Ex Parte Brockelsby

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 16, 2016

13235249 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/235,249 09/16/2011
92556 7590
HONEYWELL/HUSCH
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
11/18/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert H. Brockelsby
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.
H0029087/8364/l 13339/3371 1025
EXAMINER
MONIKANG, GEORGE C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/18/2016 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):
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
amy.hammer@huschblackwell.com
pto-chi@huschblackwell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT H. BROCKELSBY
Appeal2015-007521
Application 13/235,249 1
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREYS. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-20. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Honeywell
International, Inc. (App. Br. 2).
Appeal2015-007521
Application 13/235,249
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Packer et al. (US 2010/0008512 Al, published
Jan. 14, 2010), Matsui (US 6,268,773 Bl, issued July 31, 2001), and
Knutson et al. (US 2009/0174823 Al, published July 9, 2009). Final Act. 4--
11.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Packer, Matsui, Knutson, and Heck et al. (US 5,584,869,
issued Dec. 17, 1996). Final Act. 12.
Claims 9, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Packer, Matsui, Knutson, and Curran et al. (US
2009/0153339 Al, published June 18, 2009). Final Act. 12-13.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
The present invention generally relates to "supervision of audio paths
of emergency communications systems," and more particularly to "systems
and methods to supervise components of audio input paths." Spec. i-f 2.
Independent claim 1 is directed to an apparatus; independent claim 10 is
directed to a supervisory module; independent claim 15 is directed to a
supervisory method. App. Br. 13, 14, 16.
Claim 1 recites:
1. An apparatus comprising:
control circuits coupled to an audio output transducer and a
microphone, where the circuits detect the presence of signals from the
microphone as indicative of expected operation thereof, and in the
absence of such signals for a period of time greater than a first time
interval and less than a second time interval, the circuits activate the
transducer to produce a supervisory signal wherein the control circuits
2
Appeal2015-007521
Application 13/235,249
respond to feedback signals from the microphone as indicative of
expected operation thereof.
ANALYSIS
\Ve have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner eITeci. \Ve are not persuaded that AppeUant
identifies reversible error. Upon consideration of the arguments presented in
the Appea1 Brief and Reply Brief~ we agree with the Examiner that all the
pending claims are unpatentable over the cited combination of references.
\Ve adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejection from
which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer. \Ve provide the
following explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and
findings primarily for emphasis.
Claims 1-20
Appellant contends Packer "is merely used for scaling amplification,"
Matsui "has nothing to do with the testing of audio circuits," and Knutson
"is merely directed to audio equalization," and that the references "are all
directed to different inventions that are unrelated to the features of the
claimed invention." App. Br. 7-8. In response, the Examiner finds
Appellant "does not specify as to the reasons why the ... references fail to
disclose the" claim limitations. Ans. 12. We agree with the Examiner.
Specifically, we agree with the Examiner's findings that Packer
teaches a system that calls for a supervisory signal to be generated based on
whether or not signals are picked up by a microphone; Matsui teaches a
delay when a signal presence or absence is determined before a supervisory
signal is sent out, and a predetermined time interval encompassing the delay
3
Appeal2015-007521
Application 13/235,249
time; and Knutson teaches a period of time greater than a first time and less
than a second time for the activation of a processing action. Ans. 12-13,
citing Packer i-f 202, Matsui, col. 1, 11. 53-59, and Knutson i-f 39).
Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence or argument that "the
circuits detect the presence of signals from the microphone as indicative of
expected operation thereof, and in the absence of such signals for a period of
time greater than a first time interval and less than a second time interval, the
circuits activate the transducer to produce a supervisory signal" as required
by claim 1, is not taught or otherwise suggested by Packer's generation of a
signal based on signal presence, Matsui' s generation of a signal based on
signal presence during a time period, and Knutson's activation of processing
during a time period greater than a first time and less than a second time.
Appellant further contends "none of the cited references are directed
to the problem solved by the claim invention" and thereby "there would be
no reason to combine the references," and the Examiner "has failed to
establish any credible basis why one skilled in the art would have been led
by the relevant teachings of the applied references to make the claimed
invention." App. Br. 11. However, "[i]n determining whether the subject
matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the
avowed purpose of the patentee controls." KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). In accordance with KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, the
Examiner has provided "some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." See Final
Act. 5---6. Specifically, the Examiner finds it would have been obvious to
modify and combine the references "for the purpose of making the overall
system more efficient and dynamic." Final Act. 6; Ans. 4. As Appellant has
4
Appeal2015-007521
Application 13/235,249
failed to acknowledge or address the Examiner's articulated reasoning, we
are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
Accordingly, we sustain the§ 103 rejection of claim 1, as well as the
rejections of claims 2-20, not separately argued. See App. Br. 2, 6, 12.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-20 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5