Ex Parte DiPoala

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 14, 2011

11461543 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 14, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte WILLIAM S. DIPOALA
____________________

Appeal 2010-000086
Application 11/461,5431
Technology Center 2800

____________________

Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, MARC S. HOFF, and THOMAS S.
HAHN Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL2

1 The real party in interest is Bosch Security Systems, Inc.
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or 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.
Appeal 2010-000086
Application 11/461,543

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellant’s invention concerns motion detectors for use in security
systems. An intrusion detection system using at least two sensors provides a
collective coverage range that can be set with at least two predetermined
range settings, and a selectable adjustment mechanism allows an installer to
select an optimal setting for regulating the collective coverage range of the
sensors with the aid of a descriptive component (Spec. ¶¶ [0006] and
[0007]).
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. An intrusion detection system comprising:

at least two sensors, each of the sensors having an individual range of
coverage; and

at least two predetermined settings for determining a collective
coverage range of the at least two sensors;

a selectable adjustment mechanism for allowing an installer to select
an optimal predetermined setting from the at least two predetermined
settings for regulating the collective coverage range of the at least two
sensors; and

a descriptive component located adjacent the selectable adjustment
mechanism, the descriptive component providing information to permit the
installer to use the adjustment mechanism to select a desired setting from the
at least two predetermined settings for regulating the collective coverage
range of the at least two sensors.

2
Appeal 2010-000086
Application 11/461,543

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Galloway US 4,843,244 Jun. 27, 1989
Guscott US 4,999,610 Mar. 12, 1991
Tracy US 7,115,871 B1 Oct. 3, 2006
Claims 1-6, 11-16, and 21-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Guscott.
Claims 7-10 and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Guscott in view of Galloway.
Claims 1-4, 11-14, 22, 23, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tracy.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“Br.,” filed April 13, 2009) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
June 11, 2009) for their respective details.

ISSUES
With respect to the § 103 rejection of independent claims 1 and 11
over Guscott, Appellant argues that Guscott fails to disclose or suggest any
type of descriptive component or otherwise provide information to an
installer to use as an adjustment mechanism to select a desired range setting
as claimed (Br. 4-5). Similarly, with respect to the § 103 rejection of claims
1 and 11 over Tracy, Appellant argues that Tracy fails to disclose or suggest
descriptive components related to coverage range settings for sensors of an
intrusion detection system as claimed (Br. 5-6). As to both Guscott and
Tracy, Appellant asserts that these references do not address the problem of
installers making correct settings on an intrusion detection system in the
3
Appeal 2010-000086
Application 11/461,543

field during installation (Br. 4 and 5). Appellant contends that use of such a
descriptive component would not be obvious without employing improper
hindsight after reviewing Appellant’s disclosure (Br. 4-5). In response, the
Examiner finds that (i) Guscott and Tracy nonetheless teach all the structural
limitations of the rejected claims except for the descriptive component, and
(ii) it would have been obvious to label the switches of the product to let
users/installers know how to use the product (i.e., range setting of the multi-
range intrusion detection system) (Ans. 3 and 9-11).
With respect to the § 103 rejection of dependent claims 7 and 17 over
Guscott and Galloway, Appellant argues that the combination of Guscott and
Galloway “would not include three sensors as claimed” (Br. 7 and 13). In
response, the Examiner relies upon Guscott as teaching multiple sensors 12,
and Galloway as teaching a microwave sensor 16, and determines that it
would have been obvious to use a microwave sensor in the multiple sensor
arrangement of Guscott by combining familiar elements according to known
methods to yield predictable results (Ans. 5-6 and 12).
With respect to the § 103 rejection of dependent claims 6 and 16 over
Guscott, Appellant argues that Guscott does not disclose or suggest
processing signals from at least two sensors to provide a long range
coverage (Br. 6 and 12). Appellant contends that the Examiner provides no
articulated reasoning as to how/why such would be obvious and merely
provides conclusory statements (Br. 6 and 12). In response the Examiner
states that modifying Guscott’s processing would have been obvious “to
avoid missing intruders” and within the skill of the ordinary artisan (Ans.
11).
4
Appeal 2010-000086
Application 11/461,543

Similarly, with respect to the § 103 rejections of dependent claims 8-
10, and 18-26 Appellant argues that the Examiner’s relies on “conclusory
statements” in making the obviousness rejection (Br. 7-9 and 13-18).
Appellant’s contentions present us with the following issues:
1. Does Guscott or Tracy teach or suggest a descriptive component to
permit an installer to adjust the system to a desired setting to regulate the
collective coverage range of the sensors, as claims 1 and 11 require?
2. Does the combination of Guscott and Galloway teach sensors
including two infrared (i.e., PIR) sensors and a microwave sensor, as claims
7 and 17 require?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Guscott
1. Guscott teaches a multi-range infrared detection system
employing multiple detector configurations to provide different selected
ranges by adjustment (Figs. 1-3; Abs.). A double dual range detector (Fig.
3) includes short range elements 30a/b and 32a/b, and long range elements
36a/b and 38a/b which are selectable using switches 34a/b and 40a/b to
allow an installer to set selectable ranges (col. 2, l. 61 to col. 3, l. 13).
2. Guscott further teaches that such a multi-range system could
provide more than just two ranges, have multiple detectors 12, and is not
limited to only a dual range system (col. 2, ll. 17-31).

5
Appeal 2010-000086
Application 11/461,543

Galloway
3. Galloway teaches a security system (Fig. 1; Abs.) including a
microwave sensor 16 and an infra-red sensor 8 (col. 2, ll. 49-57).
Tracy
4. Tracy teaches a multi-range infrared intrusion detection device
employing multiple infrared sensors 12A-D and switches 18A-D to provide
different selected ranges by adjustment of the height coverage in the field
(Figs. 1, 2, 4, and 6A-D; Abs.; col. 2, l. 19 to col. 3, l. 13).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
On the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court has stated that “the
obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the
words teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Further, the Court stated “[t]he combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 416. “One of the ways
in which a patent’s subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that
there existed at the time of the invention a known problem for which there
was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims.” Id. at 419-
420.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-5 and 11-15
We select claim 1 as representative of this group of claims, pursuant
to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Although Appellant
argues claim 11 separately, Appellant makes the same arguments with
6
Appeal 2010-000086
Application 11/461,543

regard to claim 11 as to claim 1, and claim 11 recites the same argued
feature of a “descriptive component” adjacent the selectable adjustment
mechanism to allow an installer to regulate the collective coverage range of
the sensors.
Appellant’s arguments, summarized supra, that the Examiner erred in
rejecting representative claim 1 as being taught or suggested by Guscott or
Tracy have been considered. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that both
Guscott and Tracy teach all of the recited limitations of claim 1, except for
the descriptive component as claimed (FF 1 and 4). We agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 3 and 9-11) that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to label the switch 14 of Guscott or the switches
18A-D of Tracy with descriptive components or labels in order to assist a
user/installer with setting the range(s) of the intrusion detection system(s)
(see FF 1 and 4). Combining familiar elements (e.g., switches to select a
coverage range of intrusion detection systems with multiple sensors)
according to known methods, such as labeling or providing instructions
on/near the switches, would have been obvious since it does no more than
yield predictable results. See KSR at 416.
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1 and 11 as being
taught or suggested by Guscott or Tracy, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejections of claims 1 and 11, as well as claims 2-5 and 12-15 depending
therefrom.
Claims 6, 16, and 21-26
Appellant’s arguments, summarized supra, that the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 6, 16, and 21-26 are conclusory have been considered.
The Examiner has provided rational bases and articulated reasoning in
7
Appeal 2010-000086
Application 11/461,543

formulating the obviousness rejections (Ans. 3-9). With respect to claims 6
and 16, we agree with the Examiner that the inclusion of a short range output
when processing long range intrusion detection would have been obvious to
avoid missing intruders and would not have involved any unique challenges
or difficulty for one of ordinary skill in the art (Ans. 11 and 13). With
respect to claims 21-26, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 4-5 and 13-15)
that the features recited in these claims would have been well within the skill
level of one of ordinary skill in the art, employing known elements to
produce predictable results.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Examiner has not
erred in rejecting claims 1 and 11 from which claims 6, 16, and 21-26
respectively depend; we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 6,
16, and 21-26.
Claims 7-10 and 17-20
With respect to the § 103 rejection of dependent claims 7-10 and 17-
20 over Guscott and Galloway, Appellant’s arguments (Br. 7 and 13) that
the combination of reference teachings would not include three sensors are
unconvincing. Guscott teaches at least two infra-red sensors (sensors 12 can
include various combinations of sensors, including short range sensors 30/32
and long range sensors 36/38) and suggests that any number of sensors could
be used, not limiting the system to just “dual range” (FF 2; col. 2, ll. 17-19
and 27-31). Galloway teaches a microwave sensor 16 in combination with
an infra-red sensor in the same security system (FF 3). We agree with the
Examiner that it would have been obvious to use a microwave sensor such as
that taught by Galloway in the security system and detection method using
two infra-red sensors taught by Guscott, and that doing so would be
8
Appeal 2010-000086
Application 11/461,543

combining familiar elements according to known methods to yield
predictable results (Ans. 5-6 and 12). The language of claims 7 and 17 does
not limit the “at least two sensors” to exactly three, and even if it did, this
limitation is met by Guscott’s infra-red sensors combined with a microwave
sensor as taught and suggested by Galloway.
With respect to dependent claims 8-10 and 18-20, Appellant’s
arguments (Br. 7-9 and 13-15) that the Examiner’s relies on “conclusory
statements” in making the obviousness rejection have been considered. The
Examiner has provided a rational basis and articulated reasoning in
formulating the obviousness rejection of claims 8-10 and 18-20 (see Ans. 6).
We agree with the Examiner that the combinations of signal and alarm
processing recited in the claims are known options within the technical grasp
of one of ordinary skill in the art.
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 7-10 and 18-20 as
being taught or suggested by Guscott and Galloway; we sustain the
Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 7-10 and 17-20.

CONCLUSIONS
1. Guscott and Tracy teach or suggest a descriptive component to
permit an installer to adjust the system to a desired setting to regulate the
collective coverage range of the sensors, as recited in claims 1 and 11.
2. The combination of Guscott and Galloway teaches a multiple
sensor intrusion detection system and method including two infrared (i.e.,
PIR) sensors and a microwave sensor, as recited in claims 7 and 17.
9
Appeal 2010-000086
Application 11/461,543

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-26 are affirmed.
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

ELD

BAKER & DANIELS LLP
300 NORTH MERIDIAN STREET
SUITE 2700
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204
10