paragraph 29 of the
Trevino reference teaches the analysis of node data to associate
the consumer product with a room as the reference provides that
location information may be transmitted by the node. Status,
usage and location information are not necessarily room
assignment information and nothing in the cited portion of the
reference indicates that transmitted information is analyzed for
the purpose of associating the consumer product with a room or
determining a purpose of an associated room based upon
received node data.
Appeal Br. 3.
The Examiner responds to Appellant’s argument as follows:
The field node provide usage information of a product along with
location information (Trevino: ¶0029). Therefore by providing
both information it would be associating a product being used
with the location being provided. Trevino also disclose that the
location information provided by the field node (also disclose[d]
as a routing node (Trevino: ¶0040, Lines 1-3) indicate
Appeal 2018-008249
Application 13/551,563

6
proximity to known locations such as rooms, floors, buildings,
etc. . . .) (Trevino: ¶0041, Lines 1-10).
Ans. 2.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. We disagree with
Appellant’s assertions and we agree with the Examiner’s response.
C.
Also, Appellant raises the following argument in contending that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Office Action provides that paragraph 51 of Pelland
teaches determining a purpose for the consumer product
containing room by disclosing the dispensing of soap to perform
hand hygiene protocol of a health case worker, an action
associated with the product and the proximity of a worker to the
product but in no way related to determining a purpose for the
consumer product containing room. (Room contains soap
dispenser is not a determination of room purpose.)
Appeal Br. 3 (emphasis added).
The Examiner responds to Appellant’s argument as follows:
Pelland disclose[s] a monitoring system that determine[s] a
purpose for a consumer product containing room (¶0051:
dispense soap (consumer product in a particular room) to
perform hand hygiene protocol of a health case worker
(purpose)).
Ans. 3.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. We disagree with
Appellant’s assertions and we agree with the Examiner’s response.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1–4, 6–8, and 10–18 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2018-008249
Application 13/551,563

7
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–4, 6–8, and 10–18 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are affirmed.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6–8,
10–18
103 Trevino, Pelland, Kim 1–4, 6–8,
10–18

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED