Ex Parte CosteDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 6, 201612672303 (P.T.A.B. May. 6, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation