Ex Parte Ashrafzadeh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 24, 2016

12256495 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/256,495 10/23/2008
173 7590 02/26/2016
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601
2000 NORTH M63
BENTON HARBOR, MI 49022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
FARHAD ASHRAFZADEH
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
US20080479 5315
EXAMINER
LUDWIG, PETER L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3687
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2016 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):
whirlpool_patents_co@whirlpool.com
mike_lafrenz@whirlpool.com
deborah_tomaszewski@whirlpool.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte F ARHAD ASHRAF ZADEH, ALI R. BUENDIA-GARCIA,
RICHARD A. MCCOY, and YINGQIN YUAN
Appeal2013-008653
Application 12/256,495 1
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1-9, 13-19, 21-25, and 28-38. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ). We REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, "[ t ]he invention relates to a method using
container-based sensors for determining an attribute of a consumable
substance for inventory management." Spec. ,-r 1.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Whirlpool Corp. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal2013-008653
Application 12/256,495
CLAHvIS
Claims 1-9, 13-19, 21-25, and 28-38 are on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. A method of managing an inventory of a substance stored
in a container, the method comprising:
associating an identifier with a container system member
within a dataset remote to the container;
sensing, with a sensor located on the container, an
indication of an attribute of the substance stored in the container;
transmitting, with a transmitter located on the container,
container system data including the identifier and the sensed
indication of the attribute;
remotely receiving the container system data including the
identifier and the sensed indication of the attribute;
evaluating, with a processor, at least one notification
trigger rule, which defines at least one condition in which an
access notification is generated, using at least the identifier and
the sensed indication of the attribute; and
selectively generating the access notification based on the
evaluation.
App. Br. 10.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1-9, 13-19, 21-25, and 28-38 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Hart.2
DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Hart discloses a method as claimed in both
independent claim 1 and independent claim 37. Final Action 3-5. In
2 Hart et al., US 2003/0216831 Al, pub. Nov. 20, 2003.
2
Appeal2013-008653
Application I2/256,495
particular, the Examiner finds that Hart discloses associating an identifier
(column number for column 34) with a container system (cabinet 20);
sensing with a sensor 36 an indication of an attribute of the substance stored
in a container because each column can be considered a container and each
has a sensor that is enabled to sense when that particular column is empty or
near empty; transmitting information regarding a particular column and the
sensed attribute; remotely receiving the sensed data in a computer 46 via a
controller 42; evaluating a notification trigger rule within the cabinet based
on the column identifier and the sensed attribute; and generating access
notification based on the evaluation. See Id.; Advisory Action 23 (citing Hart
Fig. IA; i-f I57).
Appellants argue, inter alia, that Hart does not disclose transmitting
data including an identifier or evaluating a notification trigger rule based on
an identifier as required by claim I and similarly required by claim 37. See
App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 3---6. We agree with Appellants that Hart does not
necessarily disclose transmitting an identifier with a sensed indication of an
attribute.
The Examiner finds that Hart meets the transmitting limitation of
claim I "because notification of a 'particular column' being empty or near
empty clearly provides for the tranmission [sic] of some sort of identifier."
Ans. I 4. The Examiner also finds that each column in Hart need not have its
own separate identifier and that only a "container system member" must
include an identifier. Id. at I5. The Examiner further poses the question,
3 We note that the Advisory Action specifically limits the rejection to the
embodiment disclosed in Hart's Figure IA and paragraph I57.
3
Appeal2013-008653
Application 12/256,495
"[h ]ow would the system know that a particular column is empty if some
sort of identifier relating to the system is not transmitted?" Id. at 15.
The Examiner's finding relies on Hart's disclosure that "sensors 36
also monitor inventory of the columns 34 and notify the computer 46
through controller 42 that a particular column is empty or near empty." Hart
i-f 157. We are not persuaded that this statement alone shows that Hart's
system necessarily transmits an identifier with the sensed attribute. For
example, it may be possible in Hart's system that computer 46 sends a signal
requesting a particular pharmaceutical along with the column location for
that pharmaceutical, in which case it would not be necessary for the sensor
or controller to send back, i.e. transmit, an identifier along with an indication
that the column is empty or near empty. We note that Hart discloses that the
computer transmits a request to the controller for a particular pharmaceutical
variety, but Hart does not indicate what information is transmitted in that
request. Hart i-f 156. As such, while it may be possible or probable that
Hart's sensors or controller send an identifier, we find that it is not
necessarily so. Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 214 (CCPA 1939)
("Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or
possibilities."); quoted in Continental Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948
F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Thus, we determine that the Examiner
failed to establish a prima facie showing of anticipation, and we are
constrained to reverse this rejection.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-9,
13-19, 21-25, and 28-38.
REVERSED
4