Ex Parte Cohen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 15, 2015

12215445 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2015)

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.
12/215,445 06/27/2008 Jason C. Cohen 64049477US01 5533
23556 7590 09/16/2015
KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.
Patent Docketing
2300 Winchester Rd.
NEENAH, WI 54956
EXAMINER
LLOYD, EMILY M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3739
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2015 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 JASON C. COHEN, COREY THOMAS CUNNINGHAM,
DAVID W. KOENIG, and THOMAS MICHAEL ALES III
____________

Appeal 2012-008215
Application 12/215,4451
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to clothing
sufficiency systems and methods of determining clothing sufficiency. The
Examiner rejected the claims as anticipated or obvious. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Background
The Specification “relates to an apparatus and method for reassuring a
caregiver that a baby or other non-communicating subject is sufficiently but

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Kimberly-Clark
Worldwide, Inc. Br. 1.
Appeal 2012-008215
Application 12/215,445

2
not overly clothed or otherwise covered. The apparatus and method use
objective measurements indicative of the temperature of the microclimate
between the subject and the subject’s clothing.” Spec. 1.
The Claims
Claims 1–23 are on appeal. Claim 1 is representative and reads as
follows.
1. A clothing sufficiency indication system for use in
conjunction with a disposable absorbent article for a subject
having skin, the system comprising:
a microclimate sensor adapted to be disposed on the
disposable absorbent article, the microclimate sensor including
a microclimate temperature sensing portion adapted to sense a
microclimate temperature, wherein the clothing sufficiency
indication system is adapted to generate and display a non-
numeric clothing sufficiency indication based on the
microclimate temperature.
Br. 15.
The Rejections
1. The Examiner maintains that claims 1, 5–11, 15, 18, and 20 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Stivoric.2
2. The Examiner maintains that claims 12, 16, 17, and 21 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Stivoric.
3. The Examiner maintains that claims 1, 5–12, and 15–17 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Stivoric in view of
Klofta.3

2 Stivoric et al., US 2005/0245839 A1, published Nov. 3, 2005.
3 Klofta et al., US 2007/0185467 A1, published Aug. 9, 2007
Appeal 2012-008215
Application 12/215,445

3
4. The Examiner maintains that claim 18 is unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Pietersen.4
5. The Examiner maintains that claims 1–5 and 19 are unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Pietersen in view of Klofta.
6. The Examiner maintains that claim 23 is unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Pietersen.
7. The Examiner maintains that claims 13 and 14 are unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Pietersen in view of Klofta and
Stivoric.
8. The Examiner maintains that claim 22 is unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Stivoric in view of Pietersen.
DISCUSSION
Appellants raise separate arguments regarding each of the independent
claims and certain dependent claims. See Br. 5–13. To the extent necessary
we address those claims separately below.
Principles of Law
The Examiner must establish a prima facie case of anticipation under
§ 102 by showing, as a matter of fact, that all elements arranged as specified
in a claim are disclosed within the four corners of a reference, either
expressly or inherently, in a manner enabling one skilled in the art to
practice an embodiment of the claimed invention without undue
experimentation. ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., 668 F.3d
1340, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 550 F.3d
1075, 1083 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

4 Pietersen, US 2006/0258916 A1, published Nov. 16, 2006.
Appeal 2012-008215
Application 12/215,445

4
In order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the Examiner
must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described or
suggested by the combination of prior art references or would have been
obvious based on the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art. In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The Examiner can satisfy this
burden by showing “some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int'l Co.
v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). “The test for obviousness is not
whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated
into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Further, during prosecution, an application’s claims are given their
broadest reasonable scope consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad.
of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Findings of Fact
Stivoric discloses a disposable absorbent article with a microclimate
sensor as shown in Figure 1.
Appeal 2012-008215
Application 12/215,445

5

Figure 1 “is a diagrammatic representation of a system utilizing the
temperature measurement module together with various embodiments of a
receiver device.” Stivoric ¶ 53. The system includes a diaper 60 and a
temperature module 55 with a display 86A disposed on the diaper that may
display current skin and/or ambient temperature. Id. at ¶¶ 100, 103, 104.
The module 55 is adapted to measure a microclimate temperature, i.e., the
temperature of the area enclosed within the diaper. Id. at ¶ 128; Ans. 4–6.
Stivoric discloses that the system includes a receiver 65 and/or 85 that:
provides a locus of information relating to the changing
condition of the wearer and may present an iconic, analog or
digital indication as to the data being measured, any derived
information based upon both measured and other data as well as
certain contextual information. Also displayed may be trends
of change and indications of changes meeting certain present
thresholds. Alarms, warnings and messages, both on the
receiver and sent through the various transmission networks
Appeal 2012-008215
Application 12/215,445

6
may be initiated upon the meeting of such preselected or event
driven thresholds.
Stivoric ¶ 48. Stivoric also discloses that the receiver may display iconic
indications of temperature change. Id. at ¶ 166.
Stivoric discloses:
With respect to infants and other non-communicative
children and adults, the device may be utilized to determine
environmental temperature comfort level. This may be related
to determining whether the wearer is too hot or too cold in a
particular room or whether the clothing being worn is too heavy
or too light. Similar to the bathroom training example above, a
learning period may be necessary to determine the particular
comfort zone of each wearer as well as any ancillary
physiological or emotional responses detected during and prior
as well as subsequent to the individual getting to such a state.
Additionally, certain generalized comfort temperature zones
may be provided with the device for use prior to or in lieu of
personalization. At its most extreme, the device may also
detect hypo- and hyperthermia, shivering or a rise in body or
skin temperature to levels of concern as referenced with respect
to the firefighter example, above.
Id. at ¶ 246. Stivoric also discloses that “[t]emperature sensing . . . may also
provide information as to whether the wearer is too hot or too cold.” Id. at
¶ 248.
Stivoric also discloses:
FIG. 32 [reproduced below] illustrates another distinct
illustration for detection of a particular event or activity. A
single femoral module is utilized, producing femoral skin
temperature output 979 and femoral ambient temperature output
981. In this illustration, the patient's diaper was removed for
collecting the rectal data point 991 at time point T1. A
characteristic trough 992 immediately preceding time point T1
in femoral ambient temperature output 981 without
corresponding changes in femoral skin temperature sensor
Appeal 2012-008215
Application 12/215,445

7
output 979 indicates the sudden change in ambient conditions
without change in skin temperature. This pattern is identifiable
and repeatable and may be detected reliably once the system
learns to observe the relevant parameters.
Id. at ¶ 241.

Figure 32 is an example of “a graphical representation of output of the
temperature measurement module.” Id. at ¶ 94. Additionally, Stivoric
discloses that “if heat flux is too low for too long a period of time but skin
temperature continues to rise, the wearer is likely to have a problem” and the
use of a heat flux sensor to detect proximity of other humans to a patient,
such as a mother holding an infant. Id. at ¶ 228, 234–237.
Pietersen discloses a device for monitoring “one or more indicators
relating to the health or comfort of a person.” Pietersen ¶ 8. Figure 3 shows
such a device in the form of a diaper:
Appeal 2012-008215
Application 12/215,445

8

Figure 3 shows a device 10 “for continuously monitoring one or more
indicators relating to the health or comfort” of an infant wearing a diaper 14.
Id. at ¶ 38, 41. Pietersen discloses that device 10 may include a means for
sensing the temperature between the diaper/clothing and the skin of the
wearer, which may activate a “communicating means should the measured
temperature be below or above a predetermined value or value range.” Id. at
¶ 17, see also, id. at ¶¶ 44, 45. Pietersen also discloses:
The device 10 includes a user interface panel 32 using
known technology in electrical communication with the
electronic circuitry. Detail of the user interface panel 32 (not
shown) includes one or more push-button switches (of the type
typically used in membrane keypads) for enabling and disabling
Appeal 2012-008215
Application 12/215,445

9
the device, or for changing the settings of the device. The
interface panel 32 further accommodates one or more light-
emitting diodes, liquid crystal displays or other components for
visual indications.
Id. at ¶ 55.
Pietersen discloses:
Additionally, a sensing means for sensing temperature
and which is in use located exterior the item of clothing of the
person wearing the device, may be provided. The values
measured by the two temperature sensors may be compared
continuously so as to calculate the rate of heat loss of the
person wearing the device. When the rate of heat loss falls
below or rises above a predetermined value or range of values,
this may activate the communicating means.
Id. at ¶ 18.
Klofta discloses a disposable absorbent article such as a diaper with a
sensor using thermochromic materials used to indicate certain conditions to
a caretaker. See Klofta ¶¶ 2, 3. Regarding uses for the sensor, Klofta
discloses the use of “linguistic indicia [to] provide some written signal to the
caregiver that a change in condition has been detected. For instance, a
suitable linguistic indicator includes the phrases ‘check me’, ‘fever’, ‘warm
me up’, ‘I’m warm’, ‘I’m cold’, ‘check temp’, ‘check my temperature’,
‘OK’, etc.” Id. at ¶ 69.
Analysis
Rejection 1: Anticipation over Stivoric
Appellants argue only that this rejection should be reversed based on
limitations found in independent claims 1 and 18. See Br. 7–8.
Accordingly, we address claims 1 and 18 below.
Claim 1
Appeal 2012-008215
Application 12/215,445

10
With respect to the anticipation rejection of claim 1 over Stivoric,
Appellants argue:
Stivoric does not disclose, teach, or suggest a clothing
sufficiency indication system adapted to generate and display a
non-numeric clothing sufficiency indication. As stated in part
by the Examiner, Stivoric at paragraph [0246] states that “[t]his
may be related to determining whether the wearer is too hot or
too cold in a particular room or whether the clothing being
worn is too heavy or too light.” Stivoric does not explain how
this determination is accomplished. Stivoric also does not
explain how or even if this determination is communicated to
anyone. Figs. 16 and 18A appear to illustrate a temperature
indicator. In essence, Stivoric discloses a thermometer that
makes a determination, without an explanation with respect to
how a determination is made, or how/if such a determination is
communicated. Assuming, arguendo, that Stivoric produces a
temperature that can be seen as a microclimate temperature,
Stivoric still does not generate and display a clothing
sufficiency recommendation based on that microclimate
temperature. A temperature cannot be taken to be the same
thing as a clothing sufficiency recommendation because these
are separate elements in claim 1.
Br. 8 (emphasis added); see also id. at 5.
For the reasons cited by the Examiner, we find Appellants’ arguments
unpersuasive. Specifically, Stivoric discloses a microclimate sensor, that the
device may be utilized to determine “whether the clothing being worn is too
heavy or too light,” and that the device includes a receiver that presents
iconic information related to any derived information from the sensor. See
Ans. 6–8. We find that Stivoric’s disclosure of an iconic display related to
the change in the microclimate temperature reads on the claim requirement
that the system is adapted to generate and display a non-numeric clothing
sufficiency indication based on the microclimate temperature. Further, we
Appeal 2012-008215
Application 12/215,445

11
agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ focus on Stivoric’s alleged failure
to disclose how a determination is made is not relevant as the claim does not
include a requirement as to how such a determination is made. See id. at 19.
Based on the foregoing, we determine that the Examiner established a
prima facie showing of anticipation with respect to claim 1, which
Appellants failed to rebut. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 1,
and claims 5–11 and 15 fall with claim 1.
Claim 18
With respect to the rejection of claim 18 over Stivoric, Appellants
argue that Stivoric does not indicate how a clothing sufficiency
determination is made; does not include any disclosure related to translating
a temperature into a clothing sufficiency recommendation and
communicating it to a caregiver; and that a simple temperature reading is not
the same thing as a clothing sufficiency recommendation. Br. 5.
We find these arguments unpersuasive for the reasons identified
above with respect to claim 1. As found above, Stivoric discloses measuring
a microclimate temperature; presenting iconic information representing a
temperature change at a receiver; and the use of the information derived by
the device to determine whether the clothing being worn is too heavy or too
light. Further, we agree with the Examiner that because the device is
disclosed in the context of use with non-communicative patients, the results
are necessarily communicated to a caregiver. Ans. 19.
Based on the foregoing, we determine that the Examiner established a
prima facie showing of anticipation with respect to claim 18, which
Appellants failed to rebut. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 18,
and claim 20 falls with claim 18.
Appeal 2012-008215
Application 12/215,445

12
Rejection 2: Obviousness over Stivoric.
With respect to this rejection, Appellants present separate arguments
with respect to dependent claims 16 and 17 and independent claim 21. We
address these claims separately below. Additionally, because Appellants
have not raised separate arguments with respect to claim 12, we affirm that
rejection for the reasons stated by the Examiner. See Ans. 11.
Claim 16
Claim 16 depends from claim 1 and further requires that the system is
adapted to indicate a recommendation to seek medical assistance.
Appellants argue that an abnormal temperature in Stivoric may
represent a situation such as a workout in progress, normal fever, or
firefighter at work that does not require medical assistance and that Stivoric
does not teach or suggest indicating an abnormal temperature that requires
medical assistance. Br. 16. We find this argument unpersuasive for the
reasons cited by the Examiner. See Ans. 21–22. Specifically, the rejection
relies upon the use of the device in the context of infants or other non-
communicative individuals and Stivoric specifically indicates that “the
device may also detect hypo- and hyperthermia.” See id.; Stivoric ¶ 246.
For these reasons, we determine that the Examiner established a prima facie
showing of obviousness with respect to claim 16, which Appellants failed to
rebut. Thus, we affirm the rejection of claim 16.
Claim 17
Claim 17 depends from claim 1 and requires that the system includes
a recommendation of a type of clothing to be added or removed.
Appellants argue that this rejection should be reversed because
“Stivoric does not provide a recommendation of a type of clothing to be
Appeal 2012-008215
Application 12/215,445

13
added or removed or any guidance in interpreting a temperature reading.”
Br. 10. We disagree for the reasons provided by the Examiner, i.e., an
indication of whether clothing worn is too heavy or too light at least suggests
to the caregiver a type of clothing that should be added or removed. See
Ans. 22. For these reasons, we determine that the Examiner established a
prima facie showing of obviousness with respect to claim 17, which
Appellants failed to rebut. Thus, we affirm the rejection of claim 17.
Claim 21
With respect to independent claim 21, Appellants argue that Stivoric
does not teach or suggest that a caregiver is informed whether an elevated
microclimate temperature is caused by an external source or a body source.
Br. 10.
For the reasons cited by the Examiner, we find Appellants’ arguments
unpersuasive. See Ans. 12–13, 22–23. We first note that Appellants do not
dispute that the ambient temperature sensor of Stivoric measures a
microclimate temperature as claimed and that Stivoric also discloses a
separate sensor for measuring skin temperature. Second, we agree with the
Examiner that Figure 32 and its description in Stivoric suggests that a heat
flux is determined and analyzed to determine that a change in microclimate
temperature is due to a diaper change. Further, Stivoric explicitly discloses
that “if heat flux is too low for too long a period of time but skin temperature
continues to rise, the wearer is likely to have a problem” and the use of a
heat flux sensor to detect proximity of other humans to a patient, such as a
mother holding an infant. Stivoric ¶ 228, 234–237. Contrary to Appellants’
argument, these disclosures do suggest informing a caregiver regarding the
cause of temperature changes and it would have been obvious that such
Appeal 2012-008215
Application 12/215,445

14
information would include whether an elevated microclimate temperature is
caused by an external source or a body source.
Based on the foregoing, we determine that the Examiner established a
prima facie showing of obviousness with respect to claim 21, which
Appellants failed to rebut. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 21.
Rejection 3: Obviousness over Stivoric and Klofta
In addition to the anticipation rejection of claim 1 over Stivoric, the
Examiner alternatively relies on Klofta to disclose a non-numeric clothing
sufficiency indication. See Ans. 8. The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to incorporate Klofta’s clothing sufficiency indications
into Stivoric’s device to provide explicit written indications to the caregiver.
Id.
Appellants do not dispute that Klofta discloses a non-numeric clothing
sufficiency indication. See Br. 8–9. Rather, Appellants only argue that there
would be no reasonable expectation of success in combining Klofta with
Stivoric. Id. at 8. Appellants assert that “[t]here appears to be no way to
combine Klofta’s thermochromic technology with Stivoric’s electronic
device” and “there is no indication how Stivoric could possibly generate”
images such as Klofta’s graphics. Id. at 8–9.
We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive for the reasons identified
by the Examiner. Ans. 21. Specifically, the test for obviousness is not
whether Klofta’s device may be bodily incorporated into the structure of
Stivoric’s device and that the rejection only concludes that it would have
been obvious to modify Stivoric’s display to display words as taught by
Klofta. Id.
Appeal 2012-008215
Application 12/215,445

15
For these reasons and the reasons identified above with respect to the
anticipation of claim 1 over Stivoric, we determine that the Examiner
established a prima facie showing of obviousness with respect to claim 1,
which Appellants failed to rebut. Accordingly, we affirm this rejection of
claim 1. Dependent claims 5–12 and 15–17 fall with claim 1.
Rejection 4: Anticipation over Pietersen
With respect to the anticipation rejection of claim 18 over Pietersen,
Appellants argue that Pietersen fails to translate a microclimate temperature
into a clothing sufficiency recommendation and communicate the
recommendation to a caregiver. Br. 6–7.
We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive. We find that Pietersen
discloses a sensor for determining the microclimate temperature, i.e., the
temperature between the diaper and the skin of the wearer, and a means for
communication, including components for an alarm, LEDs, or “other
components for visual indications,” which are activated if the measured
microclimate temperature is above or below a specific value. See Pietersen
¶¶ 17, 44, 45, 55. Thus, we find that Pietersen’s disclosure of measuring a
microclimate temperature and providing an alarm when the temperature is
above or below a certain value meets the claimed translating and
communicating steps of claim 18 under their broadest reasonable
interpretation. With respect to the broadest reasonable interpretation of this
claim, Appellants have not pointed to any specific definition of clothing
sufficiency recommendation in the Specification and have only shown that it
is something more than a bare temperature reading.
Appeal 2012-008215
Application 12/215,445

16
Based on the foregoing, we determine that the Examiner established a
prima facie showing of anticipation of claim 18 over Pietersen, which
Appellants failed to rebut. Thus, we affirm the rejection of claim 18.
Rejection 5: Obviousness over Pietersen and Klofta
With respect to this rejection, Appellants argue that Pietersen does not
generate and display a non-numeric clothing sufficiency recommendation
based on the microclimate temperature and that the combination with Klofta
would have no reasonable expectation of success.
We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive for the same reasons
provided above with respect to the rejection of claim 18 over Pietersen and
claim 1 over Stivoric and Klofta. Specifically, with respect to claim 18, we
found that Pietersen discloses translating a microclimate temperature into
clothing sufficiency recommendation, and for the same reasons we find that
Pietersen’s system is adapted to generate and display a clothing sufficiency
indication based on the microclimate temperature. With respect to the
combination with Klofta, we find that Appellants are again relying on an
improper bodily incorporation argument that fails to address that the
rejection only relies on Klofta for the use of non-numeric indications of
clothing sufficiency and that it would have been obvious to modify
Pietersen’s communicating means to display such indications. See Ans. 14–
15.
Based on the foregoing, we determine that the Examiner established a
prima facie showing of obviousness with respect to claim 1 over Pietersen
and Klofta, which Appellants failed to rebut. Accordingly, we affirm the
rejection of claim 1. Dependent claims 2–5 fall with claim 1. Regarding
claim 19, Appellants do not present any separate arguments other than those
Appeal 2012-008215
Application 12/215,445

17
directed to the anticipation rejection of independent claim 18 over Pietersen.
Thus, for the reasons cited by the Examiner and reasons discussed above
with respect to claim 18, we affirm the rejection of claim 19.
Rejection 6: Obviousness over Pietersen
With respect to the rejection of claim 23 over Pietersen, Appellants
argue:
Pietersen discusses only heat loss and providing an alarm if the
heat loss is not within a range. There is nothing in Pietersen to
indicate that directionality of heat transfer is an issue, and
nothing to indicate that informing a caregiver whether the
elevated microclimate temperature is caused by an external
source or a body source is desirable or even possible. Pietersen
appears to merely provide an alarm when heat loss is out of
range, but does not explain what this would mean to a
caregiver, or how a caregiver would know whether the heat loss
is positive or negative and what that means with respect to the
cause of an elevated microclimate temperature. Further, the
Examiner does not provide evidence of the level of skill in the
art at the time of filing to support the Examiner’s opinion that
one of ordinary skill would be motivated to alter Pietersen to
achieve the subject matter of claim 23 without the present
application as a guide. Because such motivation to modify the
reference does come from Pietersen, it must come from the
knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The rejection provides no evidence of the knowledge generally
available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Br. 10–11.
As found above with respect to claim 18, Pietersen discloses
measuring a microclimate temperature, i.e., the temperature between the
diaper and the skin of the wearer. See Pietersen ¶ 17. Pietersen also
discloses measuring the ambient temperature outside the clothing. Id. at
¶ 18. Pietersen further provides that the temperatures from the two sensors
Appeal 2012-008215
Application 12/215,445

18
are continuously compared to calculate the rate of heat loss and that a
communicating means may be activated depending on whether the rate of
loss/flux falls below or rises above predetermined values. Id. Thus, we find
that Pietersen discloses determining a heat flux between the microclimate
and the ambient environment. Further, we agree with the Examiner that a
determination of directionality of heat transfer would have been within the
scope of knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and we find that a
determination of the directionality itself would provide an indication of
whether the elevated microclimate temperature was caused by an external
source or a body source. Thus, we find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive.
Based on the foregoing, we determine that the Examiner established a
prima facie showing of obviousness with respect to claim 23, which
Appellants failed to rebut. Accordingly, we affirm this rejection.
Rejection 7: Obviousness over Pietersen, Klofta, and Stivoric
With respect to this rejection, Appellants argue that it should be
reversed for the same reasons as the rejection of claim 1 over Pietersen and
Klofta. Br. 13. Appellants also note “that even in the combination of
references, one is left without having both an ambient temperature sensor
and a microclimate temperature sensor. Each reference only senses one of
these, based on its position either inside or outside of clothing.” Id. We
disagree for the reasons provided by the Examiner, namely that Pietersen
discloses both a microclimate sensor and an ambient sensor. Ans. 17.
Stivoric was relied upon only for the disclosure of a transmitter. Id. For the
reasons cited by the Examiner and the reasons cited above in our affirmance
of the rejection of claim 1 over Pietersen and Klofta, we affirm the rejection
of claims 13 and 14.
Appeal 2012-008215
Application 12/215,445

19
Rejection 8: Obviousness over Stivoric in view of Pietersen
With respect to the rejection of claim 22, Appellants argue only that
“claim 22 is patentable because of the deficiencies in Stivoric and Pietersen
cited above with respect to independent claim 21.” Br. 13. We have found
no such deficiencies in Stivoric or Pietersen. Thus, for the reasons provided
by the Examiner, we affirm the rejection of claim 22.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm all rejections.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

bar