Ex Parte Blackburn

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2017

12361183 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2017)

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.
12/361,183 01/28/2009 John Joseph BLACKBURN 520219-00398US 7770
27805 7590 03/22/2017
THOMPSON HTNF T T P
EXAMINER
10050 Innovation Drive GEBREMICHAEL, BRUK A
Suite 400
DAYTON, OH 45342-4934 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2017 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):
ipdocket @ thompsonhine. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN JOSEPH BLACKBURN
Appeal 2015-006078
Application 12/361,183
Technology Center 3700
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
John Joseph Blackburn (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the rejection of claims 1, 3—6, 9-23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 34, and 36-45.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2015-006078
Application 12/361,183
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
1. A hazard suppression training simulator comprising:
a three dimensional housing, wherein said housing is a
casing defining an interior compartment;
at least one source of sensation positioned within said
interior compartment of said housing and configured to emit a
sensation externally of said housing, wherein said sensation is
representative of a hazardous condition;
at least one sensor adapted to detect a simulated or an
actual hazardous condition suppressant applied to said housing
externally of said interior compartment, wherein said sensor is
positioned at least partially within said interior compartment of
said housing or at least partially on an outer surface thereof;
a prop attached to said housing and positioned to interact
with the sensation from said at least one source of sensation,
wherein said prop is a device or structure shaped to evoke an
appearance of an object subject to the hazardous condition, and
wherein when said source of sensation is activated to emit said
sensation, the sensation and said prop cooperate to simulate that
the prop is subject to the hazardous condition; and
a controller adapted to automatically vary the sensation in
response to the simulated or the actual suppressant detected by
the at least one sensor, wherein the controller is adapted to
automatically vary the sensation in response to the manner in
which the simulated or the actual suppressant is applied.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
matter:
REFERENCES
appeal is:
Greene
Rogers
US 3,285,159 Nov. 15, 1966
US 5,335,559 Aug. 9, 1994
US 6,129,552 Oct. 10,2000
US 2007/0095547 A1 May 3, 2007
Deshoux
Moore
2
Appeal 2015-006078
Application 12/361,183
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 3-6, 9-15, 17-19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 31, 34, and
36-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Deshoux.
II. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Deshoux and Greene.
III. Claims 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Deshoux and Moore.
IV. Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Deshoux and Rogers.
DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds, inter alia, that Deshoux discloses a housing.
Final Act. 3 (citing Deshoux Figs. 1 and 2; 8:28—30). Thus, we understand
the Examiner to identify the room in which Deshoux’ system is installed as
corresponding to the claimed housing. Appellant contends that “[t]he
Examiner’s construction of the claim term ‘housing’ as applied to Deshoux
is improper because it is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the term as
used in the claims and specification.” Appeal Br. 10.
“[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they
would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account
whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be
afforded by the written description contained in applicant’s specification.”
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). During examination of
a patent application, pending claims are given their broadest reasonable
3
Appeal 2015-006078
Application 12/361,183
construction consistent with the specification. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393,
1404-05 (CCPA 1969); In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term
is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the
art in question at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
1303, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (enbanc).
An ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term “housing” is “a
case or enclosure (as for a mechanical part or an instrument).” Merriam-
webster. com; http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/housing (last
accessed March 10, 2017. This meaning is consistent with the use of the
term housing in the Specification. See, e.g., Spec. 118; Figs. 1 and 2.
Accordingly, Appellant is correct that the Examiner applies an unreasonably
broad definition of the claim term “housing.” Thus, the Examiner’s finding
that Deshoux discloses a housing is in error.
As all of the rejections rely upon this erroneous finding, and none of
Greene, Moore, or Rogers cure the deficiency in Deshoux, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1, 3—6, 9-23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31,
34, and 36-45.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3—6, 9-23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31,
34, and 36-45 are REVERSED.
REVERSED
4