Ex Parte CorleoniDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 27, 201613318234 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2016) 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. 13/318,234 10/31/2011 Francesco Corleoni AEG-48696 7892 116 7590 12/29/2016 PFARNF fr GORDON T T P EXAMINER 1801 EAST 9TH STREET LAU, JASON SUITE 1200 CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3743 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/29/2016 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): patdocket@peame.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FRANCESCO CORLEONI Appeal 2014-008120 Application 13/318,234 Technology Center 3700 Before JILL D. HILL, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judges. HILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Francesco Corleoni (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Appeal 2014-008120 Application 13/318,234 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Independent claims 1 and 15 are pending. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter, with the key disputed limitation italicized. 1. A Sensor unit (2) for a suction hood (1), wherein the sensor unit (2) controls or can control the suction hood (1), wherein the sensor unit (2) comprises a sensor operated mode, wherein an operation of the suction hood (1) is dependent on a measured value of at least one sensor (21, 22) wherein the at least one sensor includes a sonar distance sensor activated by proximity of a cooking vessel, and a processing unit activates the suction hood after the measured value from the sonar distance sensor exceeds a threshold value for a predefined time span. REJECTIONS I. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. Final Act. 3. II. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Gagas (US 2010/0163549 Al; pub. July 1, 2010). Final Act. 3. III. Claims 1—6, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gagas and Tsukamoto (US 5,163,234; iss. Nov. 17, 1992). Final Act. 4. IV. Claims 7 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gagas, Tsukamoto, and Krichtafovitch (US 2010/0089240 Al; pub. Apr. 15, 2010). Final Act. 6. 2 Appeal 2014-008120 Application 13/318,234 V. Claims 10 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gagas, Tsukamoto, and Patil (US 2005/0224069 Al; pub. Oct. 13, 2005). Final Act. 7. ANALYSIS Rejection I—Indefiniteness Independent claim 1 recites a sonar sensor. Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and recites a first sensor and a second sensor. The Examiner rejects claim 10 as indefinite, stating that it is unclear whether the first and second sensors recited in claim 10 “are in addition to the sonar senor or if the first and second sensor[s] are sonar sensors.” Final Act. 3. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s indefmiteness rejection was overcome by the Amendment filed February 24, 2014 (hereinafter “Amendment D”). Appeal Br. 7. However, in the subsequent Advisory Action dated May 15, 2014, the Examiner did not enter the Amendment D.1 See Ans. 2. Appellant makes no argument that the rejection of pending claim 10 is improper, and we therefore summarily affirm Rejection I. Rejection II—Anticipation of Claim 15 The Examiner finds that Gagas discloses the limitations of independent claim 15. Final Act. 5—A. Appellant makes no argument 1 Regarding Appellant’s argument that Amendment D should have been entered, that decision is not properly before us. See MPEP 2272 (“In the event that the patent owner is of the opinion that (A) a final rejection is improper or premature, or (B) that an amendment submitted after final rejection complies with 37 CFR 1.116, but the examiner improperly refused entry of such an amendment, the patent owner may file a petition under 37 CFR 1.181.”). 3 Appeal 2014-008120 Application 13/318,234 regarding the patentability of pending claim 15, and we therefore summarily sustain Rejection II. Rejection III— Claim 1—6, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14 — Obviousness over Gagas and Tsukamoto The Examiner finds that Gagas discloses the subject matter of independent claim 1, except for “a processing unit [that] activates the suction hood after the measured value from the sonar distance sensor exceeds a threshold [for] a predetermined time span.” The Examiner finds, however, that Tsukamoto discloses a processing unit that “activates a fan after a measured value from a sonar distance sensor exceeds a threshold [for] a predetermined time span.” Final Act. 4—5 (1:59—2:7). Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Tsukamoto discloses activating a fan after a measured sonar sensor value exceeds a threshold for a predetermined time. Appeal Br. 9. We agree. Although Tsukamoto discloses a timer, its timer is used in a loop for periodically checking to see if a user is within a larger (outer) detection range (area “a” in Figure 3) or a smaller (inner) detection range (area “b” in Figure 3). See Tsukamoto Fig. 4, 5:55—6:24. Tsukamoto’s timer circuit 66 is only used to cycle a periodic detection, rather than to time a span during which a user is detected, and is not disclosed to be used in determining whether a user has been detected for a predetermined time span. We therefore do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 as unpatentable over Gagas and Tsukamoto. Claims 2—6, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14 depend from claim 1, and we therefore do not sustain Rejection III. 4 Appeal 2014-008120 Application 13/318,234 Rejection IV— Claims 7 and 16 - Gagas, Tsukamoto, and Krichtafovitch Claims 7 depends from claim 1. The Examiner does not find that Krichtafovitch cures the deficiency of Gagas and Sukamoto set forth above in Rejection I. Final Act. 7. We therefore do not sustain the rejection of claim 7. Claim 16 depends from claim 15, and recites that the type of values measured by the sensor can be selected. Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds this disclosure in Krichtafovitch. Final Act. 7 (citing Kritchtafovitch | 65) (“Krichtafovitch teaches a sensor unit comprising a switching unit which determines the working mode of the suction hood, wherein especially the type of measured values can be selected.”). Appellant argues that Krichtafovitch discloses that, depending on the mode of operation selected by the user, its system may be responsive to conditions detected by the sensors. Appeal Br. 15. Being responsive to the sensors is therefore all or nothing in Kritchtafovich, such that a selectable type of sensor values is not disclosed. Id. (“Krichtafovitch has a mode in which the outputs of all of the various sensors are taken into consideration.” (emphasis added)). The Examiner contends that Appellant is arguing the claim too narrowly. According to the Examiner, if a measured sensor value is used by the control unit in a first working mode, but is not used by the control unit in a second working mode, “then each working mode of the suction hood is based on a selection of the measured value.” Ans. 8—9. Appellant replies that Krichtafovitch’s noise cancelling mode is not selectable, and even if it was selectable, there is no selection of sensors type 5 Appeal 2014-008120 Application 13/318,234 because Krichtafovitch uses composite output of all of the sensors. Reply Br. 11. We agree with the Appellant. Claim 16 recites that the type of values measured by the sensor can be selected. Although Krichtafovitch discloses a mode that uses sensor output, and a mode that does not use sensor output, the Examiner has not explained how such an all-or-nothing use of sensor values in Krichtafovitch discloses selecting sensor value types. We are not persuaded that ON and OFF are sensor value types. We therefore do not sustain Rejection IV. Rejection V— Claims 10 and 12 - Gagas, Tsukamoto, and Patil Claims 2 and 10 depend from claim 1. The Examiner does not find that Patil cures the deficiency of Gagas and Sukamoto set forth above in Rejection I. Final Act. 7—8. We therefore do not sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 10. DECISION We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 10 under 35U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Gagas. We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1—6, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gagas and Tsukamoto. We REVERSE the rejection of claims 7 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gagas, Tsukamoto, and Krichtafovitch. 6 Appeal 2014-008120 Application 13/318,234 We REVERSE the rejection of claims 10 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gagas, Tsukamoto, and Patil. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CE.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation