Ex Parte Dawson et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 22, 2010

11423199 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 22, 2010)

The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER JAMES DAWSON, VINCENZO VALENTINO
DI LUOFFO, CRIAG WILLIAM FELLENSTEIN, and RICK ALLEN
HAMILTON II
____________

Appeal 2010-002664
Application 11/423,199
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before, MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING and
JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.

FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-002664
Application 11/423,199

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-8 and 17. Claims 3-4, 9-16 and 18-20 have
been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Lopez US 7,104,447 B1 Sep. 12, 2006

The following rejection is before us for review.
The Examiner rejected claims 1-2, 5-8 and 17 as anticipated under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) by Lopez.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.

1. A time monitor system for a single space, the system
comprising:
a timer that is initiated when the single space becomes
occupied by a person or an object;
an imaging device that captures images of identifying
information of the person or the object within the single space
at frequent intervals to detect if the single space remains
occupied;
a communication device;
a user interface;
processing logic including pattern recognition logic to
review the captured images of the identifying information to
determine if the same object or person occupies the single space
as when the timer was initiated, wherein the timer, the imaging
device, the communication device, the user interface, and
Appeal 2010-002664
Application 11/423,199

3
processing logic are electronically connected and mounted in or
proximate to the single space so that the imaging device
captures images of the substantially only the single space; and
a control station to receive one-way communications
from the communication device about the status of the single
space.

Independent claim 1 recites in pertinent part: an imaging device that
captures images of identifying information of the person or the object within
the single space at frequent intervals to detect if the single space remains
occupied… .
The Examiner found that the imaging device is disclosed by Lopez at
the presence detector (110). (Answer 3). The detector generates a signal
indicating that a car is parked in the parking space. (Col. 2, ll. 63-65). The
presence detector (110) can be comprised of magnetic, infrared, motion
detection, pressure, temperature, or acoustic sensing. (Col. 2, ll. 53-54).
However, there is no disclosure by Lopez of the presence detector (110)
capturing images. The Examiner thus refers to the camera 120 in Lopez as
providing the captured images, rather than the detector 110 (Answer 3-4).
But, the camera 120 is triggered by the detector 110 and only after the
detector 110 senses that the parking space is occupied. (Col. 3, ll. 21-23).
We thus find error in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
because the rejection uses two separate elements, e.g., the detector (110) and
camera 120, to satisfy a single claim limitation of the imaging device.
Appeal 2010-002664
Application 11/423,199

4
Since claims 2, 5-8 and 17 depend from claim 1, and since we cannot
sustain the rejection of claim 1, the rejection of claims 2, 5-8 and 17 likewise
cannot be sustained.
New Ground of Rejection
We reject claims 1-2, 5-8 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lopez, pursuant to our authority under 37 CFR § 41.50(b)
(2006).
As found above, Lopez discloses using two separate devices, e.g.,
presence detector (110) and camera 120 to effect detection and imaging,
respectively. However we find that a person with ordinary skill in the art
would know to combine the two functions of detection and imaging into the
camera 120 to effect both detection and imaging with the camera given that
the camera 120 is used with digital extraction software (Col. 9, ll. 25-29)
which can detect whether the same car is parked in the same spot via a
comparison through frequent interrogation of the license image to determine
if the same number remains.
Regarding claims 2, 5-8 and 17, we adopt the Examiner’s findings
with respect to claims 2, 5-8 and 17 insofar as we have, by our analysis
above, modified the camera 120 in Lopez to also include a detection
function.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-2, 5-8 and
17 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by Lopez.
Appeal 2010-002664
Application 11/423,199

5
We enter a new grounds of rejection for 1-2, 5-8 and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lopez.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-2, 5-8 and
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lopez, is REVERSED.
We enter a new ground of rejection of claims 1-2, 5-8 and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lopez.
This Decision contains a new rejection within the meaning of 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b) (2007).
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that Appellants, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new rejection:
1. Request that prosecution be reopened by submitting an amendment
or evidence or both. 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)(1).
2. Request rehearing on the record presently before the Board. 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b)(2).
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).

REVERSED
(37 C.F.R. § 41.50(B)(1)).

Appeal 2010-002664
Application 11/423,199

6

MP

Ojanen Law Offices
2665 Riverside Lane NE
Rochester MN 55906-3456