The Boeing Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 30, 2020

2019004626 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 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.
15/179,397 06/10/2016 John William Glatfelter 60070/16-0118-US-NP 1824
122219 7590 12/30/2020
von Briesen & Roper, s.c./ The Boeing Company
One North Franklin Street
Suite 2350
Chicago, IL 60606
EXAMINER
BARAKAT, MOHAMED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2020 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):
bmatthias@vonbriesen.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
ynunez@vonbriesen.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JOHN WILLIAM GLATFELTER, and
BRIAN DALE LAUGHLIN 1
____________________

Appeal 2019-004626
Application 15/179,397
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 through 5, and 8 through 19. 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(a). According to Appellant, The Boeing Company is the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004626
Application 15/179,397

2
INVENTION
The invention relates generally to a system for monitoring one or
more environmental conditions associated with a working environment
which includes a wearable device configured to be worn by a worker; one or
more environmental sampling sensors, to monitor the one or more
environmental conditions; and a positioning sensor, to monitor the position
of the worker. The system includes a controller configured to receive the
environmental sampling information, receive the positioning information
and determine, based on information, if the one or more environmental
conditions necessitates an alert to be presented to the worker. Abstract.
Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A system for monitoring one or more environmental
conditions associated with a working environment, the
system comprising:
a wearable device, the wearable device configured
to be worn by a worker within the working environment
and to move with the worker within the working
environment;
one or more environmental sampling sensors
operatively associated with the wearable device, each of
the one or more environmental sampling sensors
configured to monitor the one or more environmental
conditions associated with the working environment and
determine environmental sampling information based on
the monitoring of the one or more environmental
conditions
a positioning sensor operatively associated with
the wearable device and configured to determine
positioning information for the worker, the positioning
information for the worker including information
regarding positioning of the worker relative to the
working environment; and
Appeal 2019-004626
Application 15/179,397

3
a controller, including a processor, configured to
receive the environmental sampling information from the
one or more environmental sampling sensors, receive the
positioning information from the positioning sensor, and
determine, based on the environmental sampling
information and the positioning information, whether an
alert is to be presented to the worker, the controller being
further configured to determine, based at least in part on
the environmental sampling information, whether to
wirelessly transmit an alert to a second wearable device
worn by a second worker, indicative of the worker being
in need of aid.
EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS2
The Examiner rejected claims 1 through 5, and 9 through 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lovejoy (US 6,031,454 issued
February 29, 2000) and Thirumalaisamy (US 9,336,674 B1 issued May 10,
2016). Final Act. 2–9.
The Examiner rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lovejoy, Thirumalaisamy and Humphrey (US
2011/0133927 A1 published June 9, 2011). Final Act. 9–10.
ANALYSIS
Appellant’s arguments directed to the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of representative independent claim 1 present us with three issues:
a) is Thirumalaisamy analogous art; b) does Thirumalaisamy provide
evidence that it is common knowledge to wirelessly transmit an alert to a
wearable device worn by another worker; and c) is the combination of
Lovejoy and Thirumalaisamy merely the combination known elements to

2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed July 24, 2018
(“Appeal Br.”); Final Office Action mailed December 26, 2017 (“Final
Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed September 25, 2018 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2019-004626
Application 15/179,397

4
yield predictable results. Appeal. Br. 16–25. Specifically, with respect to
the first issue, Appellant argues that Thirumalaisamy is not analogous art as
it is not principally concerned with monitoring environmental conditions as
the claimed invention. Appeal Br. 16–20. Further, Appellant argues that
Thirumalaisamy “is not reasonably pertinent because it neither (1) addresses
the same problem nor (2) serves the same purpose as the system of claim 1.”
Appeal Br. 20. With respect to the second issue, Appellant argues that
Thirumalaisamy, in the passage cited by the Examiner, does not provide
evidence that it is common knowledge to wirelessly transmit an alert to
wearable device worn by another worker Appeal Br. 21–22. With respect to
the third issue, Appellant argues:
the combination of Lovejoy and Thirumalaisamy would yield
unpredictable results in the field of personal exposure
monitoring. For example, if the Lovejoy exposure monitoring
system and method used electronic messages along with
delivery and resolution workflow information to decide whether
workers have been exposed to hazardous chemicals or have
entered a dangerous area, it would most assuredly fail at the
task at hand. . . .
As described in Lovejoy, its system and method must act
automatically and immediately warn a worker of a hazardous
condition, and cannot wait for the system to analyze and
correlate incoming messages with historical data as taught by
Thirumalaisamy.

Appeal Br. 24.
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection. With respect to the first issue, we are not persuaded
that Thirumalaisamy is non-analogous art. The Examiner relies upon
Thirumalaisamy to show “it was well known in the art of notifying workers
to wirelessly transmit an alert to a second wearable device worn by a second
Appeal 2019-004626
Application 15/179,397

5
worker, indicative of worker being in need of help (E.g. Col. 12, line 61 –
Col. 13, line 13; Figs 6a and 6b).” Final Act. 4. The test for non-analogous
art is first whether the art is within the field of the inventor’s endeavor and,
if not, whether it is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the
inventor was involved. In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979). A
reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field
of endeavor, it logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s
attention in considering a problem because of the matter with which it deals.
In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Appellant’s invention is
directed to sensing environmental conditions and alerting a user. See title
and abstract of Specification. Here we concur with Appellant that
Thirumalaisamy, which is not concerned with sensing environmental
conditions, is not in the same endeavor as the Appellant’s invention.
However, as Thirumalaisamy is concerned with smart alerting techniques
(See abstract and col. 2, ll. 17–19), we consider it to be to be reasonably
pertinent to the claimed invention.
Appellant’s arguments directed to the second issue have similarly not
persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Appellant argues that the
paragraph of Thirumalaisamy cited by the Examiner, “does not provide
documentary evidence that would establish a basis for common knowledge
for a wearable monitor for warning of overexposure to a harmful or toxic
environment as taught by Lovejoy.” Appeal Br; 22 (citing Thirumalaisamy
col. 12, ll. 61–67, and col. 12. ll. 1–13). Appellant’s argument overstates
what Thirumalaisamy is relied upon for. As discussed above, the Examiner
relies upon Thirumalaisamy to teach wirelessly transmitting an alert to a
second wearable device worn by a second worker, indicative of worker
Appeal 2019-004626
Application 15/179,397

6
being in need of help. Final Act. 4. The Examiner found that Lovejoy
teaches the alert is sent out based upon a warning of overexposure. Final
Act 4. We concur with these findings, and we note that Lovejoy teaches that
the wearable monitor has two way microwave commination and is used to
warn other users and ask for help (see col. 5, ll. 22–30, col. 12, ll. 44–59).
Thirumalaisamy teaches messages and help alerts are transmitted to users
via a smart alerting system running on user carried devices. See
Thirumalaisamy col. 12, l. 54– col. 13 l. 12, and Figures 6A and 6B. We
also note that Thirumalaisamy discusses use of wireless networks for
communication to user devices such as smart phone or a PDA (user
wearable devices). See col 5. ll. 38–40, col. 6, ll. 57–61, and col. 14, ll. 6–
10). Thus, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us the Examiner erred
in finding that Thirumalaisamy provides evidence that it is common
knowledge to wirelessly transmit an alert to wearable device worn by
another worker.
Finally, Appellant’s arguments directed to the third issue have
similarly not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Appellant
argues that the Examiner erred in finding the combination would yield
predictable results and “if the Lovejoy exposure monitoring system and
method used electronic messages along with delivery and resolution
workflow information to decide whether workers have been exposed to
hazardous chemicals or have entered a dangerous area, it would most
assuredly fail at the task at hand.” Appeal Br. 24. Appellant reasons that “in
Lovejoy, its system and method must act automatically and immediately
warn a worker of a hazardous condition, and cannot wait for the system to
analyze and correlate incoming messages with historical data as taught by
Appeal 2019-004626
Application 15/179,397

7
Thirumalaisamy.” Appeal Br. 24. We do not consider these arguments
persuasive as they are arguing a bodily incorporation of all of the teachings
of Thirumalaisamy, and not as the Examiner has applied Thirumalaisamy, as
a teaching that it is known to wirelessly transmit an alert to a second
wearable device worn by a second worker. Further, Appellant’s assertion is
premised upon the assumption that the system in Thirumalaisamy does not
process alerts quickly, which is speculative, as the Appellant has not
identified evidence to support the assumption.
As these three issues are the only issues presented with respect to both
of the Examiner’s obviousness rejections, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1 through 5, and 8 through 19.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 5, and 8
through 19.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 9–19 103 Lovejoy,
Thirumalaisamy
1–5, 9–19
8 103 Lovejoy,
Thirumalaisamy,
Humphrey
8
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 8–19
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED