Thomas J. Mcmanus et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 3, 2020

13944642 - (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.
13/944,642 07/17/2013 Thomas J. McManus 56581.121.1 7088
88676 7590 01/03/2020
Fredrikson & Byron, P.A.
Intellectual Property Group, Fluke Patents
200 South 6th Street, Suite 4000
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
LE, PETER D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2488
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):
ip@fredlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Ex parte THOMAS J. McMANUS and MATTHEW F. SCHMIDT

Appeal 2019-000553
Application 13/944,642
Technology Center 2400

Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

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 1–7, 9–14, 16–22, and 24–30. Appeal
Br. 5. Claims 8, 15, and 23 were cancelled. Final Act. 2.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Fluke
Corporation. Appeal Br. 3.
2 All references to the Final Action refer to the Final Action mailed on
December 1, 2017.
Appeal 2019-000553
Application 13/944,642

2
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed invention is directed to
prompting a user of a thermal imaging camera to provide annotation data.
Appeal Br. 3. Thermal images are often annotated with additional
information provided by the user or known by the camera. Spec. ¶ 3.
However, the user will often forget to input the annotation data at the time of
imaging, which may prove troublesome should important details of the
image be forgotten. Id. Appellant’s claimed invention uses an additional
sensor that provides data. Id. ¶ 4. Upon certain data satisfying a
predetermined requirement, the thermal imaging camera will prompt the
user, via the camera’s display, to enter annotation data. Id. The prompt may
be in the form of a prompt window that appears when a predetermined
requirement is met. Id. ¶ 43.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, with the limitation at issue
italicized for emphasis:
1. A portable, hand-held thermal imaging camera
comprising:
an infrared (IR) lens assembly having an associated IR sensor
for detecting thermal images of a target scene;
a display associated with a user interface;
a processor; and
at least one additional, non-IR sensor, the additional sensor
configured to provide measurement data to the processor, the
processor analyzing whether the measurement data satisfies a
predetermined requirement, and as a result of the measurement
data satisfying the predetermined requirement the processor
causing a prompt window to appear on the display, the prompt
window providing content related to the measurement data, and
Appeal 2019-000553
Application 13/944,642

3
wherein the camera is configured to receive annotation data
related to the measurement data satisfying the predetermined
requirement from the user at the prompt window, via the user
interface, and remove the prompt window from the display
upon receiving annotation data from the user.
Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.).
Independent claims 14 and 22 recite, respectively, a storage medium
and method having limitations similar in scope with claim 1, including the
limitation at issue in claim 1. Id. at 22–24. Dependent claims 2–7, 9–13,
16–21, and 24–30 each incorporate the limitations of their respective
independent claims. Id.
REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Shields et al.
(Shields)
US 5,949,418 Issued Sept. 7, 1999
Filed May 6, 1997
Karkanias et al.
(Karkanias)
US 2008/0183049 A1 Published July 31, 2008
Filed Jan. 31, 2007
Drews et al.
(Drews)
US 2009/0184244 A1 Published July 23, 2009
Filed Dec. 4, 2008
Radosavljevic et al.
(Radosavljevic)
US 2012/0001768 A1 Published Jan. 5, 2012
Filed Apr. 28, 2011
Erlandsson et al.
(Erlandsson)
US 2014/0013201 A1 Published Jan. 9, 2014
Filed July 26, 2013

Appeal 2019-000553
Application 13/944,642

4
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 13, 14, and 30 are rejected under America Invents Act
(“AIA”) 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combined teachings and
suggestions of Drews, Shields, and Karkanias.3
Claims 2–7 and 20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Drews, Shields,
Karkanias, and Radosavljevic.
Claims 9–12, 16–19, and 21 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Drews,
Shields, Karkanias, Radosavljevic, and Erlandsson.
Claims 22 and 26 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Drews and
Karkanias.4
Claims 24 and 27–29 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Drews, Karkanias,
and Erlandsson.

3 The present invention, filed on or after March 13, 2013, and having no
claims of priority or benefit, is examined under the first inventor to file
provisions of the AIA, including 35 U.S.C. § 103. Final Act. 2.
4 The Final Action indicates in a heading that claims 22 and 26 are rejected
as being anticipated by Drews in view of Karkanias. Final Act. 25.
However, the substance of the Examiner’s rejection is whether the claims
are obvious over the teachings and suggestions of Drews and Karkanias.
Final Act. 25–28. Accordingly, we treat the heading on page 3 of the Final
Action as a typographical error, and the Examiner’s rejection as being under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2019-000553
Application 13/944,642

5
Claims 25 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious
over the combined teachings and suggestions of Drews, Karkanias, and
Radosavljevic.
OPINION
Appellant contends that Drews, Shields, and Karkanias do not teach or
suggest “as a result of the measurement data satisfying the predetermined
requirement the processor causing a prompt window to appear on the
display,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 9. In particular, Appellant
contends that the Examiner’s reliance on Drews is in error, because Drews
does not teach or suggest a prompt window appearing on a display as a
result of measurement data satisfying a predetermined requirement. Id. at 10
(citing Drews Fig. 1, ¶¶ 37–39).
The Examiner finds this limitation taught by Drews’ display window
(Fig. 1), which displays first gas concentration display 9’, second gas
concentration display 9, and flashover display 10. Final Act. 4–5 (citing
Drews Fig. 1, ¶¶ 37–39). The Examiner states that the GUI (graphical user
interface) of Drews is considered as a prompt to the user on the display. Id.
at 4.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument. The Examiner shows
that Drews causes information to appear on flashover display 10, in the form
of the probability with which certain limit values are exceeded, in response
to sensor data reaching limit values. Id. at 4–5. However, the Examiner has
not pointed to any portion of Drews that would teach or suggest causing a
“prompt window,” in the form of Drews’ entire graphical user interface or
some portion thereof, to appear on the display in response to measurement
data satisfying a predetermined requirement. Appellant has argued that the
Appeal 2019-000553
Application 13/944,642

6
prompt window, in the form of the entirety of Drews’ GUI, “is present on
the display from the moment the camera is turned on.” Appeal Br. 10. The
Examiner has not explained why this interpretation is incorrect in light of the
teachings and suggestions of Drews, or shown how either Drews’ entire
GUI, or some portion thereof, is taught to appear only in response to
measurement data satisfying a predetermined requirement.
Although the Examiner finds in the context of addressing claim 22
that Drews teaches an embodiment in which “a visual . . . warning is
triggered beginning from a certain threshold value of a gas concentration,”
the Examiner does not present any finding that this visual warning causes
the appearance of the entirety of the GUI, or some relevant portion thereof,
to provide a prompt window to appear on the display. (Final Act. 27
(quoting Drews ¶¶ 24–25)). Nor does the Examiner find that Karkanias or
Shields teaches or suggests the contested limitation.
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant that the Examiner has
not shown the combination of Drews, Shields, and Karkanias teach or
suggest “as a result of the measurement data satisfying the predetermined
requirement the processor causing a prompt window to appear on the
display,” as recited in claim 1.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 13, 14, and 30is erroneous for the same reasons identified above with
respect to claim 1. Appeal Br. 16. Claims 13 and 30 depend from claim 1,
and we are persuaded that the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of those
claims is in error for the reasons discussed for claim 1, supra. Similar to the
limitation at issue in claim 1, independent claim 14 recites “generating a
prompt window on a display of the thermal imaging camera as a result of the
Appeal 2019-000553
Application 13/944,642

7
first signal satisfying the first predetermined requirement.” For the same
reasons as discussed with respect to claim 1, we are persuaded that the
Examiner has not shown the combination of Drews, Shields, and Karkanias
teach or suggest that limitation of claim 14. Accordingly, we reverse the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 13, 14, and 30. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.67(c)(vii).
Appellant further argues that the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of
claims 2–7, 9–12, 16–21, and 24–29 are erroneous for the same reasons
identified above with respect to claim 1, and further, that the additional
teachings of Shields, Karkanias, Radosavljevic, or Erlandsson do not cure
the error. Appeal Br. 16–19. Similar to the limitation at issue in claim 1,
independent claim 22 recites “generating a first prompt window to the user
on the display as a result of the first parameter satisfying the first
predetermined requirement.” For the same reasons as discussed with respect
to claim 1, we are persuaded that the Examiner has not shown the
combination of Drews and Karkanias teach or suggest that limitation of
claim 22. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of
claims 2–7, 9–12, 16–21, and 24–29.
CONCLUSION
For the above-described reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections
of claims 1–7, 9–14, 16–22, and 24–30 as being obvious under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Appeal 2019-000553
Application 13/944,642

8
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Grounds Affirmed Reversed
1, 13, 14,
30
103 Drews, Shields,
Karkanias,
1, 13, 14,
30
2–7, 20 103 Drews, Shields,
Karkanias,
Radosavljevic
2–7, 20
9–12, 16–
19, 21
103 Drews, Shields,
Karkanias,
Radosavljevic,
Erlandsson
9–12, 16–
19, 21
22, 26 103 Drews, Karkanias, 22, 26
24, 27–29 103 Drews, Karkanias,
Erlandsson
24, 27–29
25 103 Drews, Karkanias,
Radosavljevic
25
Overall
Outcome
1–7, 9–
14, 16–
22, 24–30

REVERSED