Raj B. Apte et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 3, 2020

14548337 - (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.
14/548,337 11/20/2014 Raj B. APTE 12713C 1052
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 2018-008094
Application 14/548,337
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 1–29. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real parties in interest as The Procter
& Gamble Company of Cincinnati, Ohio. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-008094
Application 14/548,337

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 node of an ad hoc
wireless mesh network based on information that is
collected from the node about a function of a space in
which the node is located and a consumer product within
the ad hoc wireless mesh network, the method comprising
the following steps:
[A.] providing an ad hoc wireless mesh network of three
or more nodes,
[B.] determining a relative location of the three or more
nodes relative to each other based on time-of-flight
communications between the nodes;
[C.] determining a layout of a structure in which the
three or more nodes are located;
[D.] segmenting the three or more nodes into one or
more rooms of the structure;
[E.] providing at least one consumer product associated
within the ad hoc wireless mesh network, the at least
one consumer product having no independent
networking communications capability;
[F.] sending characteristic data about the at least one
consumer product to a computing device wherein the
computing device accesses a database to gather
additional information;
[G.] using the characteristic data and the additional
information to determine an function for at least the
one or more rooms of the structure in which the at
least one consumer product is located;
[H.] determining an action based on the function of the
one or more rooms in which the at least one consume
product is located and the characteristic data about
the at least one consumer product; and
Appeal 2018-008094
Application 14/548,337

3
[I.] executing an action using the computing device.
REFERENCES2
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Pelland US 2011/0291840 A1 Dec. 1, 2011
Johnson US 2012/0031922 A1 Feb. 9, 2012

REJECTIONS
A.
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 5–8, 16–23, and 25–28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Pelland and
Johnson. Final Act. 3–11.
Appellant argues separate patentability for claims 1 and 18. We select
claims 1 and 18 as the representative claims for this rejection. Appellant
does not argue separate patentability for claims 2, 3, 5–8, 16, 17, 19–23, and
25–28. Except for our ultimate decision, we do not address claims 2, 3, 5–8,
16, 17, 19–23, and 25–28 further herein.
B.
The Examiner rejects claims 4, 9–15, 24, and 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Pelland and Johnson in
various combinations with additional references. Final Act. 11–17.
To the extent that Appellant discusses claims 4, 9–15, 24, and 29,
Appellant merely repeats or references the arguments directed to claim 1.

2 All citations herein to patent and pre-grant publication references are by
reference to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2018-008094
Application 14/548,337

4
Appeal Br. 5–10. Such a repeated argument (or referenced argument) is not
an argument for “separate patentability.” Thus, Appellant does not present
separate arguments for claims 4, 9–15, 24, and 29, and the rejections of these
claims turn on our decision as to claims 1 and 18. Except for our ultimate
decision, we do not address claims 4, 9–15, 24, and 29 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. 3 (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.”
Appeal 2018-008094
Application 14/548,337

5
KSR, 550 U.S. at 406 (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103) (emphasis added); id. at 418
(“[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] 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 portion of the Pelland reference cited as teaching or
suggesting the determination of a layout of a structure having
three or more rooms provides disclosure of a structure having
multiple rooms but no disclosure of any determination of the
structure, simply the provision of the structure as an example.
The portion cited as disclosing segmentation of nodes again
provides only an example of segmented nodes but not the
claimed step of segmenting nodes.
Appeal Br. 4 (emphasis added).
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. As Appellant
acknowledges, Pelland “provides disclosure of a structure having multiple
rooms” and “an example of segmented nodes.” See Appeal Br. 4. We
determine that this disclosure is sufficient to render obvious the claimed
“determining a layout of a structure in which the three or more nodes are
located” and “segmenting the three or more nodes into one or more rooms of
Appeal 2018-008094
Application 14/548,337

6
the structure.” Particularly where, as here, the claim places no other
restriction on what performs these steps or how these steps are performed.
C.
Also, Appellant raises the following argument in contending that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Paragraph 51 of the [Pelland] reference, cited as teaching
the use of consumer product characteristic data and additional
database information to determine a room function, actually
discloses using the detection of a health care worker to anticipate
use of a hand cleansing station, not to determine a function for
the room in which the health care worker is located. The Office
Action applies the non-disclosed overlay of room where hand
hygiene compliance is required as a function for the room. It may
be a room characteristic but this cannot arguably be set forth as
a room function in a health care setting.
Appeal Br. 4 (emphasis added).
The Examiner responds to Appellant’s argument as follows:
On the broadest reasonable interpretation, a function is an
activity or purpose intended for a thing. Pelland disclose a thing
(room) where and activity ([hand hygiene compliance] HHC) is
intended to [occur]. Therefore on the broadest reasonable
interpretation Pelland disclose the limitation in question.
Ans. 3.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. We disagree with
Appellant’s assertions, and we agree with the Examiner’s response.
D.
Appellant raises the following argument in contending that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With regard to Claim 18, and the claims depending
therefrom, the Pelland reference fails to disclose the accessing of
a database to gather additional information about the consumer
Appeal 2018-008094
Application 14/548,337

7
product, accessing the database instead to determine the need for
hand hygiene compliance, not information about the sanitizer
itself.
Appeal Br. 5 (emphasis added).
The Examiner responds to Appellant’s argument as follows:
[T]he claim[] as written does not [further limit] what is
considered “additional information” of the first consumer
product. Pelland disclose receiv[ing] information about a
consumer product (logged event is reported (¶ 0051) to the
com[p]uting device 108[]) and the computing device
access[ing] a database where the application parameter, i.e.
compliance/violation of hand hygiene compliance (HHC) [is]
store[d] in order to determine compliance or not. Said
parameter[] [is] directed to the consumer product as it
determine[s] if [a] function of the particular product (soap
dispenser) is being used and if [it] is being used correctly,
therefore, on the broadest reasonable interpretation, said
parameter [is] “additional information” about the consumer
product.
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 1–29 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–29 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103 are affirmed.

Appeal 2018-008094
Application 14/548,337

8
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1–29 103 Pelland, Johnson 1–29
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