Ex Parte Coste

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 6, 2016

12672303 (P.T.A.B. May. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/672,303 02/05/2010 Jean-Pierre Coste
33712 7590 05/10/2016
HAUPTMAN HAM, LLP (ITW)
2318 Mill Rd
Suite 1400
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
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.
713-1941 (21660) 8657
EXAMINER
JALLOW, EYAMINDAE CROSSAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3721
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/10/2016 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):
itw@ipfirm.com
docketing@ipfirm.com
pair_lhhb@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEAN-PIERRE COS TE
Appeal2014-004514
Application 12/672,303
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JAMES P. CALVE, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 5-8, and 11-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant submits the real party in interest is SOCIETE DE
PROSPECTION ET D'INVENTIONS TECHNIQUES SPIT. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-004514
Application 12/672,303
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 8, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
1. A method of tracing vibration exposure of an operator
of a tool that generates vibrations while operating, said method
compnsmg:
measuring, in the tool, accelerations generated by the tool
while operating and working times, which correspond to the
accelerations, and forming traceability data;
saving the traceability data in the tool;
transmitting the traceability data to a badge carried by the
operator and detached from the tool;
recovering the working times from the badge and related
to the operator; and then
calculating a compensatory rest time related to the
operator (i) to block the operation of the tool when an
authorized working time overflows and (ii) to permit the
operation of the tool when the authorized working time does
not overflow,
wherein the tool is only operable with the badge.
8. A system for tracing vibration exposure of an operator of a
tool that generates vibrations while operating, said system comprising:
a badge to be carried by the operator said badge including (i) a
storage memory for storing working times carried out by the operator
and (ii) a first communication unit, the tool unattached to the badge
and having a housing that includes therein
an energy supply,
an actuator,
an accelerometric sensor,
a second communication unit, arranged to communicate
with the first communication unit for data exchange with the
badge,
a controller for recovering the working times from the
badge and related to the operator via the first and second
2
Appeal2014-004514
Application 12/672,303
communication units, and then calculating a compensatory rest
time related to the operator (i) to block operation of the tool
when an authorized working time overflows and (ii) to permit
the operation of the tool when the authorized working time does
not overflow, and
a remote terminal which is separated from the badge and
the tool and which includes (i) a third communication unit for
communication and data exchange with the second
communication unit of the tool, and (ii) a further controller
configured to block the operation of the tool when the
authorized working time overflows.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rawlings (GB 2,418,252 A, pub. Mar. 22, 2005) in view
of Harding-Dempster (GB 2,420,623 A, pub. May 31, 2006 (referred to
herein as "Dean")) and Grazioli (US 7,036,703 B2, iss. May 2, 2006).
DISCUSSION
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 11, and 13-18
The Examiner found that Rawlings discloses all of the limitations of
claim 1 except for teaching the "blocking operation of the tool" and "the
badge being detached from the tool." Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner found
that "Dean teaches blocking operation of the tool in case of an authorized
working time overflow" and "Grazioli teaches a method of and a device with
a badge (27) being detached from the tool." Id. The Examiner concluded
that it would have been obvious "to modify the invention of Rawlings in
view of Dean with the detached badge of Grazioli in order to transfer data
which has recorded [your] preferences to another tool." Id. at 5.
3
Appeal2014-004514
Application 12/672,303
Appellant's primary argument for reversal is that none of the
references "disclose or suggest that the tool is only operable with the badge."
Appeal Br. 10. In support of the finding that the tool is only operable with
the badge, the Examiner referred to Rawlings at page 7, lines 14--31. Final
Act. 2-3; see also Ans. 4. The cited portion of Rawlings does not disclose
that the operability of the tool is linked in any way to Rawlings' data
collection device 5, which the Examiner found to be the claimed "badge."
Consequently, the Examiner's finding is not supported by a preponderance
of the evidence. As the rejection is based on an erroneous factual finding,
the conclusion of obviousness cannot stand. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d
1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (holding that "[t]he legal conclusion of
obviousness must be supported by facts. Where the legal conclusion is not
supported by facts it cannot stand."). Therefore, we do not sustain the
rejection, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), of claim 1 and claims 3, 5-7, 11, and
13-18 which depend thereon.
Claims 8, 12, 19, and 20
The Examiner found that Rawlings discloses the limitations of claim 8
other than the "the blocking operation of the tool, via controller," "a second
communication module []for data exchange with the badge," and the "badge
(27) being detached from the tool." Final Act. 3, 4. The Examiner found
that Dean discloses "blocking operation of the tool in case of an authorized
working time overflow" and "a second communications module," and
Grazioli "teaches a method of and a device with a badge (27) being detached
from the tool." Id. The Examiner then concluded that it would have been
obvious to combine Rawlings, Dean, and Grazioli for the same reasons as
stated supra for claim 1. Id.
4
Appeal2014-004514
Application 12/672,303
Appellant argues that none of the references disclose the recited
"remote terminal separated" from the badge and the tool. Appeal Br. 12. In
response to Appellant's argument, the Examiner submits that Rawlings'
"element 100" is the remote terminal. Ans. 4. The Examiner did not
identify Rawlings element 100 as the remote terminal in the Final Office
Action. Final Act. 3. Figure 7 of Rawlings discloses remote terminal 100
separate from the badge and tool, however, the Examiner does not refer us to
any disclosure in Rawlings of the recited claim elements of "a third
communications unit for communication and data exchange with the second
communication unit of the tool" or "a further controller configured to block
the operation of the tool." Figure 7 of Rawlings does not disclose direct
communication between remote terminal 100 and any of the tools.
Rawlings, Fig. 7; see also id. at p.13, 11. 19-35. Nor does Rawlings disclose
that remote terminal 100 includes a further controller capable of blocking
operation of the tool. Id. Thus, a finding that the recited elements of the
remote terminal are disclosed in Rawlings is not supported by a
preponderance of the evidence. Consequently, as with claim 1, the
obviousness rejection of claim 8 is not supported by facts and cannot stand.
We, thus, do not sustain the rejection of claim 8 and claims 12, 19, and 20
which depend thereon.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 5-8, and 11-20 is
REVERSED.
5
Appeal2014-004514
Application 12/672,303
REVERSED
6