Ex Parte Albers et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 14, 201511874345 (P.T.A.B. May. 14, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 11/874,345 10/18/2007 Bas ALBERS 885_077 2331 25191 7590 05/14/2015 BURR & BROWN, PLLC PO BOX 7068 SYRACUSE, NY 13261-7068 EXAMINER REDMAN, JERRY E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3634 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/14/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte BAS ALBERS, BEAT DE COI, and PETER NEBIKER ____________ Appeal 2013-005550 Application 11/874,3451 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Bas Albers et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) claims 1– 5 and 8–12 as unpatentable over Mills (US 4,029,176, iss. June 14, 1977) and Calamatas (US 6,452,353 B1, iss. Sept. 17, 2002), and claim 6 as unpatentable over Mills, Calamatas, and Hayashida (US 6,304,178 B1, iss. Oct. 16, 2001). Claim 7 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Cedes Ag. Appeal Br. 1 (filed Nov. 2, 2012). Appeal 2013-005550 Application 11/874,345 2 SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. INVENTION Appellants’ invention relates to “a device for controlling a driven moving element, for example a door.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is representative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 1. A device for controlling a driven moving element, the device comprising an electronic unit with an object sensor, wherein the object sensor of the electronic unit is an optical sensor that is arranged above the driven moving element and which determines an object distance between the driven moving element and an object in the region of the driven moving element and controls movement of the driven moving element depending on the object distance, wherein the electronic unit uses only a front edge of the driven moving element, which is a first part of the driven moving element that would otherwise collide with the object, as a reference for the driven moving element to determine the object distance. ANALYSIS Appellants argue that the combined teachings of Mills and Calamatas fail to disclose “an electronic unit that uses only a front edge of the driven moving element as a reference,” as called for by independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 9. Mills discloses a doorway safety system for automatically operated sliding panel doors that measures the distance between leading or front edge positioned transmitters and receivers, and a moving object in or near the door’s path. See Mills, Abstract. More specifically, Mills discloses that Appeal 2013-005550 Application 11/874,345 3 sensor pair 21, 22 determines the distance to stationary post 13 which is used as a reference distance. See id. at 5:61–6:1; Fig. 1. Second pairs of sensors 26, 27 detect objects located within area 28 for the purpose of “measur[ing] the distance to objects positioned substantially in line with car door 12.” Id. at 6:14–20; Fig. 1. If an object is not positioned within area 28, the reflected energy from stationary post 13 will arrive at receiver 27 at the same time as the energy arriving at reference receiver 22, and thus, the signal will not be further processed. Id. at 6:28–35. However, if the reflected energy from stationary post 13 arrives at receiver 27 prior to the energy arriving at reference receiver 22, the signal represents a “lesser distance” (than the reference distance determined by sensors 21, 22) and thus, the signal will be further processed as representing an object located within area 28 between stationary post 13 and column 20. Mills, 6:36–39. Similarly, if the reflected energy from stationary post 13 arrives at receiver 32, which is one of a pair of sensors 31, 32, prior to the energy arriving at reference receiver 22, the signal is further processed as representing an object located within area 36 between stationary post 13 and column 20. Id. at 6: 57–58; 7:16–22; Fig. 2. As such, in contrast to claim 1, which requires using only the front edge of the moving element as a reference, Mills uses stationary post 13 as a reference. As for Calamatas, Appellants are correct that because Calamatas’s objective is to provide an “obstruction detection system . . . which does not require the use of leading edge sensor(s)” (see Calamatas, 2:50–54), Calamatas’s system does not use only the front edge of the moving element as a reference, as called for by claim 1. See Reply Br. 5. More specifically, Appeal 2013-005550 Application 11/874,345 4 we note that Calamatas determines the position of a motorized door using a position encoder. See Calamatas, Abstract. In conclusion, because neither Mills nor Calamatas discloses using only the front edge of the moving element as a reference, the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is not supported by facts, and thus, cannot stand. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (holding that “[t]he legal conclusion of obviousness must be supported by facts. Where the legal conclusion is not supported by facts it cannot stand.”). Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–5 and 8–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mills and Calamatas. With respect to the rejection of claim 6, the Examiner’s use of the disclosure of Hayashida does not remedy the deficiencies of Mills and Calamatas, as described supra. See Final Act. 3–4. Therefore, we also do not sustain the rejection of claim 6 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Mills, Calamatas, and Hayashida. SUMMARY We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6 and 8–12. REVERSED cda Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation